Scholarly publishing is virtually unique in that it has significant representation by both for-profit and not-for-profit publishers. This alters the very nature of this segment of publishing, making the not-for-profits more business-like and forcing the for-profits to behave at times like mission-based organizations.
As we drift into a scholarly economy with centralized payment mechanisms and greater dependence on government funding, are we truly setting ourselves up for long-term independence and success?
Since the late 1990s there have been two drivers of growth in STM and scholarly publishing: site licensing and global expansion. As successful as these activities have been, however, we appear to be nearing, if not a peak, at least a plateau. Institutional library budgets have not kept pace with the growth in global research output. At the same time, institutional market penetration is nearing saturation for many publishers.
So the question is, where is the growth going to come from?
Although Jeffrey Beall has done us all a good service by coming up with his list of predatory publishers, his arguments against open access publishing have become shrill and reveal that he is expressing a political viewpoint that obscures the many gradations of opinion concerning scholarly publishing.
Gold open access publishing has proved to be successful, but it has certain limitations. This essay probes what those limitations are, but it argues that OA’s limitations do not outweigh its strengths. Gold OA most usefully coexists with traditional publishing models.
The debate on Green OA continues, as many people challenge the premise that the existence of Green OA articles will result in the cancellation of subscriptions to those articles.
The UK government’s Business, Innovation and Skills Committee issued a report this week that offers a harsh rebuke to the RCUK’s proposed plans to drive the adoption of Open Access (OA) publishing in scholarly journals.
The recent policy promulgated by the Office of Science and Technology Policy is likely to have the unintended consequence of putting further budgetary pressure on libraries.
The New York Times is now publishing short e-books, another step down the path to monetizing content directly instead of through the sale of advertising.
Strategic planning is an essential activity for not-for-profit publishers, but many organizations approach this activity with dread. This post proposes a better way to think of strategic planning and outlines its essential nature.