An interview with ChatGPT on issues related to scholarly communication.
Todd Carpenter reports on a forum hosted by WIPO and the Copyright Office that focused on whether copyright can apply to the works created by artificial intelligence systems.
Six-plus years later, it’s time to revisit Michael Clarke’s now-classic post about disruption, or rather the lack thereof, in scientific publishing.
Clayton Christensen’s theory of disruptive innovation is critically examined by Jill Lepore in the New Yorker. If he is wrong, why is the idea of disruption such a compelling one?
Many CEOs of publishing companies find themselves having to manage two companies: the established company and an in-house start-up that is designed to participate in a new paradigm based on digital media. Organizationally this is a very difficult situation to be in, but it is essential if a company is going to persist in the years ahead.
While many technologists continue to demand a publishing revolution, the precepts of such a revolution are already incorporated into the strategic thinking of most publishing companies. To further the adoption of more digital practices, what is needed are practical solutions that are expressed in dollars and cents.
When we hear “disruption” invoked, we think it’s about technology and innovation. What if there are other types of disruption? What if there isn’t a market demanding change, but others demanding disruption?
Claims that technological innovations can smash cultures and revolutionize the fundamentals of scientific communication mistake superficial changes for deep changes. Technology alone isn’t enough. In fact, it seems that publishing changes technology.
Disruption has at least two flavors. We’ve dealt well with one, but may be blind to the second. Are those footsteps I hear?
The way Netflix unbundled DVD-by-mail and streaming video services, flipped branding strategies, and made it all a public show created a focus on strategic inflection points and betting for the long-term.
The world is changing. Is academic culture an artificial and unhelpful cap on inevitable and productive innovation in communication potentialities? Or is there a failure of leadership?
As publications move to digital form, libraries are taking on a greater share of the total volume of publishers’ income. This inevitably leads to conflicts.
Why hasn’t scientific publishing been disrupted? The question created one of the year’s most-read posts.
How do we gain a better vantage amidst the dust and din of an ongoing information revolution the likes of which the world has never seen before?
Despite predictions and analyses to the contrary, STM publishing hasn’t been disrupted yet. Perhaps there’s more here than meets the eye . . .