PeerJ has the potential to create a divergent path to OA publishing, but its business model isn’t clear. As a service company, there are intangibles it needs to get right in the meantime.
A PLoS ONE article recently went viral, hitting the front page of Reddit and garnering an amazing amount of reader interest. This was great news for the journal and the paper’s authors, but raises questions for the notion of post-publication […]
When it comes to discussions about access, the silent majority focused on doing science is presented with real choices, not all of which square with the scorched-earth rhetoric that too often dominates.
The clear benefits of the subscription model make it enticing even for those who supposedly abhor it. And while it’s right to try to make it as efficient as possible, it will likely be with us for a long time to come.
The governance of not-for-profit publishing entities plays a large role in those entities’ success or failure.
Claims of speed can be used to carve out a competitive edge, especially for journals serving authors. PLoS ONE entered the market claiming fast publication times, but data show that PLoS ONE is slowing down, with times more than doubling over the past few years. Is PLoS ONE losing its speed advantage?
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.
Another open access plug piece, this time in the Gray Lady herself, but fed from London (yet again). Is there something more to all this?
A new study being touted by Nicholas Carr reveals a lack of healthy skepticism and more problems with “methodologically sound.”
Hype and marketing angles aren’t adequate ways to truly help real people succeed in the information age.
The membership business model for scholarly communications is built on a network of reciprocal relationships, where a member’s dues pay both for the privilege of publishing and the right to access.
The strategies of established university presses can be enhanced by studying start-ups and slyly coopting some of their new and best ideas.
The university press world is well established, but it is worth considering how one would go about a new press today. The key is not to do what the established presses do already, and do very well.
The disintermediation of publishers and libraries is more difficult than many suppose, as each link in the value chain does in fact add value to the process of scholarly communications.
Business models for publishers fall into four broad categories, defined by how revenue is generated. Some classes of content lend themselves to one model over another.