127 Matching Annotations
  1. Last 7 days
    1. Relatively new bookstores in LA:

      • Last Bookstore (Downtown) opened 2008
      • Stories Books & Cafe (Echo Park) 2008
      • The Mystic Journeys (Venice) 2009
      • {pages} (Manhattan Beach) 2010
      • Pop-Hop Books & Print (Highland Park) 2012
      • Book Show (Highland Park) 2013
      • The Ripped Bodice (Culver City) 2016
      • OOF Books (Cypress Park) 2017
      • Now Serving (Chinatown) 2017
      • Owl Bureau (Highland Park) 2019
    2. Twenty Stories Bookmobile, which left L.A. traffic for Providence, Rhode Island, in 2018

      This makes me think that a mobile bookstore a la the traditional LA roach coach with a well painted/decorated exterior could be a cool thing.

      I'm reminded of a used bookstore pop-up I saw recently at the Santa Anita Mall prior to the holidays. Booksellers were traditionally itinerant mongers anyway. Perhaps this could be a more solid model, especially for the lunchtime business crowds.

  2. May 2019
  3. Mar 2019
    1. As publishing giant Cengage itself boasts in its March 2018 report to shareholders, “In contrast to print publications, our digital products cannot be resold or transferred. We therefore realize revenue from every end user” (“Annual Report” 6). 

      Predictably, Cengage's 2018 Annual Report also assures stockholders that it has a plan to increase profits in this area:

      We plan to continue to aggressively invest in the growth of our digital products and platforms while increasingly focusing and incentivizing our Go-To-Market team in this area" (6).

    2. in a 2019 UC-Berkeley news bulletin about the decision not to sign a new contract, Librarian Jeffrey MacKie-Mason informed the community that during renegotiations, the university had expressed an interest in reducing their Elsevier subscription fees, which were by this point “25 percent of UC system-wide journal costs” (Kell).

      If you'd like a bigger picture of the University of California System's other publisher relationships, economics professor Ted Bergstrom has requested and hosted these contracts on his journal-tracking website:

  4. Feb 2019
    1. Flow is ascendant these days, for obvious reasons—but I think we neglect stock at our peril. I mean that both in terms of the health of an audience and, like, the health of a soul. Flow is a treadmill, and you can’t spend all of your time running on the treadmill. Well, you can. But then one day you’ll get off and look around and go: oh man. I’ve got nothing here. I’m not saying you should ignore flow! This is no time to hole up and work in isolation, emerging after years with your work in hand. Everybody will go: huh? Who are you? And even if they don’t—even if your exquisite opus is the talk of the tumblrs for two whole days—if you don’t have flow to plug your new fans into, you’re suffering a huge (get ready for it!) opportunity cost. You’ll have to find those fans all over again next time you emerge from your cave.

      This is a great argument for having an author platform.

    1. A blog without a publish button I’m stealing this quote from my modern friend Ryan also has a nice little idea for modern friends as being something between internet stranger and ‘actual friend’. That’s me and Ryan Ryan Dawidjan who has been pioneering this concept of open-access writing and blogging without a publish button. For a long time he has maintained a quip file called high cadence thoughts that is open access and serves as a long-running note of his thinking and ideas. It’s a less-performative version of blogging - more of a captain’s log than a broadcast blog. The distinction will come down to how you blog - some people blog in much the same way. For me however blogging is mostly performative thinking and less captain’s log. So I am looking for a space to nurture, edit in real time and evolve my thinking.

      I like the idea of a blog without a publish button. I do roughly the same thing with lots of drafts unpublished that I let aggregate content over time. The difference is that mine aren't immediately out in public for other's benefit. Though I do wonder how many might read them, comment on them, or potentially come back to read them later in a more finished form.

  5. Jan 2019
    1. 9 corporate storytelling themes that get people talking and listening
      1. Anxieties (what is the audience concerned about, how does this product or service address those fears)
      2. Contrarian (is there a controversy that should be addressed)
      3. Personal stories (how can I give a personal voice to the story, what human-interest points are there)
      4. Counterintuitive (can I pull back the curtain to reveal that things are not as they seem)
      5. David vs. Goliath (are we a small player pitted against a giant, and are likely to win)
      6. Aspirational (what’s the big hairy audacious goal)
      7. Avalanche about to roll (nobody likes to miss out on something big, how can I convey that in the organizational story)
      8. How to (what are the practical steps or lessons to impart)
      9. Glitz and glam (is there a celebrity angle, a wow factor)
    1. aesthetic that has emerged in response to media convergence—one that places new demands on consumers and depends on the active partici-pation of knowledge communities. Transmedia storytelling is the art of world making.

      Transmedia storytelling

    2. fective economics" encourages companies to transform brands into what one industry insider calls "lovemarks" and to blur the line between entertainment content and brand mes-sages

      Affective economics - branded content/sponsored content

    3. ck Box Fallacy. Sooner or later, the argument goes, all media content is going to flow through a single black box into our living rooms (

      black box fallacy

    4. isa Gitelman, who offers a model of media that works on two levels: on the first, a medium is a technology that enables communication; on the second, a medium is a set of associated "protocols" or social and cultural practices that have

      Media (from Lisa Gitelman):

      1. technology that enables communication
      2. set of associated protocols, or social or cultural practices, that grow up around that technology
    5. onvergence, I mean the flow of content across multiple media platforms, the cooperation between multiple media industries, and the migratory behavior of media audiences who will go almost anywhere in search of the kinds of entertainment experiences they want. Con
    6. nvergence culture, where old and new media collide, where grassroots and corporate media intersect, where the power of the media producer and the power of the media consumer interact in unpredictable ways.
  6. Dec 2018
    1. Small publishers are oftentimes awful at getting their books out to people, even though of course the marketplace determines many of the limitations.
    2. Academics will probably bristle at this thought but, at least in relation to literature, all you have to do is look at the courses that are offered featuring the literatures of other countries. Not only don’t they teach these literatures, they don’t read them.

      We certainly could use an Anthony Bourdain of literature to help peel back the curtain on other countries and cultures.

    3. My models were New Directions Press and Grove Press.
    4. While many people say that such and such a book changed their lives, you can be sure that they could not tell you who published the book. The identification is with the book and its author, not the publisher.
  7. Oct 2018
  8. Sep 2018
    1. Unit 5 (Adding new article) Values and Practices and the Benefits (and challenges) Joung, Kyoung Hee, and Jennifer Rowley. “Scholarly Communication and Open Access: Perspectives from Korea.” Learned Publishing 30.4 (2017): 259–267. Web. This detailed article is a fantastic introduction to the South Korean scholarly publishing industry and its gradual shift to a Creative Commons licensed open access. Joung and Rowley describe a distinct tradition of scholarly publishing in Korea, most of which is in the not-for-profit sphere. While most Korean published journals make their articles freely available upon publication either at journal or society Web sites or at one of the vigorous government or research institute supported open repositories, the articles have not been technically open access in the sense that they can be shared and reused. Authors have as a rule retained control of their copyrights although this is changing as more authors seek to publish in prestigious international for-profit journals. The Korean government is committed to raising the profile of Korean research and development and it seeks to do this through CC licensed open access. The medical repository KoreaMed Synapse requires all journals in its repository to be open access with CC licensing. Similarly, OAK, the repository managed by the National Library of Korea, requires all papers deposited to be CC licensed. This tends to be true for the major national repositories. Joung and Rowley describe the different journal models and the ways in which they are moving to a sustainable CC OA.

  9. Aug 2018
    1. A key difference between inclusive access and buying print textbooks is that students effectively lease the content for the duration of their course, rather than owning the material. If students want to download the content to access it beyond the duration of their course, there is often an additional fee.

      So now we need to revisit the calculation above and put this new piece of data into the model.

      Seriously?! It's now a "rental price"?

    2. Students like the convenience of the system, said Anderson, and all have access to the most up-to-date content, instead of some students having different editions of the same textbook.

      They're also touting the most up-to-date content here, when it's an open secret that for the majority of textbooks don't really change that much from edition to edition.

  10. Jun 2018
    1. academia is built on the premise (IMHO) of getting a good idea, parlaying that into a job and tenure, and waiting for death. I’ve had a lot of colleagues and acquaintances ask why I would bother blogging. Ask why I share all of this content online. Ask why I’m not afraid that someone is going to steal my ideas.

      Though all too true, this is just a painful statement for me. The entirety of our modern world is contingent upon the creation of ideas, their improvement and evolution, and their spreading. In an academic world where attribution of ideas is paramount, why wouldn't one publish quickly and immediately on one's own site (or anywhere else they might for that matter keeping in mind that it's almost trivially easy to self-publish it on one's own website nearly instantaneously)?

      Early areas of science were held back by the need to communicate by handwriting letters as the primary means of communication. Books eventually came, but the research involved and even the printing process could take decades. Now the primary means of science communication is via large (often corporate owned) journals, but even this process may take a year or more of research and then a year or more to publish and get the idea out. Why not write the ideas up and put them out on your own website and collect more immediate collaborators? Funding is already in such a sorry state that generally, even an idea alone, will not get the ball rolling.

      I'm reminded of the gospel song "This little light of mine" whose popular lyrics include: "Hide it under a bushel? No! / I'm gonna let it shine" and "Don't let Satan blow it out, / I'm gonna let it shine"

      I'm starting to worry that academia in conjunction with large corporate publishing interests are acting the role of Satan in the song which could easily be applied to ideas as well as to my little light.


      [also on boffosocko.com]

    2. PDF form

      Let me know when you're done and we'll see about helping you distribute it in .epub and .mobi formats as e-books as well.

    3. Senior colleagues indicate that I should not have to balance out publishing in “traditional, peer-reviewed publications” as well as open, online spaces.

      Do your colleagues who read your work, annotate it, and comment on it not count as peer-review?

      Am I wasting my time by annotating all of this? :) (I don't think so...)

    1. The ideas here make me think that being able to publish on one's own site (and potentially syndicate) and send/receive webmentions may be a very useful tool within open science. We should move toward a model of academic samizdat where researchers can publish their own work for themselves and others. Doing this will give them the credit (and job prospects, etc.) while still allowing movement forward.

  11. May 2018
  12. Mar 2018
    1. An Open Approach to Scholarly Reading and Knowledge Management

      Key writing on opening knowledge practices (OKP), what we are calling the effort to enable people, when they are engaged in acquiring, generating and sharing knowledge as students, teachers, researchers, scholars, and librarians, to develop and demonstrate (agency) themselves (identities), their understanding (literacies), their skills, and their connections to other people (communities) throughout their lives for their own benefit, for the common good, and to participate in a just and thriving economy.

    1. you can then use “Sign In with Google” to access the publisher’s products, but Google does the billing, keeps your payment method secure, and makes it easy for you to manage your subscriptions all in one place.  

      I immediately wonder who owns my related subscription data? Is the publisher only seeing me as a lumped Google proxy or do they get may name, email address, credit card information, and other details?

      How will publishers be able (or not) to contact me? What effect will this have on potential customer retention?

    1. To facilitate and promote the writing, publishing, and reading of literature in electronic media.

      I think that ELO's definition pretty much sums up what E-Lit, or Electronic Literature is. And I think that this concept is only going to grow bigger, and become the new norm for future generations.

  13. Feb 2018
  14. Dec 2017
    1. By the early 1970s the top five scientific publishers—Reed-Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Springer, and Taylor & Francis—published about 20 percent of all journal articles.

      Even Wired calls them the big five, but only lists four!

  15. Nov 2017
    1. An excellent commentary on what ails our current peer review system and how alternative quality assurance system might work in academics.

  16. Oct 2017
  17. Sep 2017
    1. I guess the big take away for me is that what I have heard from our community compels me to try to shift my focus from satisfying immediate user needs by continually improving the tools at hand to making progress and supporting progress towards a discovery environment we can’t yet imagine (because most of us are not Muriel Cooper) but which provides fun, intuitive, maybe immersive opportunities for discovery.

      I am interested in this sentiment, and how I might support it through our work at SAGE.

    1. ScienceDirect Topic Pages

      This is the new product from Elsevier. I wonder how much of this is curated, vs machine generated.

    1. Larry analyzes your historical and real-time data to create an entire social media strategy for you.

      The company is providing services for a large number of publishers worldwide. They basically write and send your content based tweets for you using deep learning.

  18. May 2017
    1. Amazon calls the default seller in the Buy Box — the one who gets the business when a customer clicks “Add to Cart” without looking for more options — the “Buy Box winner.”

      This is wacky...

  19. Apr 2017
    1. has been said by many that monographs are, fundamentally, books that cannot make their own way in the market, but which are worth publishing anyway

      I would rephrase: "They are books that have difficulty recouping the costs of their publication and availability, but must be published and must be available."

  20. Mar 2017
    1. Duquesne University announced plans to close its press in February, explaining that it could no longer justify the annual subsidy of more than $200,000.

      Always sad to see a press close...

    1. My own view of where academic book publishing is heading is that it will mostly continue to publish the kinds of things it does now, but there will be increasing experimentation with formats, a renewed interest in selling directly to libraries, and enlarged activity in D2C — selling directly to end-users.

      Probably about right.

  21. Feb 2017
    1. A recent piece in the Charleston Gazette-Mail about the press that I direct, while oriented toward regional audiences, is the sort of thing I have in mind. The interview Peter Berkery and Fred Nachbaur did with Publishing Perspectives last fall is also good.

      Need to check these out.

    1. the goal posts must be placed further than simply cheaper textbooks.

      Yes. Because publishers will always be able to beat OER on price as they mine new business models. Not hard to image where the content becomes the loss leader for the publishers in order to get faculty buy-in into tools that have the real gold - data.

    2. Framing OER as free, digital versions of expense, print textbooks also risks playing directly into the hands of commercial textbook publishers who are in the midst of a pivot away from a business model based on selling “new editions” of print textbooks every three years to one based on leasing 180-day access to digital content delivery platforms.

      Exactly, although part of me wonders if OER hasn't had a hand in this pivot. If there were no OER's or open textbooks, would the industry be pivoting? Or are the pivoting as a response to the rising use of open textbooks and OER?

    1. But now I’m wondering if the disappearance of those community book sanctuaries and the salons and discussions they promoted isn’t yet another factor in creating a citizenry that can’t tell fact from fiction, the truth from a lie.

      Good point!

    1. There was at that time only anecdotal information on how many monographs university presses published and, hence, no obvious way to measure the size and scope of university presses and the certification system they help to support.

      It is amazing to me that this was the case.

    1. Peer review' was a term borrowed from the procedures that government agencies used to decide who would receive financial support for scientific and medical research. When 'referee systems' turned into 'peer review', the process became a mighty public symbol of the claim that these powerful and expensive investigators of the natural world had procedures for regulating themselves and for producing consensus, even though some observers quietly wondered whether scientific referees were up to this grand calling.

      Where the term peer review comes from!

    2. (The temptation to conflate these practices with modern referee systems has led to the stubborn myth that the origins of the scientific referee can be traced back as far as the seventeenth century.)

      Oh, I guess not then.

    3. He suggested that it commission reports on all papers sent for publication in the semi-annual Philosophical Transactions

      First peer review in first journal!

    1. In the humanities, the real value lies in the argument and this is found in the published article. This is very different to science, where most often the paper describes the experimental finding and it is in this finding that the value lies.

      Important distinction.

    2. Karin Wulf’s Scholarly Kitchen piece on “Open Access and Historical Scholarship”

      Read this.

    3. The author can transfer copyright to a publisher, or, as is becoming more common in scholarly publishing, sign a license allowing publication of the work while still retaining copyright.

      Important distinction.

  22. Dec 2016
    1. One challenge is whether – or how – this conversation becomes generative of traditional scholarship, such as a more linear, peer-reviewed article.

      There is, truly, so much potential in these tools and approaches toward asynchronous, distributed reading and writing. One question I have, already, is how such distributed forms of production-consumption further dissolve notions of textuality and authorship so entrenched within traditional notions and practices of scholarship and empirical research. The flattened hierarchies, especially, threaten the institutionalized power structures which have tightly controlled the design, review, and dissemination of scholarship and research.

  23. Jul 2016
    1. qualitatively extend the notions of 'reading, writing, sharing, publishing, etc. of ideas' literacy to include the 'computer reading, writing, sharing, publishing of ideas
  24. Jun 2016
    1. VIA EFF

      Open access: All human knowledge is there—so why can’t everybody access it? (Ars Techica)

      Excellent report on the state of academic publishing— and why so much of it is still locked down.

      NOTE

      if we can Not access the works we fund, we can Neither annotate all knowledge.

      And this case, it may pertain the most crucial body of all our knowledge — the knowledge upon what we are to found our own futures for us all. What is to be recognized as "the Human knowledge", whilst yet unknown by almost everyone us Humans ourselves.>

    2. A history of open access academic publishing from the early 1990s to 2016.

    1. the role of journal editor as human traffic cop would largely fade away

      Yes, copyediting and managing review and such are valuable, and to some extent either already outsourced or replaceable by technology. However, getting your paper in front of the right people who need to read it still both requires a talented human in the loop and command of a large audience, which no one but the publishers can yet match.

    2. sites will host a PDF for free

      Of course, as the author returns to below, publishing is much more than just hosting a PDF online somewhere. Knowing that the right people will read what you publish is still worth quite a bit, and publishers command the largest audience. That's hard to replicate!

    3. many publishers still cannot include figures beyond 1MB

      Fair point, but this is changing. Have you checked out the submission flow at Heliyon?

  25. May 2016
    1. the steady stream of obscene amounts of money to a parasitic industry with orthogonal interests to scholarship

      No truer words...

    1. Since the dawn of civilization, there have been a number of irrefutable ‘golden laws’ of business, including the following:

      Terrible intro, but really good overview of the financial issues facing academic publishing

    1. The new title and pricing trends in Table 1 and Table 2 were also evident in Table 3. University press totals for these three years was 1,908. Even if statistics were excluded from the final totals of commercial presses, the output of commercial presses in 2012 was higher than the university press totals for all three years; and their tally for 2012–14 reached 14,493 (which is 659.59% more than for university presses). The suggested retail price differences were again rather dramatic between university presses and commercial publishers in several marker fields, including sociology (+75.48%); political theory (+45.52%); political science [End Page 109] in North and South America (+113.26%); mathematics (+33.56%); physics (+66.55%); and natural science (+128.24%). The cost to buy one copy of the university press books in Table 3 in these seven fields was $1549.51, while commercially published books cost $2379.84 (+53.59% higher) (see Table 3 for the details).

      Commercial presses are publishing more books and charging more for those books than are university presses. This might support the claim made in Jones and Courant (2014) that Academic Librarians are more likely to purchase books from university presses than from commercial presses, thereby increasing pressure on the commercial presses to publish more books and charge more for them.

    1. At the University of Ottawa, Canada, the UO Press and the UO Library have developed a strategic partnership to publish and disseminate selected new monographs as gold open access (OA). Starting in 2013, the Library agreed to fund three books at C$10,000 per book (a total of C$30,000 per year) in order to remove barriers to accessing scholarship and to align with scholarly communication goals of the University.

      Univeristy of Ottawa's Library & Press joined together to underwrite OA books for $10k (Canadian) each.

    1. “The monograph has been at risk for a long time,” Sisler notes. “Journals, in science in particular, have eaten up library budgets that were formerly spent on humanities and social-science monographs. As the number of units in print goes down, the price per book goes up, and you sell fewer; it becomes a vicious cycle.

      This points to a cycle that I read about elsewhere. Academic monograph publishers are printing more books, but a lower percentage of them are being bought by the libraries. Thus the number of sales per book is decreasing. The price for the books then goes up, as does the demand to print more books, further contributing to the cycle.

    1. And although this trend does decline eventually, the decline starts much later than is commonly asserted, starting only in 2000, and thus coinciding less with the serials crisis than with the succession of economic downturns that have squeezed university funding since the turn of the century.

      The authors are arguing that the 'serials crisis' predated the downturn in book purchasing. However, it's not clear why the date the 'serials crisis' when they do. Their data seems to support the idea that rising periodicals pricing in the 21st century has squeezed the purchasing of academic monographs.

    1. Variable costs of academic journals are paid by the publisher and, as long as journals were printed and distributed physically, these costs were sizeable. In the print era, publishers had to typeset the manuscripts, print copies of journals, and send them to various subscribers. Hence, each time an issue was printed, sent and sold, another copy had to be printed to be sent and sold. However, with the advent of electronic publishing, these costs became marginal.

      Digital era lowered the costs of publication

    2. In that sense and contrary to any other business, academic journals are an atypical information good, because publishers neither pay the provider of the primary good—authors of scholarly papers—nor for the quality control—peer review. On the publisher’s side, average first-copy costs of journal papers are estimated to range between 20 and 40 US dollars per page, depending on rejection rates [37];

      The authors note that much of the editorial work is done for free by academics, and put a price tag on the per page cost to publish journals.

    3. Data from the mid-1990s by Tenopir and King [12] suggests an increase of commercial publishers’ share of the output; by then, commercial publishers accounted for 40% of the journal output, while scientific/professional societies accounted for 25% and university presses and educational publishers for 16%.

      Data from mid-1990s on the publication of academic journals.

    4. Despite the fact that it is generally believed that the digitalization of knowledge diffusion has led to a higher concentration of scientific literature in the hands of a few major players, no study has analyzed the evolution over time of these major publishers’ share of the scientific output in the various disciplines. This paper aims at providing such analysis, based on all journals indexed in the Web of Science over the 1973–2013 period.

      Thesis: digitization has contributed to the consolidations of the academic journal publishing market

    5. On the other hand, papers in arts and humanities are still largely dispersed amongst many smaller publishers, with the top five commercial publishers only accounting for 20% of humanities papers and 10% of arts papers in 2013, despite a small increase since the second half of the 1990s.

      Why have the arts and humanities not experienced a similar consolidation?

    6. scientific societies such as the ACS or the APS publish many journals in the specialties of chemistry and physics respectively, for which they successfully managed the shift from print to electronic.

      Larger scientific societies can float the costs of digital conversion and avoid being snapped up by commercial publishers.

    7. Profit margins decreased, however, between 1998 and 2003, although profits remained relatively stable. Absolute profits as well as the profit margin then rose again, with the exception of the 2008–2009 period of economic crisis, resulting in profits reaching an all-time high of more than 2 billion USD in 2012 and 2013. The profit margin of the company’s Scientific, Technical & Medical division is even higher (Fig 7B).

      Profits rose across Reed-Elsevier's business, and rose fastest in the company's Sci,Tech, and Med division. The focus of the commercial interests in publishing Sci,Tech,Med is entirely logical from a profit-oriented perspective.

    1. the median review time at journals has grown from 85 days to >150 days during the past decade (5)

      This statement is a misunderstanding of Powell 2016, which states:

      At Nature, the median review time has grown from 85 days to just above 150 days over the past decade, according to Himmelstein's analysis.

      However,

      the median review time — the time between submission and acceptance of a paper — has hovered at around 100 days for more than 30 years.

      So while the median review time at Nature has gone from 85 to 150 days, this is not the case for all journals. See also the related Tweet.

  26. Apr 2016
    1. business

      Right: But where this argument fails is in interrogating whether, and why, this must necessarily be the case. Many socially necessary functions are provided outside market structures. Is there an iron law of nature dictating that scholarly communication must happen in a marketplace?

    1. The few open access journals that managed to acquire substantial prestige such as some of Public Library of Science (PLoS) journals did so mostly because of the very high prestige of founding editors, including nobel laureates. It is also the reason why simply calling for researchers to switch to open access outlets won’t work. Since careers and funding depend on the proven ability to publish in established “top journals”, researchers in general and early-career researchers in particular have strong incentives to avoid newly founded open access outlets. But there are groups of people that could make a difference: journal editors and their editorial review boards. A huge part of a journal’s reputation is effectively derived from its editors. If the whole editorial board of a prestigious journal decided to collectivley leave this journal behind and open up a new one, it’s very likely that this new journal would outperform the journal they had left behind.
  27. Mar 2016
  28. Feb 2016
  29. Jan 2016
    1. Moreover, editors are literally selecting for simple studies but very often studies are not simple and results are not 100% clear. If you can’t publish your work because it is honest but poses some questions then eventually you will have to mold your work to what an editor wants and not what the data is telling you. There is a significant correlation between impact factor and misconduct and it is my opinion that much of this stems from researchers bending the truth, even if ever so slightly, to get into these career advancing publications.
    1. Scott Johnson tweeted a screen-capture of a message he received from academia.edu.

      Would you be open to paying a small fee to submit any upcoming papers to our board of editors to be considered for recommendation? You'd only be charged if your paper was recommended.

      Academia.edu founder Richard Price replied.

  30. Dec 2015
    1. We believe that openness and transparency are core values of science. For a long time, technological obstacles existed preventing transparency from being the norm. With the advent of the internet, however, these obstacles have largely disappeared. The promise of open research can finally be realized, but this will require a cultural change in science. The power to create that change lies in the peer-review process.

      We suggest that beginning January 1, 2017, reviewers make open practices a pre-condition for more comprehensive review. This is already in reviewers’ power; to drive the change, all that is needed is for reviewers to collectively agree that the time for change has come.

    1. Similarly, in science there exists substantial expertise making brilliant connectionsbetween concepts, but it is being conveyed in silos of English prose known as journalarticles. Every scientific journal article has a methods section, but it is almost impossibleto read a methods section and subsequently repeat the experiment—the English languageis inadequate to precisely and concisely convey what is being done.

      This issue of reproducible science is starting to be tackled but I do believe formal methods and abstractions would go along way to making sure we adhere these ideas. It is a bit like writing a program with global state vs a functionally defined program, but even worse, since you may forget to write down one little thing you did to the global state.

    1. We find ourselves at a decisive moment. This is the time to recognize that the very existence of our massive knowledge commons is an act of collective civil disobedience. It is the time to emerge from hiding and put our names behind this act of resistance. You may feel isolated, but there are many of us. The anger, desperation and fear of losing our library infrastructures, voiced across the internet, tell us that. This is the time for us custodians, being dogs, humans or cyborgs, with our names, nicknames and pseudonyms, to raise our voices. Share this letter - read it in public - leave it in the printer. Share your writing - digitize a book - upload your files. Don't let our knowledge be crushed. Care for the libraries - care for the metadata - care for the backup. Water the flowers - clean the volcanoes.
    2. In Elsevier's case against Sci-Hub and Library Genesis, the judge said: "simply making copyrighted content available for free via a foreign website, disserves the public interest"

      The copyrighted material in question is academic research, much of which is paid for by public funds. This judge is confusing "public" with "publishing companies". How much has the academic journal scam cost the public?

  31. Nov 2015
    1. With over 36 million visitors each month, the San Francisco-based platform-capitalist company Academia.edu is hugely popular with researchers. Its founder and CEO Richard Price maintains it is the ‘largest social-publishing network for scientists’, and ‘larger than all its competitors put together’. Yet posting on Academia.edu is far from being ethically and politically equivalent to using an institutional open access repository, which is how it is often understood by academics. Academia.edu’s financial rationale rests on the ability of the venture-capital-funded professional entrepreneurs who run it to monetize the data flows generated by researchers. Academia.edu can thus be seen to have a parasitical relationship to a public education system from which state funding is steadily being withdrawn.

      Includes links to related articles.

  32. Aug 2015
    1. In an academic world ever more infiltrated by fraudsters, con artists and pirates, one can still trust the content and academic integrity of scientific society journals and long-standing corporate publishers. They protect against article and journal cloning, identity theft, bogus journals, forgery, author substitution, fake metrics, and prevent outright intellectual property theft.

      This is an incredibly conservative stance that seems to imply that only existing entities can ever be trusted. These same entities, however, are often for-profit, making over a billion dollars per year profit, even while universities cannot afford to subscribe to all the material they need.

      Furthermore, using publisher brand as a measure of trust is not sound, as the recent cases of mass retractions and peer-review scams show: http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/43761/title/Another-Mass-Retraction/

    1. open access

      High quality editing and publication costs money, and if open access is a priority it is important to ensure that funding is available to make it possible for the important work that both the editors and the publishers do is still carried out.

  33. Jul 2015
    1. Digital writing is the first kind of writing that does not reduce recorded knowledge to a rivalrous object. If we all have the right equipment, then we can all have copies of the same digital text without excluding one another, without multiplying our costs, and without depleting our resources.

      Suber, Peter. Open Access. Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 2013. 47.

    1. Moving Museum Catalogues Online: An Interim Report from the Getty Foundation"The Online Scholarly Catalogue Initiative *2012 interim report from the Getty Foundation regarding their activities moving towards digital publishing

      • does this deal with issues of fair use, permissions, and copyright?
  34. Apr 2015
    1. Do I own my content on The Grid? Yes, you own your content. The engine AutoDesigns your site, publishes it, and stores it on Github. Your source content will live in a Github repository that you can access and download anytime.

      Is access private/public?

  35. Jun 2014
    1. Anna von Veh

      Other articles on fanfiction and publishing by Anna von Veh


      von Veh, Anna. 12 June 2012. What Can Trade Publishers Learn from Fanfiction?. Publishing Perspectives. von Veh, Anna. 12 October 2012. Why Fanfics are Like Startups. Publishing Perspectives. von Veh, Anna. 25 June 2013. Kindle Worlds: Bringing Fanfiction Into Line But Not Online?.

      Interviews


      Lenz, Daniel. 31 May 2013. Anna von Veh über Perspektiven der „Kindle Worlds“. buchreport. Molinari, E, Draghi E. 11 February 2014. Anna von Veh: «Ecco perchè le fanfiction sono il prossimo business model per l'editoria»Giornale della Libreria. Frossard, Flavia. 29 January 2014. Digital Publishing Market and FanFiction – An Interview with Anna Von Veh. Widbook blog. Webb, Jen. 3 October 2011. The agile upside of XML. Interview with Anna von Veh and Mike McNamara. O'Reilly Tools of Change for Publishing.

      Articles and posts on tech/art in publishing


      von Veh, Anna. 10 May 2012. Let’s Improvise! Jazz as a Metaphor for Publishing Progress. Publishing Perspectives. von Veh, Anna. Musings on Digital: a collection of blog posts

  36. 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

  37. Mar 2014
    1. mEDRA has been created as a solution for the need of the publishing industry to be supported in the technological innovation process by professionals with a deep understanding of the specific requirements and dynamics of the sector, that could provide specialised technological solutions and expertise.

      mEDRA brings toghther publishing and tecnology experise. This is an effective approach to digital disruption.

  38. Feb 2014
    1. TISP (Technologies and Innovation for Smart Publishing) is the European project aiming to foster the meeting between publishing companies and ICT enterprises, in order to stimulate new partnership and business models.

      great project!

  39. Aug 2013
    1. 書協DBに登録したデータをJPO近刊情報センターに転送できます。ちなみに逆(JPO近刊情報センターに登録したデータを書協DBに転送)も可能だったりします。なんかこのあたりごっちゃになってる方が多いようなので9月に未参加の出版社向け説明会を開催しようと思ってます。 http://t.co/OFXTZG0hsE www.jbpa.or.jp

      出版業界の書誌情報連携が進んでいる