The Public Library of Science was once a radical force, but is now dependent on author-pays bulk-publishing for its livelihood, which introduces all sorts of problems for every journal publisher. What went wrong?
Ithaka S+R has published a report on libraries and open access. Libraries are still important in the lives of scholars, but the trends are not in their favor. Open access doesn’t seem to be meeting scholars’ needs.
Publishers’ brands matter very much to consumers, but sometimes people are unaware of the role brands play in purchasing decisions.
Clay Shirky reflects on the end of complexity. He’s right, but can simplified systems produce quality? Can other approaches also survive?
Another German publisher tries to profit off printed Wikipedia entries, this time by flooding Amazon with POD compilations.
At 99 cents, this may be the real “killer app” for open access publishing.
The editor of “Vanity Fair” claims print isn’t dying. But the death metaphor obscures the reality — print isn’t as important as it once was.
As more books are sold in electronic form, they will increasingly be marketed on a direct-to-consumer basis.
Publishers can now shovel from two sources: print and online. Will they shovel again when migrating to the tablet? Or will they think anew?
“The Future of Publishing” video has a clear antecedent. Does the derivative pale next to the original?
Clever, clever, and oh so worth watching through to the end:
The age of collaboration indicates some adjacent sources of value are emerging. Since adjacency is relative, how can publishers ensure that the central pieces remain?
Interview with Kent Anderson on various issues concerning scholarly publishing and the life of the writer.
A study making the rounds about free e-books and their effect on sales has major flaws, both micro and macro.
Is this a watershed moment for independent publishing?