As leaders in digital innovation, we’re constantly considering and testing the impact of new technology and fresh approaches to hone best practise, enhance user experience and grow revenues. These are some of our latest thoughts and findings:
[At the STM 2015 meeting in London in early December, I was a member of a panel that discussed the topic of “platform wars”: should publishers buy, build or partner? The panel was moderated by Freddie Quek, previously at Wiley and now a researcher at the Henley Business School.
At the STM 2015 meeting in London in early December, I was a member of a panel that discussed the topic of “platform wars”: should publishers buy, build or partner? The panel was moderated by Freddie Quek, previously at Wiley and now a researcher at the Henley Business School. I represented the platform provider perspective; my colleagues on the panel were Christian Kohl — previously with DeGruyter and now working as a consultant — and James Walker — with IOPP, who has its own platform.
The world of digital publishing is full of unexpected convergences and transformations. Just at the moment we are seeing a lot of innovation across the scholarly ecosystem, with grass-roots initiatives springing up, some of which could point the way towards the future of scholarly publishing, while others just yield useful learnings. In all this ferment, one perhaps surprising thing is how much innovation can currently be seen in the libraries space.
A shiver ran down the collective spine of humanity in 1997 when Deep Blue bested the then world grandmaster of chess, Garry Kasparov. Chess grandmasters, as we all know, are super-smart: if a computer could beat Kasparov, what hope for the rest of us? Surely, the machines were taking over.
Almost two decades later, they palpably haven’t. At least not yet.
It has been nearly two decades since The BMJ introduced “Rapid Responses” with HighWire, and nearly as long since Pediatrics introduced “Post Publication Peer Review” (“P3R”). These were the two earliest examples of the use of HighWire’s “eletters” technology.
The scholarly monograph would have a future in scholarly communication, even were the print book itself to become no more than decoration. But the absolute primacy that the monograph has enjoyed within HSSE seems unlikely to endure in exactly the same way.
In the future it may appear alongside videos (and other ‘computational objects’) in search results.
[This is the third in an occasional series of posts on the results from HighWire’s researcher-interview series. The previous posts in the series were about how researchers locate information on topics new to them – the value of “grey literature” – and whether journal brand was important in selecting what to read – yes and no.]
The STM Association’s Frankfurt Conference 2015 raised many interesting questions around the theme of collaboration in publishing, with a strong message that when we work together, great things happen.
For clarity, I’m not talking about the commercial initiatives like Kudos – as good as they are, they are not examples of the industry working together. And while there is overlap, I’m not addressing the library initiatives like ALI or SHARE. No, I’m talking about what it is that publishers can achieve when they work together.
[Our guest post is from Michael Jubb, who recently received the 2015 ALPSP Award for Contribution to Scholarly Publishing (bio below). Michael’s 2015 study of peer review is the best catalog of the many experiments going on in this area (links below). It leads me to conclude that there is a vibrant and vital frontier of experimentation in review processes, from which Michael is a chief correspondent. — John Sack]
Several events these past few weeks have had me thinking about my wish list for scholarly publishing’s future. This is, which of today’s problems, frictions, irritants and opportunities would I put at the top of a list to be resolved?
I would like to hear what’s on your list! I’ll be giving a talk in January and would like some ‘far-out’ additions to my own list.