Taking Stock In the Kitchen: A Look Back at 2013
A look back at 2013 in The Scholarly Kitchen.
A look back at 2013 in The Scholarly Kitchen.
The Chronicle of Higher Education reports that Elsevier has issued a sweeping series of Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) take down notices regarding Elsevier-published content to Academia.edu, a file-sharing network for researchers and other academics.
This has prompted a storm in the Twittersphere, a response from Elsevier, a number of commentaries on blogs and list-serves, and a truly bizarre article from CNET. Academia.edu for its part is reportedly encouraging authors of affected papers to sign this Elsevier boycott petition despite the fact that their own terms of use prohibit the posting of content that infringes on the copyright or license of publishers such as Elsevier.
Is this a footnote or the end of a chapter in the annals of digital science publishing?
A new report from Simba surveys the current scientific and technical publishing markets. These segments are essentially flat. Incumbents are seeking growth elsewhere. Interestingly, open access has not had much of an impact on the revenue of traditional publications.
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.
An interview in IEEE Spectrum with Jaron Lanier touches on the perils of free information, including shrinking the information economy, creating a few powerful players, and providing the government free tools of power.
The Internet promised a revolution, but we may have only deepened our rut as a number of factors have combined to constrain innovation and change our customer focus.
The recent sale of Mendeley exposed surprisingly naive perspectives on the company’s clear and inherent goals. Other venture capital plays are afoot in scientific publishing and academia. When will we stop being the prey?
The journals business has not been disrupted and does not appear likely to be disrupted for some time. Journals publishers continue to dominate the institutional market and are seeking to coopt Gold OA services.
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?
Elsevier acquires Mendeley, changing the game significantly, perhaps for most of us.
Free services and open access are distorting the publishing world. Will the big only get bigger?
The herd of social sharing sites in the sciences is being culled. And one — Mendeley — may be assimilated by Elsevier.
Springer’s acquisition of Papers shifts the publisher into the workflow, and provides a unique opportunity to become a unifying resource.
Retracted papers continue to persist on public websites, in institutional repositories and personal libraries years after they are formally retracted. What can be done to help correct the scientific record?
Representing data graphically is always tricky. It doesn’t help when a journalist misses many opportunities to verify the data, provide context, and ask some probing questions.