Blogs selected for Week March 4, 2019 to March 10, 2019 -



1. Revisiting: Governance and the Not-for-profit Publisher

How can not-for-profit organisations outcompete their commercial rivals? Joseph Esposito, in the Scholarly Kitchen Blog, revisits his 2011 post that lays out a blueprint for success.

The blog post says (quote): A lack of money is not what prevents a NFP from becoming the next Wolters Kluwer. Something happens, or doesn't happen, after the seed capital is put in, and that's why the big guys got so big. Whether an organisation is for-profit or a NFP, when it moves into the world of scholarly communications, it moves into the marketplace, where growth and success have much to do with the practical economics known as business. Another explanation for the strong position of the for-profit sector is that the NFP world is mission-driven and thus makes sacrifices in economic terms in order to fulfil the reason the organisation was founded in the first place. This is also incorrect; it confuses mission with strategy. An organisation may have a mission to save the world (actually, only a commercial firm would have such a stupid mission statement), but the issue for pursuing that mission is a matter of strategy.........(unquote)

The full entry can be read Here.

2. Eyes on 2020: Navigating Open Access Changes

With the announcement of 'Plan S,' and the looming deadline of January 2020 for many global Horizon 2020 initiatives, publishers are feeling the increasing pressure to evolve Open Access (OA) publishing models. As major policy changes for Open Access content like Plan S take shape, publishers around the globe are turning to RightsLink Author to ease the transition, notes Kurt Heisler, in his post in the CCC Blog.

The blog post says (quote): As publishers face mounting pressure to accelerate the transition to Open Access (OA), it can be hard to know if they are on the right path. Between the operational overhead of managing traditional subscription businesses and open access publishing models, experimenting with new agreement types that often require manual support or intervention, and responding to the needs of a global author base, the OA landscape is challenging to navigate. These factors call for flexible, collaborative, data-driven business models and tools that empower publishers and all stakeholders-from funders to institutions to researchers-to make this leap in a practical, sustainable way. RightsLink Author is the industry-leading platform that supports dozens of publishers in automating author charges and managing complex deals.........(unquote)

The full entry can be read Here.

3. The Guardian view on academic publishing: disastrous capitalism

The giants of the scientific publishing industry have made huge profits for decades. Now they are under threat, notes a post in The Guardian Blog.

The blog post says (quote): With the content of papers secured for free, the publisher needs only find a market for its journal. Until this century, university libraries were not very price sensitive. Since academic careers depend on publication, the demand for scientific publications is unbounded except by the price that scholarly libraries can be forced to pay. Scientific publishers routinely report profit margins approaching 40 percent on their operations, at a time when the rest of the publishing industry is in an existential crisis. The Dutch giant Elsevier, which claims to publish one way or another 25 percent of the scientific papers produced in the world, made profits of more than £900m last year, while UK universities alone spent more than £210m in 2016 to enable researchers to access their own publicly funded research; both figures seem to rise inexorably despite increasingly desperate efforts to change them.........(unquote)

The full entry can be read Here.

4. Big Qual - Why we should be thinking big about qualitative data for research, teaching and policy

When social scientists think about big data, they often think in terms of quantitative number crunching. In their post in the LSE Impact of Social Sciences Blog, Lynn Jamieson and Sarah Lewthwaite explore how 'big qual' can be deployed as a distinct research methodology to develop new forms of qualitative research and elucidate complex interactions between largescale qualitative datasets.

The blog post says (quote): For hard-pressed, time-constrained teachers of research methods, learning a new complex methodology and developing resources is daunting, but there are benefits. Primarily, it offers students and teachers the opportunity to construct new data sets and conduct analysis using existing qualitative data. This can jump start the process of getting hands-on with data, promoting a learning by doing approach, even if developing research methodologies is not conventionally seen as being 'in the field'. Significantly, working with these datasets also provides a 'backstage' view of qualitative research carried out by experienced practitioners, giving insights into qualitative research techniques that are often obscured, or 'black boxed', in journal publications.........(unquote)

The full entry can be read Here.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


sponsor links

For banner ads click here