Separately, both open research and AI are considered disrupters, causes of disorder in the normal continuance of scholarly publishing. But approaching them in a synchronized way can offer more productivity gains and efficiencies than taking them on individually.
In our next Kitchen Essentials post, Alice Meadows interviews Juan Pablo Alperin and John Willinsky of the Public Knowledge Project (PKP)
Following on from yesterday’s introduction to Kitchen Essentials, today Alice Meadows interviews Adam Hyde of Coko for the first post in this new series.
We all know the journals market has rapidly consolidated over recent years. But where’s the data? I set out to find some numbers to put behind the common sense.
Here I propose a framework for a Voluntary Contribution Transaction system to recognize the voluntary contributions in the scholarly workflow and to give tangible benefits to the volunteers.
The American Chemical Society is offering a new approach to funding open-access articles; Rick Anderson interviews Sarah Tegen about it.
Human-dependent peer review is inequitable, suffers from injustice, and is potentially unsustainable. Here’s why we should replace it (eventually) with AI-based peer review.
A new research study finds that open access monographs can generate significant revenue — both on the print side and digitally.
Now, two decades into the OA movement, it is high time for university libraries and presses to finally create a future for OA monographs.
Compared to their peak levels, publication volume has declined at MDPI by 27% and at Frontiers by 36%. What’s behind these declines, and how do they reflect the inherent risk in the APC open access model and different approaches to reputation management?
An interview with Nicola Ramsey of Edinburgh University Press about the Press’s new Open Access Fund.
Authors can choose from a number of publication options. What drives an author to self-publish their book? What do they give up when they do?
To identify both benefits and risks of generative AI for our industry, we tested ChatGPT and Google Bard for authoring, for submission and reviews, for publishing, and for discovery and dissemination.
While higher rates of endogeny can help indexes identify journals being used for self-promotion, nepotism, or other unethical ends, endogeny itself should not be equated with them and can be the result of a narrow or new field of research.
Are scholarly publishers primed to become the critical content suppliers for the big Generative AI companies?