55 Matching Annotations
  1. Jun 2024
    1. I like the Penguins just fine, and have to confess to enjoying the look of their matte-blank ranks on a shelf when stood all together. I wish they were still priced at the same as a pack of cigarettes, but I guess Allen Lane couldn't have predicted the sorry state of our world. As far as alternatives go, the Oxford World's Classics imprint offers comparable breadth and (often) superior critical material. They're also willing to print interesting variants; one example of this may be found in their offering of both the widely-known 1831 single-volume edition and the original 1818 edition, which contains significant differences. Two other imprints for which to watch out: The Norton Critical Editions are distinctive in all their colourful, oversized splendour, but they offer some of the best value for money if you're seeking an edition of a classic work that also includes a host of useful supplemental documents, critical writings, timelines, and other things that may be of use to those seeking a wider context. This can admittedly get a bit ridiculous in its scope (though I wouldn't have it any other way; the Norton edition of Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darknessis around 500 pages long, for instance, with maybe a fifth of that being accounted for by the novella itself. Similarly to the above, the Broadview editions (put out by a Canadian company of the same name) tend to have extremely in-depth supplementary materials. They're also known for offering just as serious and useful editions of comparatively obscure works as they are for well-known classics.

      Publishers that are good in general, for older material: * Penguin Classics * Oxford World Classics * Norton Critical Editions * Broadview Editions

    2. Awesome! I will look into Oxford and the New York Review of Books lines. I have a couple Norton Critical books from school, (one of which is Heart of Darkness, as a matter of fact) and they are crazy good if you are looking for a wide slice of criticism and analysis (thus the critical edition moniker, I guess). For me though, it's really too much for a book you just want to read. I like informative introductions and frequent notes on the personal or literary context (these were great for Monte Cristo), but any more than that begins to weigh things down.

      Some publishers can be too much for certain works (depending on the goal for reading)

  2. Aug 2022
    1. "We are fully committed to providing affordable, high-quality learning solutions for students," Joyner said. "We are excited to think openly and collaboratively with key partners like OpenStax to ensure that we, and our authors, are able to reach as many students as possible in new and highly accessible ways."
  3. Jun 2022
    1. We are the leading independent Open Access publisher in the Humanities and Social Sciences in the UK: a not-for-profit Social Enterprise run by scholars who are committed to making high-quality research freely available to readers around the world. All our books are available to read online and download for free, with no Book Processing Charges (BPCs) for authors. We publish monographs and textbooks in all areas, offering the academic excellence of a traditional press combined with the speed, convenience and accessibility of digital publishing. We also publish bespoke Series for Universities and Research Centers and invite libraries to support Open Access publishing by joining our Membership Programme.
  4. Mar 2022
    1. Assiste-t-on à un conflit avec les grands éditeurs de manuels scolaires au sujet des ressources éducatives libres. Pourrais-tu nous expliquer la situation ?

      Question inductive

  5. Nov 2021
    1. The usual targets of The Publishers Association include domains that facilitate access to the popular Libgen library and eBook portals eBookee and FreeBookSpot. The trend was maintained this week when ISP TalkTalk revealed that more domains had been blocked in the UK. The new additions are as follows: ebookee.unblockit.kim, ebookee.123unblock.world, ebookee.mrunblock.bar, ebookee.nocensor.biz, ebookee.unbl4you.cyou, ebookee.unbl0ck.icu, ebookee.unblockproject.top, ebookee.proxybit.sbs, freebookspot.unblockit.kim, libgen.unblockit.kim, libgen.123unblock.world, libgen.mrunblock.bar, libgen.nocensor.biz, libgen.unbl4you.cyou,, libgen.unbl0ck.icu, libgen.unblockproject.top, libgen.proxybit.sbs
  6. Aug 2021
  7. Apr 2021
    1. not as as much approached by publishers to use their textbooks

      While it's probably true overall, there must be some variability across disciplines. For instance, even though I've mostly been teaching in English (since last century), I've rarely been approached by publishers. When reps did approach me, incentives were either vague or almost laughable.

      In fact... one case has been a key turning point in my life. A publisher offered me a gift certificate for Tim Horton (sic) if I adopted a textbook chapter (?) in my class. I notified the textbook author, who happened to be bestknown for his critical approach to something very similar. While my sending that email was a relatively insignificant gesture, a friend remarked that it was what I could do in my “sphere of agency”. That comment was important to me and the notion of a “sphere of agency” has remained relevant.

  8. Mar 2021
    1. very smart way of capturing the OER that is more common at Francophone colleges due to the lack of publisher interest in producing French language materials
  9. Feb 2021
    1. Emerald


      Emerald already has progressive green open access / self archiving policies which allow immediate open access for the authors accepted manuscript (AAM) under a creative commons attribution non-commercial license (CC BY-NC). This demonstrates that Emerald cannot agree with much of the statement they are signing. Note, Plan S ask for CC BY or CC BY-ND is permissible under Plan S by exception. The funders' request for a more permissive CC BY license is all I can identify as a potential problem, but there are no specific concerns raised in the statement.

    2. Wiley  

      Similar to CUP and IOP, Sage, and Springer Nature, many UK institutions have signed a contract to fund Wiley's publishing activities for four more years as a result of Plan S, regardless of how many authors accepted manuscripts (AAM) are openly available in repositories. This fact undermines the arguments made above by the STM Association about the rights retention strategy (RRS) undermining financial sustainability.

      Furthermore, the financial credit cap for the Wiley deal is operationally low, resulting in additional expenditure for institutions at the end of the calendar year when open access support funds are running low. This additional cost is not sustainable for many institutions and unintentionally creates inequitable access to no-additional-cost publishing.

    3. Springer Nature  

      UK institutions have been through several terms of the Springer Compact deal and continue to negotiate amendments and additional terms with added expense. The Springer Compact deal delivers no-additional-cost publishing for an upfront commitment of funds by institutions. Regardless of how many authors accepted manuscripts (AAM) are openly available in repositories institutions continue to support Springer Nature's publishing activities. This fact undermines the arguments made above by the STM Association about the rights retention strategy (RRS) undermining financial sustainability.

    4. SAGE Publishing  

      Similar to CUP and IOP, many UK institutions have signed a contract to fund Sage's publishing activities for three years as a result of Plan S, regardless of how many authors accepted manuscripts (AAM) are openly available in repositories. This fact undermines the arguments made above by the STM Association about the rights retention strategy (RRS) undermining financial sustainability.

    5. IOP Publishing

      Similar to CUP, some UK institutions have signed a contract to fund IOP's publishing activities for four years as a result of Plan S, regardless of how many authors accepted manuscripts (AAM) are openly available in repositories. This fact undermines the arguments made above by the STM Association about the rights retention strategy (RRS) undermining financial sustainability.

    6. what is allowed

      What is allowed = what is legal (i.e. copyright law) and what the journal is willing to publish or reject. If authors are told they should consult the journal and the only response is the journal's own policy, assuming it contradicts the right retention strategy (RRS), the Publisher/Editor/Production Editor will be misinforming the author and denying them their legal rights.

    7. to be sustainable this is a decision that needs to be applied at the level of individual journals, not through blanket policies

      It's my interpretation that the funders agree which is why Wellcome Trust wrote to publishers asking if they would change their policies to reflect the rights retention strategy.

    8. the Rights Retention Strategy is not financially sustainable

      So far as I know this is not tested or based on any evidence. If the publishers think an open accepted manuscript would undermine the version of record, it doesn't demonstrate much confidence in their added value to me.

  10. Jul 2020
    1. The IAB Transparency and Consent Framework supports both Server-specific consent and Global consent. The former is given by the consumer to a Publisher or Vendor to access their browser and/or perform the requested processing purposes where a Publisher or vendor requires consent for their site

      Consent for the publisher to "access their browser"? Hmm. The Web is a pull-based, client/server, request/response model, not a push model. So it seems odd to me to talk about a publisher needing consent to "access" the user's browser. It is the user's browser (user agent) that made the HTTP request to the publisher's web server. Doesn't the publisher have the right, then, to send a response containing whatever content they wish, since the user requested the content? If the client wishes to filter/block/exclude some of that content, it seems like they have that right, but it seems the responsibility for that is on the client side, not the server side.

      Not that I like ads, but I wonder how much of these new policies are based on a misunderstanding of how web technologies actually work....

      Maybe the distinction is that the publisher of whom you requested content may dynamically load content (ads) from 3rd parties that the user did not specifically request content from? That too is just how the web works, and it is the publisher who controls what other content to load from other domains/sources. But it still may be a worthwhile distinction...?

  11. Apr 2020
    1. The world’s largest exhibitions organizer, London-based Informa plc, outlined on Thursday morning a series of emergency actions it’s taking to alleviate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on its events business, which drives nearly two-thirds of the company’s overall revenues. Noting that the effects have been “significantly deeper, more volatile and wide-reaching,” than was initially anticipated, the company says it’s temporarily suspending dividends, cutting executive pay and issuing new shares worth about 20% of its total existing capital in an effort to strengthen its balance sheet and reduce its approximately £2.4 billion ($2.9 billion) in debt to £1.4 billion ($1.7 billion). Further, Informa says it’s engaged in “constructive discussions” with its U.S.-based debt holders over a covenant waiver agreement.

      Informa Group, que posee editoriales como Taylor & Francis, de Informa Intelligent Division toma medidas en su sector de conferencias y eventos. Provee dos tercios de sus ingresos totales, 2.9 billion dólares. Emite acciones y para el mercado norteamericano acuerdos de deuda. Mientras la parte editorial que aporta un 35% de los ingresos se mantiene sin cambios y con pronósticos estables y sólidos. Stephen Carter CEO

  12. Mar 2020
    1. Furthermore, one should also consider that **publishers – a category including natural persons and SMEs – are often the “weaker” party in this context.** Conversely, third parties are usually large companies of substantial economic import that work as a rule with several publishers, so that one publisher may often have to do with a considerable number of third parties.
  13. Apr 2019
    1. notes for the teacher about how to set up lessons and learning activities

      Also the clearest expression of the "publisher" model -- how we're not thinking of teachers as being involved in the creation of the content they teach. 3rd grade math may be a valid case (but even it might not be...), but I'm not sure this analogy extends to, say, college history.

    1. The difference

      I'm inclined toward the attitude regarding for-profit publishers you describe here. And I don't really buy David's analogy between OER and apps like the Apache server. Maybe this is a difference between K-12 and higher ed? I don't think of OER (even my own) as a generic piece of infrastructure like a bridge that anyone can drive over to the same place. We're talking about students becoming active learners -- why aren't we talking about instructors remaining active teachers?

    2. don’t give a damn about for-profit publishers and for-profit providers of things that get packaged with OER

      Yeah, this feels closer to my reaction too.

  14. Dec 2018
  15. Oct 2018
    1. The expansion of publishers into course platforms, online homework packages, and course-in-a-box represents more of the same expansion of the publisher’s realm.

      Expansion, yes, but also a shift in their model. They are beginning to realize content/information is less marketable (thanks to internet, OER, CC license) and they are now increasingly selling the services mentioned wrapped around OER (openwrapping).

  16. Aug 2018
    1. Publishers and other sites can include a simple line of javascript to enable annotation by default across their content.

      Publishers and platform hosts who want to learn more about embedding annotations can learn more about best practices here.

  17. Mar 2018
    1. Can you imagine a day when many of the most important contributions to many of the most important OER and open textbook projects are made by people who work for for-profit publishers and other companies, and who contribute to OER as part of their formal job responsibilities? Can you imagine a day when many of the world’s most-used OER were originally published by companies, who continue to invest in their ongoing updates and maintenance? Can you imagine a day when companies are releasing millions of new words, images, videos, and interactives under open licenses each year?

      Sounds a lot like the move of corps to contribute to open source code community.

  18. Jan 2018
    1. Publishers, which are increasingly investing in digital products for college classrooms, are making a concerted effort to help faculty members adapt to that change.

      more product/platform, less content

  19. Dec 2017
  20. Nov 2017
    1. Lumen Learning is in the same business as  Pearson, Cengage and McGraw-Hill Education: selling textbooks (directly or indirectly) to students.

      Strong words.

    2. Publishers previously lost a lot of revenue from textbooks because many students bought secondhand, rented, pirated or just skipped buying textbooks altogether. Inclusive-access programs have changed that.
    1. When you think the problem to be solved is the high cost of textbooks, inclusive access programs and OER adoption are just two competing approaches to solving the problem.

      There was an interesting example of this during a short conference on digital textbooks, back in late 2014. Cindy Ives interim VP Academic at Athabasca (!) presented the etext pilot project in partnership with publishers. Ives’s approach was quite pragmatic and there’s nothing wrong with doing a pilot project on something like this. By that time, Ives was already involved in OER projects. It still struck a chord with those of us who care about OER, including Éric Francoeur who took an active part in the event and did work to create a free textbook through international and interlinguistic collaboration.

      To me, a key notion from the ‘r’ in “OER” is the distinction with those content bundles we still call “textbooks”. Sure, it’s already in the 5-R model. But the “Remix” idea in music is to a large extent about unbundling.

    2. By focusing on cost, the article takes a page directly from the publishers’ playbook.

      Precisely. To me, this comment also applies to the focus on replacing existing solutions, especially textbooks, but also any kind of content. OER is convenient as a label for a specific thing, related to licenses, but associated with cost (just like “free software” interpreted as no-cost instead of «libre»).

  21. Aug 2017
  22. Mar 2017
    1. Earlier this week, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport held a private ministerial meeting with news publishers and technology platforms to discuss the issue of fake news and the programmatic environment which supports it.
  23. Feb 2017
  24. Nov 2016
  25. Oct 2016
    1. High-end digital products that directly or indirectly improve student outcomes Related services that help colleges improve student outcomes Services that help colleges improve the unsexy but critical aspects staying viable, from marketing to administration Loans to schools looking to make changes that will (theoretically) make them more sustainable in the long run but require significant up-front investment—preferably in the products and services of the company offering the loan
  26. Jul 2016
  27. Apr 2016
    1. Web Annotations

      Obvious case for h. Imagine the possibilities of linked open data used in annotating presentations which would be part of scholarly books along with all the necessary material? The mind wanders…

  28. Jan 2016
  29. Sep 2015
    1. Commercial publishers and content producers say there's reason to doubt the quality of open resources

      Have they demonstrated so clearly that their textbooks have enhanced learning? Oh, wait. They set the criteria by which we assess learning and push for their own brand of Learning Analytics, so…

  30. Apr 2014
    1. Visions and desired scenarios for the future of creative e-publishing industry. Technology trends and signals.

      The CRe-AM Initiative (Creativity REsearch Adaptive roadMap, www.cre-am.eu), an FP7 Project funded by the European Commission aiming to bridge communities of creators with communities of technology providers and innovators, launched a survey aiming at collecting visions and desired scenarios for the future of the creative e-publishing industry. Please share your visions and expectations by answering to the 10 mins survey at http://www.dat.demokritos.gr/limesurvey/index.php?sid=84433&lang=en

    1. @tispnetwork

      Share your visions and desired scenarios for the future of the creative e-publishing industry. Invest 10 mins of your time to fill the survey at http://goo.gl/oD0pjJ. The survey is part of the work of the CRe-AM Initiative (Creativity REsearch Adaptive roadMap), an FP7 Project funded by the European Commission aiming to bridge communities of creators with communities of technology providers

  31. Jan 2014
    1. the philosophy department at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor started an online journal called Philosophers' Imprint, noting in its mission statement the possibility of a sunnier alternative: "There is a possible future in which academic libraries no longer spend millions of dollars purchasing, binding, housing, and repairing printed journals, because they have assumed the role of publishers, cooperatively disseminating the results of academic research for free, via the Internet. Each library could bear the cost of publishing some of the world's scholarly output, since it would be spared the cost of buying its own copy of any scholarship published in this way. The results of academic research would then be available without cost to all users of the Internet, including students and teachers in developing countries, as well as members of the general public."

      Libraries as publishers. Not a bad idea.

    2. Academic publishers have inverted their whole purpose for being; they used to be vehicles for the dissemination of knowledge in the most efficient way possible. Today they are useless choke points in the distribution of knowledge, even taking advantage of their positions to demand fees.
    3. There was a time when securing a contract with an academic publisher meant that the work would receive the widest audience possible.