What kind of peer review is developing to evaluate long-form digital scholarship? A view from AAUP press editors.
Use of printed books in large North American research libraries is falling even faster than we think.
The book is asked to perform many tasks, some of which are not necessarily the best use of the book format, whether in print or electronically. The long-form text, which may be print or digital, is a different matter, and is likely to remain with us and be called “a book” for some time to come.
The UK Scholarly Communications License repeats many of the stumbles of the original monolithic and mandatory OA policies. We urge its proponents to slow down and learn from them instead.
Point: Counterpoint — today we revisit a pair of posts from Joe Esposito and Rick Anderson looking at partnerships and collaborations between university libraries and university presses.
A group of scholarly publishers has launched a fellowship to improve diversity and inclusion among editorial employees.
Some notes on academic publishing, university presses in particular.
This is a report on the monograph output of American university presses. The report had the cooperation of 65 presses, which contributed their historical data to the project. The report shows the output of the presses and provides a more granular analysis by subject area and press size.
As a follow-up to the chef’s best books read during 2016, I’m happy to present a selection of our favorite university press reads of 2016 (and thanks to one of our commenters for the suggestion!). We tend to think of […]
The just-launched beta version of Humanities Commons is the latest in a growing number of scholar-led innovations in scholarly communication. How do such innovations develop, and how should more traditional publishers think about these opportunities? I spoke with MLA’s Kathleen Fitzpatrick recently to learn more.
A presentation to the Charleston Conference in November 2016 on managing turnarounds in the scholarly communications area. The panelists come from very different areas of the industry: a library publication, a university press, and a distribution company.
Revisiting Joe Esposito’s 2010 post on the role publishers’ brands play in purchasing decisions.
University presses bring a diversity not only of costs, scale, and business models, but also of organizational capacity, incentives, and objectives. As efforts are mounted to transition monograph publishing to open access, it is vital that we recognize the richness and complexity of this community.
There have been several recent studies of what it costs to publish academic monographs, but they all mistake the cost of production with the cost of publication. This post summarizes the issues and suggests a very simple way to calculate the cost of publication.
This summer, Project MUSE announced that it is developing its ability to host and distribute open access (OA) ebooks. Project MUSE’s director Wendy Queen spoke with me recently about this program and some of the broader strategic issues we should be contemplating.