Showing results for open access
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.
Jasmin Lange from Brill suggests a path forward for open access in the Humanities and Social Sciences.
I asked twelve publisher/customer pairs how they will measure the success of their transformative deals five years from now. The responses were very interesting.
Study of researchers indicates that a preprint or accepted manuscript can substitute for the version of record in some use cases but not all.
An interview with principals of the Scholarly Publishing Roundtable, whose work significantly shaped the Holdren Memo on public access to federally-funded research.
Robert Harington and Alison Mudditt, CEO of PLOS, in conversation in this series of perspectives from some of Publishing’s leaders across the non-profit and profit sectors of our industry.
Following on from yesterday’s introduction to Kitchen Essentials, today Alice Meadows interviews Adam Hyde of Coko for the first post in this new series.
The intended beneficiary of public access is “the American public,” and we need so much more than access to the biomedical literature.
Users (human and machine) are accessing scholarly content in new ways, challenging traditional usage analytics models. In this guest post, Tim Lloyd outlines the challenges ahead in quantifying usage.
Some thoughts on this year’s Open Access Week theme, “community over commercialization.”
New evidence suggests that US taxpayers are not the major beneficiaries of the NIH Public Access Policy, and that even within the NIH, there has been some unease about the situation.
Darrell Gunter discusses the great opportunities available in making all forms of content accessible to everyone.
Joe Esposito’s new article in the Journal of Electronic Publishing is not your typical Open Access diatribe loosely held together with non-sequiturs, nor is it a pronouncement of how-we-done-good in our company/library. It is a cogent argument based on the economic theory of attention.
New report outlines guidelines for establishing central publication funds. Success of these funds may spell failure for libraries.
Access to the scientific literature by small and medium-sized businesses is good, although it could be a lot easier, according to a new report.