In yesterday’s “Ask the Community (and Chefs)” post, librarians and people involved in various ways in journal publishing shared their thoughts about how to increase equity in open research. Today’s responses provide researcher perspectives and reflections on the wider enabling landscape for open access and open research.
Shifts in how publishers market and sell journal packages have significant implications for society journal valuations over the long term. These same shifts may also be setting some societies up for publisher “lock-in” — making it difficult to change publishers in the future.
Thus the defining property of traditional publishing is editorial selection. That is what publishing is about.
Research publishers may acquire textbook publishers in order to increase market share in libraries with inclusive access programs
Silicon Valley’s advertising model has been exploited, and free information’s price is more apparent. Will we be saved by subscription model innovations?
The superficial distinction between non-profits and for-profits bears scrutiny. What are the true differences? Is either structure innately superior?
As growth in content licensing slows, sophisticated content providers are building businesses supporting researcher workflow and university business processes.
We are often called upon to discuss open access to society publishers. This is what we tell them.
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.
University presses are not well positioned to thrive in journal publishing because they have not adopted any of the (relatively few and common) business strategies that are necessary, given market dynamics, for success. I do not put forth this thesis lightly. I have great affection and admiration for university presses, their value — craftsmanship, attention to detail, “getting it right”— and their mission. This is not admiration from afar: I served, in the formative years of my career, at the University of Chicago Press (Chicago), where I learned the tools of the trade and many of the practices and protocols of scholarly publishing still in use today. But after nearly two decades of observing university presses, from within and without, this thesis seems to be inescapable.
There are countless proposals for a new “system” for scholarly communications, but such plans are typically top-down and overlook all the creative initiatives by individuals working independently.
Popular discussion of the enduring popularity of print often obfuscate the business issues of managing a company that is transitioning from print to digital.
Publishers have to distinguish between features, products, and businesses. Not all features can become full-fledged businesses. Sometimes the best business case for a feature is to link it to an established business, where it adds value to assets that are already in place.
A look back at some of Rick Anderson’s insightful pieces on the economic realities of journal prices and library budgets.
There will never be a “Netflix for books” if by that term one means a comprehensive collection. Book aggregations must serve the overarching needs of the publisher to generate revenue and are thus best viewed as simply one channel among many.