Mark Carden offers lessons learned from year of running an online conference in 2021, designing a hybrid conference for 2022, and observing what event providers have offered and delegates have experienced.
Like all OA funding models, subscribe-to-open solves some problems while creating others. Some of the downsides are pretty fundamental.
Robert Harington asks how scholarly societies are coping as the global coronavirus pandemic continues to cast a shadow, certainly well into 2021 and very likely into 2022 and beyond?
Should the library focus first on serving its local constituency, or on changing the scholarly communication ecosystem? No matter how we answer this question, the implications will be complex.
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.
One way or another, the #scholcomm community is going to choose either a diversity of publishing models or a monoculture, because it can’t have both. How will this choice be made, and by whom?
Transcript of a debate held at the 2019 Researcher to Reader Conference, on the resolution “Sci-Hub Does More Good Than Harm to Scholarly Communication.”
Haggling for cheaper content today will certainly have hidden and unpleasant costs — large and small — down the road.
Silicon Valley’s advertising model has been exploited, and free information’s price is more apparent. Will we be saved by subscription model innovations?
An over-reliance on ad dollars in digital media is leading to a crisis. Can we learn some lessons about the value of revenue diversification? Can we accept that diversification isn’t “double-dipping”?
As we’ve absorbed and adopted the information economy assumptions peddled by Silicon Valley, social isolation has increased, the definition of “fact” has become slippery, and the scientific record has become more superficial, less reliable, and more transitory. In fact, confirmation bias seems to have become our main operating principle. Maybe a change in economic incentives and greater skepticism across the board could help — all driven by more humans at the controls.
Information warfare is both tactical and strategic, with much of its success stemming from the weakened economics of the current information economy. Scholarly publishers have experienced this in many ways, from Google Scholar to predatory publishers to pre-print archives — all answers to the calls for “free information” and all revealing tactical and strategic vulnerabilities as accuracy and facts become luxury items in the information war.
The age of information abundance may have fundamental flaws — barriers to entry that create false equivalence; dissemination tools that conflate fake information with responsible sources; self-reinforcing loops of conspiracy and paranoia; and social fragmentation that makes societal disruption more likely. What can be done? Here are a few ideas.
The long-desired hope that digital publishing will be cheaper gets more cold water, as infrastructure and personnel costs continue to rise, with no real end in sight.
Expectations of free content are entrenched, but artists, authors, and publishers are all hurting because of it. The basic problem? It’s leading to a lack of trust in the future.