Considering that most of the talks on Open Access either showcase individual success story of Open Access, or bemoan how scholarly publishing is broken and only Open Science can fix it—without acknowledging the complexity of research communication, I wanted to provide a critique on why the current development of Open Access is not providing the hoped-for benefits. Surely the talk touched only some points of the already large movement, but it’s something that is not being talked about much at conferences. The talk sparked some interesting conversations, which is why I wanted to publish the content of the talk to keep the conversation going. Please do reach out to me in public @lepublikateur or in private marcel.knochelmann.15(at)ucl.ac.uk.
Tag: Open Access
The current phase of transition shows that gold Open Access (OA) is likely to be a disruptive force for the establishment. Libraries and institutions aim to cut costs by pushing for more Open Access; publishers seek to raise profits, or at least stay in business. New ventures are growing in between those needs: they’re cheaper than established offerings, but can survive on lower profit margins. Those ventures gradually build the infrastructure for future scholarly communication. But at what cost?
Gold Open Access is an accepted, yet isolated model in academic book publishing. Publishing houses only dare to scale open access in small steps. While books, especially monographs, are still the preferred medium to communicate scholarship in many disciplines, foremost in the arts, humanities, and social sciences, the overall market of academic books is in recession. Less sold books means less access. Large scale Open Access publishing may be a solution. But publishing houses seem to be in a prisoner’s dilemma: to adapt Open Access on a large enough scale required a systematic approach in which all publishing houses would have to act. My recently published study (June 2017, UCL Press) provides a theoretical explanation for this.
“This ruling should stand as a warning to those who knowingly violate others’ rights,” comments Matt McKay of the STM Association on the decision of a New York district court against Sci-Hub. The court ruled that Sci-Hub, the Library of Genesis, and similar illegal projects will have to pay $15m to the claimant. Sounds about right, it’s copyright infringement. Of all the laws, publishers should hold up those dealing with intellectual property the highest.
Yet, the claimant is Elsevier, which gives the ruling a bitter taste.
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation just announced the launch of a new open access platform, Gates Open Research. The Wellcome Trust’s own platform is already running with F1000. All the while, the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative opens research with cutting edge services. Funders become a major force changing the scientific ecosystem from the outside, accelerating openness and time-to-publish.
An Analysis of the Retail Sales of Academic Books in the UK
The following essay will analyse the academic publishing market in the UK. The analysis will incorporate and focus on data provided by Nielsen Bookscan in order to show the development of retail sales in the UK. University College London
Theories and paradigms often create the background for buzzwords. Content marketing or storytelling for example. Or sustainability. And certainly disruptive innovation. In publishing, there is nearly no conference without a discussion about the disruption of the industry. May it be ebooks disrupting print, self-publishing disrupting the fiction book publishing model, or Open Access disrupting the journal subscription model. But the discussion shouldn’t be about the disruption which isn’t predictable anyways. Discussion should be about the strategic impact.