I spend a lot of time thinking about the disconnect between people who do the work of scholarly publishing and people who write about it. Detached contemplation and analysis have their (important) place, but the insights of information science types, think tankers, and other observers of scholarly communication often strike me as difficult to square with… Continue reading The making of a successful university press book; or: What information science misses about publishing
Open access (for books anyway) has been slow to take. Currently about one percent of new scholarly books are OA, most of them presumably in the UK, where OA is often a matter of policy. That small return is based on an enormous investment of time, effort, and resources. I think it was the wrong… Continue reading The wrong moonshot
There are two variables to watch when people talk about scholarly publishing: the cost of publishing a book, and who pays that cost. Plans to push the model in an open access direction, like the new AAU-ARL-AAUP initiative announced last month, focus entirely on the latter, as far as I can tell. That is, the cost… Continue reading It costs $35K to publish a scholarly book. Who should pay that?
There are smart people talking about publishing on the internet but there should, I think, be more of them, and more perspectives from people who do nuts-and-bolts publishing work in particular. If you’re in that group and have something to say, hit me up. I’d love to have guest posts.
The title for my previous post emerged from a twitter conversation with Roger Schonfeld about his taxonomy of university presses. There’s a lot in the piece I disagree with but taxonomies are fun and it’s a smart post. I urge you to read it. Roger identifies a “pressured middle” category of university presses (middle meaning… Continue reading Taxonomy