As the amount of scholarship continues to grow, Common Threads asks what new insights and utility can be found in reorganization of content for new audiences.
What if, instead of enacting a caricature of Silicon Valley, Stanford recognized the future and threw its arms around Stanford University Press? That would be the smart move.
The unfortunate news about cutbacks at Stanford University Press makes it clear that all presses must develop strategies to make them more central to the university’s set of priorities.
Earlier this month, Cambridge University Press and the University of California announced a new Read & Publish (R&P) agreement, likely the largest such agreement to date in North America. Today, Roger Schonfeld interviews Cambridge’s Mandy Hill, Managing Director, and Chris Bennett, Global Sales Director, about this new agreement.
How can not-for-profit organizations outcompete their commercial rivals? Revisiting Joe Esposito’s 2011 post that lays out a blueprint for success.
Ever felt frustrated with your governing board? Although the board may not be of your design, there’s still much you can do to shape an effective board that truly adds value to execution of your business strategy and mission. Read on to find out how!
Despite increasingly sophisticated library automation, the data on books in libraries is often hard to come by.
Plan S seems to favor larger, commercial publishers over smaller, independent, not-for-profit publishers. Is this an acceptable sacrifice or are societies, and not-for-profit publishing, worth preserving?
At the Charleston conference this year, a panel on the library’s role in providing affordable textbooks showed the way to great savings and innovation in instructional materials.
Institutional and consumer markets are becoming more closely linked because of Amazon’s powerful value proposition, making it necessary for academic book publishers to create consumer services of their own.
Leann Wilson and Marshall Poe revisit the idea of a unified online books platform for scholarly works.
Sharing research with the public is critical, and there are multiple platforms and approaches to this kind of outreach. We tried a local book group for sharing both scholarship and the scholarly process.
We have had assumptions about the academic book market that probably are just not true.
Perhaps the academy has not taken control of scholarly publishing because it doesn’t want to.
Mark Edington suggests that the scholarly communications community needs clear definitions and standards for how peer review is performed, and that transparent reporting on peer review should be a standard part of a publication.