A recent book tells the story of how technology companies — in the guise of advocates of “open” — have gutted content and culture businesses and the creative ranks that depend on them.
In another rhetorical land grab, OA activists are aligning themselves with the Arab Spring by claiming their boycotts are the start of an “academic spring.” Not only are the two not comparable, but obviously the wrong target of oppression and exploitation has been identified.
Elsevier cancels its vaunted dessert reception for 2013 ALA Midwinter. Public relations director cites “conspicuous lack of appreciation” from librarians.
The firestorm around the Research Works Act forces Elsevier to back away. Where does that leave the rest of us?
The Elsevier boycott puts a target on one company, but for no clear reason when you look harder at the facts, and the demands aren’t clear. Just what kind of boycott is this?
The boycott of Elsevier may have unintended consequences for smaller not-for-profits, scientists in smaller domains, and accessibility overall. And examples of solutions don’t look like solutions once you understand them a bit better.
The governance of not-for-profit publishing entities plays a large role in those entities’ success or failure.
The last few weeks of lively debate about OA in the Scholarly Kitchen have been informative, but have also involved a variety of mixed messages from all sides. There are assumptions being made that aren’t necessarily true, and arguments joined together that may in reality be at cross purposes.
An entire issue of a society’s newsmagazine is taken down, and an editor resigns, after a slightly uncomfortable attempt at humor. We’re talkin’ ’bout overreaction.
The first day of the Spring STM Conference in Cambridge, Massachusetts, was filled with ideas, different perspectives, and an interactive crowd.
Elsevier creates a new way to pay, and other commercial publishers are forced to reveal their plans. Will the little guys be left out again?
Publisher relaunches journal with new editorial board and scope, and a renewed focus on rigorous review.
2Collab and Connotea are choking on spam, and they may not have the right scale or architecture to avoid a future defined by it.
Though social networking websites continue to proliferate, turning them into sustainable, revenue-generating businesses is still a difficult prospect. For sites based on the illegal distribution of copyrighted material, the process is even more difficult. Is it possible for a pirate to become a respected member of the business community?
John Wilbanks from Creative Commons tells us to stop concentrating on the container and begin concentrating on the customer.