1. The Double-bind Theory of Scholarly Publishing
What the public wants is better science, not open science. Plan S has put those two forces in conflict, and it is driving everybody crazy. The double bind comes into play in scholarly publishing when some groups want publishers to do more and more and others insist that publishers should make do with less, notes Joseph Esposito, in his post in the Scholarly Kitchen Blog.
The blog post says (quote): Some more arithmetic. The average amount of money subscription-based publishers receive per article published is around $5,000, which they get to by dividing the approximate number of toll-access articles (perhaps 2 million) into the size of the industry segment (about $10 billion). Some publishers earn far more than $5,000 per article, but not the ones they think (with their 40% profit margins) but mostly society publishers with must-have brands built on important and original research and global distribution. If Plan S's backers put downward pressure on APCs, as appears to be certain, publishers will scramble to reduce costs, which will reach into the editorial area. Thus the Times's 'easily detected' conflicts of interest become harder and harder to investigate.........(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
2. Printing Delays Present 'New Normal' for Academic Books
When one of the largest independent book and journal printers in the US closed its doors last summer, many university presses braced themselves for printing delays. Printer closures and paper shortages create scheduling headaches for academic authors and staff at university presses, notes Lindsay McKenzie, in her post in the Inside Higher ED Blog.
The blog post says (quote): The printing industry began experiencing major problems in mid-2018. Several US-based printers merged or closed, increasing demand at remaining printers. Severe paper shortages also played a role as many mill operators, seeing falling demand for books, switched to producing tissue paper and paper-based packaging in place of printing- and writing-grade paper. It may take six to nine months for paper mills and printers to catch up to demand. Maple Press, a Pennsylvania-based printer, has seen exceptionally heavy demand for book manufacturing services over the last six months. In addition to competing printers merging or closing, there were some exceptionally popular books in the last half of 2018 (such as Michelle Obama's Becoming, published by the Crown Publishing Group) that put additional strain on industry capacity........(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
3. Who are you writing for? The role of community membership on authors' decisions to publish in open access mega-journals
Open Access mega-journals have in some academic disciplines become a key channel for communicating research. In others, however, they remain unknown. Drawing on evidence from a series of focus groups, Jenny Fry and Simon Wakeling, in their post in the LSE Impact of Social Sciences Blog, explore how authors' perceptions of mega-journals differ across disciplines and are shaped by motivations associated with the multiple communities they function within.
The blog post says (quote): With the exception of the bioscientists, awareness of mega-journals amongst the focus group participants was low, with many researchers expressing scepticism towards the model. This scepticism mainly relates to the peer review model based on scientific/technical soundness only (i.e. not filtering for significance and interest) and the broad subject scope. For those researchers who had not published in a mega-journal there was a general misperception of the review process being less rigorous than traditional peer review. On the other hand, those who had experienced publishing in a mega-journal reported receiving reviewer reports that were more rigorous than non-mega-journals and lacked some of the bias experienced in the reviews of high-prestige traditional journals.........(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
Leave a Reply