Academic libraries today invest in scholarly communication in a variety of ways, pursuing an array of objectives and taking on a variety of roles. The variety of objectives that academic libraries have for scholarly communications is to some degree a reflection of the different levels of engagement and prioritization that their parent universities have on these issues.
The “listener support” model works in some cases. This fact alone suggests it may not have a robust future in the funding of scholarly initiatives.
One possible outcome of patron-driven acquisitions is that publishers will see their revenues decline. This post analyzes that potential decline for the university press sector and notes offsetting issues.
At Cornell University, you can rent a bicycle from the circulation desk. Should the library be peddling a different brand?
A report on book circulation at the Cornell library invites speculation as to how book publishers will have to continue to market their books even after they are sold: aftermarketing.
When is a subscription not a subscription?
The celebrated e-print service will now rely on annual library donations. Meanwhile, it’s long-term business plan is still in the works.
Is the creation of an author publication fund really an experiment? Or a piece of fiscal advocacy dressed up in scientific clothes?
In creating a ‘level playing field’ for open access publishers, we put non-profit publishers at a great disadvantage.
$50K is more than enough money for an author OA fund claims Cornell Library Board.