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:
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.
(This is the first in an occasional series on findings from HighWire’s researcher interviews.)
In our series of over sixty interviews, we found remarkable consistency of answers to our questions about researcher workflow, even across disciplines. But on one question, we found a number of researchers answered ‘yes’, and a number ‘no’:
“Do you use journal name to decide what articles to read?”
In the month that SAMS Sigma launched at Frankfurt Book Fair, it is good to see that awareness of the problems around access to scholarly resources are gaining wider currency. Especially since these are the very problems SAMS Sigma has been developed to address.
The transformation in discovery – and its consequences – was the topic of the opening keynote at the September 2015 ALPSP Annual Meeting. Anurag Acharya – co-founder of Google Scholar – spoke and answered questions for an hour. That’s forever in our sound-bite culture, but the talk was both inspirational — about what we had collectively accomplished — as well as exciting and challenging – about the directions ahead. Anurag’s talk and the Q&A is online as a
“Let no one tell you that ‘Scholarly communication hasn’t changed’”
HighWire conducted its first extensive user studies in 2002. Since then, several things have completely altered the workflow of the researcher:
Desire lines are those paths you see in urban areas where people have taken a shortcut across the grass because there is no constructed path, or because the official path takes too circuitous a route. Town planners are interested in them, and so are user experience (UX) designers.
Desire lines tell us something about what people want from an environment, which is often in opposition to those who have designed the environment have guessed they will want, or prefer that they would do.
Continuous delivery (CD) is the latest buzzword in platform development, a hot new trend that you need to jump on or be dead meat, the greatest thing since sliced bread … join in if you know the words.
Unfortunately, for many in digital publishing the exhortations to move to continuous development, no matter how great the potential benefits of doing so might seem, will meet with cynicism – or perhaps a weary shrug. Continuous delivery? We’re still trying to nail delivery, thank you very much.
(This is the first in a series of posts exploring findings of HighWire’s researcher interviews. These interviews were conducted in 2012-2014, with over 60 researchers at Stanford and other leading institutions. The researchers were from all branches of scholarship.)
When we interviewed scholars about their “research workflow”, one of the first questions we asked was about discovery: how did they find the materials they needed to read on a research topic?
A few months ago, I had the opportunity to participate in a series of talks conducted by the Book Industry Standards Group (BISG) and the National Information Standards Organization (NISO) where we discussed the growth of subscription models in the digital books market .