A fundamental confusion between articles and data leads to a call for more CC licenses and less copyright. But why are data being closed down while articles are being opened up? Is there a fundamental misunderstanding of copyright, licensing, and rights?
Publishers have lost ground in the public debate of the role of publishing in scholarly communications. A new strategy is needed, one that emphasizes preemption, cooptation, and innovation.
Last week, PubMed Central became the primary and sole publisher of eLife content, putting its competition with publishers, its manipulation of PubMed indexing criteria, its competition with publishing technology companies, and its clear OA bias into stark relief.
“Author-service” journals sound like a straightforward proposition, but when you contemplate how authorship is a minority activity by a minority of practicing scientists and science practitioners, it becomes much less clear that author service is enough to support robust publishing practices.
Joe Esposito, with his colleagues Kizer Walker and Terry Ehling, has been working on an analysis of patron-driven acquisitions (PDA) for the past year. Joe has been posting early drafts of sections of the report on this research on the Kitchen. The full report is now available and can be downloaded here.
While some hope that OA will create a more accessible literature, new data about NSF funding and some logical extrapolations suggest it may actually exacerbate the Matthew Effect, choking off opportunities to publish for those without the funding necessary.
With changes in the scholarly communications world, many old questions for the library are unsettled once again, and many news ones arise. In this first part of a two-part post, we’ll ask the questions.
In addition to what publishers do directly for authors and readers, they foster many collaborative and philanthropic efforts around the world.
“Waste” is hard to define, and therefore hard to eliminate. And it’s not just a print phenomenon. Perhaps we need more than the minimum because the world is unpredictable, our abilities are finite and fleeting, and intellectual work is fairly extravagant.
After a summer full of interesting posts and time to think, a bit of reflection seems in order as we head into Fall.
Books and book chapters have a competitive disadvantage in citations, but it’s not accessibility that makes the difference — there are more reasons, and more changes needed.
In this “Stick to Your Ribs,” we revisit a post by Joe Esposito about how not-for-profit governance may be a root cause of middling results and blunted strategies.
When we hear “disruption” invoked, we think it’s about technology and innovation. What if there are other types of disruption? What if there isn’t a market demanding change, but others demanding disruption?
When it comes to self-archiving final manuscripts, NIH-funded authors either do not understand–or blatantly disregard–government and publisher policy. What can be done?
The University of Missouri saga has many lessons for publishers of all types. But perhaps the harshest lesson is that we’re in a tough business.