Gaps in Academic Communication
Tao Tao looks at some surprising communication gaps in scholarly communication that hamper progress but also provide market opportunities.
Tao Tao looks at some surprising communication gaps in scholarly communication that hamper progress but also provide market opportunities.
William Park on the potential for publishers from the untapped $1-2 billion opportunity within the small to medium sized enterprises (SME) market.
Results of this partnership signal we should expect future expansion of content syndication.
The FAIR principles answer the ‘How’ question for sharing research data, but we also need consensus on the ‘What’ question.
What have academic book publishers been for? And what might they be for, in the future? Part 2
What have academic book publishers been for? And what might they be for, in the future?
The results of a study on author perceptions of funding open access articles through a library subvention fund at Virginia Tech are analyzed.
How can collective action models to support open access, like Subscribe to Open, be applied to academic publishing? An interview with Raym Crow.
Revisiting a 2018 post — Overlooking the need for paid Editorial Office staff hobbles many attempts to reform peer review.
Revisiting a 2015 post to ask whether we are any closer to offering researchers credit for non-research activities?
As the big deal falls, we are witnessing a shift in academic library purchasing power closer to the point of need.
Despite controversies, MDPI has flourished and are now the 5th largest scholarly publisher in the market. Christos Petrou offers an analysis of their enormous levels of growth.
The COVID pandemic may leave us stuck between a growing consensus that open science is the superior way to drive progress and an inability to invest what may be needed to make it happen.
Today, Joe and Roger analyze the variety of firms to which the academy can outsource scholarly communication and adjacent priorities: consortia, societies, and commercial enterprises.
By calling its new policy a “Rights Retention Strategy,” cOAlition S is engaging in doublespeak. This strategy actually does exactly the opposite of what it claims.