1. The Downside of Scale for Journal Publishers: Quality Control and Filtration
Scale can be achieved by broadly outsourcing the editorial process. Does this lead to a loss in quality control, and is this acceptable? In his post in the Scholarly Kitchen Blog, David Crotty discusses the scale for journals in the current age of scholarly publishing.
The blog post says (quote): The economic benefits of scale for publishers are obvious, as you pay lower prices for services, materials and personnel when you buy in bulk. Consolidation is the state of the market and the big publishers keep getting bigger, benefiting more and more from the resulting scale. But scale also tends to exacerbate the complex nature of journal publishing platforms and processes. We saw a good example of this complexity last year when a society-owned journal moved from publishing with Wiley to publishing with Elsevier, and some articles that were meant to be open access were not immediately made so. When even a single journal moves to a new platform, there are often countless moving parts with which one must deal. When working with this level of scale, things fall through the cracks, mistakes get made, and hopefully, over time, corrected.........(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
2. Organising logic: Project time versus process time in the accelerated academy.
There are two contrasting temporal logics in academia that shape the ways in which research is understood: project time and process time. In her post in The Impact Blog, Oili-Helena Ylijoki explores the differences between the two. On one hand, there is the tightly scheduled, linear, decontextualised, predictable and compressed project time, and on the other, there is the unbounded, multi-directional, context-dependent, emergent and timeless process time. Due to the uneven distribution of power in academia, the dominance of project time sharpens the stratification of academic research and researchers.
The blog post says (quote): Accelerated academia lives and breathes in and by projects. Like in many other organisations, also in academia the project format has become the standard way to organise activities. The project format offers a temporal, fixed-term, fast and flexible mode for achieving specific, one-off goals, which fits together with the constantly changing and suddenly appearing needs of organisations (e.g. Grabher 2004; Hodgson 2004). This kind of projectification is obvious especially in the research function of higher education, EU projects providing a paradigmatic example of the trend. With the rise of academic capitalism (Slaughter & Leslie 1997), university research is principally organised in fixed-term teams and consortia on external competitive funding from a diversity of national and international sources..........(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
3. A new take on ebook windowing
Ebook windowing is a technique designed to prevent ebooks from cannibalising print book sales. The original thinking went something like this: Release a new title in print format only, thereby preventing e-cannibalisation. The result? Frustrated consumers. If you’re an ebook reader there’s nothing worse than realising a digital edition doesn’t exist for that new book you recently discovered and were ready to buy, argues Joe Wikert, in his post in the Digital Content Strategies Blog.
The blog post says (quote): Rather than offering print without digital initially, why not offer that ebook exclusively on the publisher’s website? For the first 30 days, for example, the ebook is only available as a direct-to-consumer option from the publisher. Most ebooks are ready for download before the print book anyway, so this is a new way of taking advantage of the print manufacturing and distribution delays. When the final version is ready to send to the printer the publisher can make it available for purchase as an ebook on their site. The e-exclusivity period expires when the book is off the press and in stores a few weeks later........(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
4. Ask The Chefs: What Is The Biggest Misconception People Have About Scholarly Publishing?
Scholarly publishing, like any industry or profession is subject to interpretation, from within, from without, from adjacent industries and from random people walking down the street. As the discourse surrounding scholarly publishing increases, it would be informative to Ask The Chefs: What is the biggest misconception people have about scholarly publishing? In her post in the Scholarly Kitchen Blog, Ann Michael discusses Chefs’ view for the misconception about scholarly publishing.
The blog post says (quote): I think the biggest misconception is that peer review is free or cheap because the editors and reviewers are volunteers. At a time when journals are receiving more and more submissions, peer review management is actually getting more expensive. When I talk about managing peer review I am including journal management/editorial board management too because apparently those outside of an editorial office don’t see that expense either. That’s okay because we are supposed to be invisible. Peer review management involves systems that are huge and complex. The more journals you have the more work it requires. These systems are not free to use and it’s important to note that rejected papers carry an expense in cost but also staff and editor time.........(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
5. New publisher-led initiatives to support reporting to funders
New developments in open access (OA) continue to come thick and fast; it’s a mark of the commitment that institutions, researchers, funders and many publishers have to making OA work. The latest work by publisher-led initiative Crossref has real potential to meet a fundamental need that many institutions say is urgent - for a reliable, straightforward way to monitor and report to funders about the publication of research, notes Neil Jacobs, in his post in the JISC Blog.
The blog post says (quote): Crossref’s well-established, global system is designed to make research outputs easier to identify and track. It assigns digital object identifiers (DOIs) to scholarly content so that it is easier to find, providing persistent links that avoid 'link rot'. It is increasingly being used to gather additional information about the content, such as licensing. As funders define increasingly detailed mandates around publication related to the research that they finance, Crossref has become a clear contender to help institutions ensure that they comply and can demonstrate that they have done so.........(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
Leave a Reply