Is there an entrenched stasis in scholarly communication in which the core elements of the system have not been much moved by the revolutions happening around us?
Robert Harington considers whether open and public access models, as they have emerged so far, are delivering us to a more inequitable publishing future as we rush towards openness.
The University of Michigan Press discusses its burgeoning open access monograph program.
We ask the 2022 Society for Scholarly Publishing Fellows to offer their thoughts on this year’s Annual Meeting.
Robert Harington interviews a number of experts with a few burning questions on the Subscribe to Open (S2O) model in a two part post, part two appearing here.
Robert Harington talks to a range of expert stakeholders with differing views about the Plan S Rights Retention Strategy and Creative Commons Licensing. Part 1 of 2 interview posts.
Robert Harington argues that funders, be they national, or private, should consider directly funding their field through funding societies and institutions, with a focus on equitable distribution of funds across scholarly communities.
Can community-action publishing prove to be a viable alternative to market-based publishing?
Giving authors a choice between submission fees and APCs has numerous benefits
The latest report from SPARC is a departure from advocacy and is very well done. Robert Harington discusses key findings from Claudio Aspesi et al., for SPARC – A Landscape Analysis: The Changing Academic Publishing Industry – Implications for Academic Institutions
Robert Harington interviews Daniel Hook, CEO of Digital Science, discussing openness and findings from his recent report entitled The Ascent of Open Access.
In this article, Robert Harington implores Plan S leaders and funders to take researcher needs to heart.
Robert Harington argues that academic societies need to balance mission and business more effectively. There is nothing wrong with developing a mixed publishing economy that best suits a range of communities and types of business.
Plan S proposes to take a hammer to how we fund peer review and publication. The focus is currently on APCs, but submission fees are overall cheaper for authors, particularly at highly selective journals, and thus warrant serious consideration.
A history of the rise of coercive media suggests that raising barriers to entry may be a remedy. Could a business model shift do most of the work for us?