Claims that technological innovations can smash cultures and revolutionize the fundamentals of scientific communication mistake superficial changes for deep changes. Technology alone isn’t enough. In fact, it seems that publishing changes technology.
Will a new cartoon designed to lure children into digital publishing work? Yes, it can.
A survey of Russian researchers shows a burgeoning paid publications environment in a weak peer-review culture, with a level of cynicism about the process which makes publication less valuable. Are there lessons to be learned?
A profile of predatory author-pays OA publishers pulls a punch or two, but reveals that all models have extremes. What we do to make these extremes truly marginal and unacceptable is a larger question.
The transformation of all publishers is underway, and this interview from a popular magazine’s editor sounds all too familiar as we adapt to evolving markets, possibilities, and expectations.
Amazon’s power in book publishing continues to grow, gaining momentum naturally as its success makes failure more likely for incumbents. There’s a lot to respect in what they’re doing.
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.
Apple’s move into the education market may be just a bare-knuckled move designed to sell more iPads. Does Apple truly support the education market? Or is it hoping the education market will support Apple?
Old intersections of libraries and book publishers don’t work in the e-book era, and the rapid adoption of e-readers has shown that new bargains are inevitable. Whether libraries and publishers belong together in that future isn’t clear.
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.
When the data fail us, it’s up to the palate to discern the finest creations from the Kitchen. This year, there was a feast of offerings. This is one attempt at listing the most savory.
More tired OA rhetoric, this time wielding an argument that copyright approaches of some OA publishers aren’t pure enough to qualify as “real” open access. Get ready to feel the burn.
Editors need to act more like publishers, and publishers need to have more editorial skills. Will the demands of the Age of Attention finally mend the editorial-business divide?
We’ve lived long enough with the proposition that OA publishers compete with traditional publishers. Perhaps they do not. Some major indicators suggest a non-competitive coexistence.