All very current and up for grabs.
[Rest: sociologicalimagination]What does the future hold for scholarly publishing? Most would agree that the present system is unsustainable yet there remains little consensus on what could and should replace it. Patrick Dunleavy at the LSE Impact Blog makes a compelling case as to the widening scope for disintermediation. Or in other words: what’s the point of scholarly publishers when universities are increasingly able to perform these functions themselves?
Yet now journal articles are all online, most serious or major books will move into electronic format, and scholarly work will become a fully digital product (Weller, 2011). Add in open access and the possible scope for disintermediation widens dramatically. Many large publishers are still charging around $2700 for an open access paper in a good journal, while the sustainable future rate will probably be around $600. This is a huge premium, and it is not going to do academic publishers’ already battered reputations any good at all to try to defend it. Serious, big universities will be thinking, are already thinking – why don’t we publish digitally and open access ourselves? All that academics at (for instance) Stanford, Harvard, Imperial or LSE get from being published in prestigious journals is the certification of peer review, itself an increasingly battered and replaceable currency.
- Problems in Open Access: we need regulation in the broken market (blogs.ch.cam.ac.uk)
- Scholarly Publishing: “Hoax Reveals ‘Wild West’ of Open-Access Science Journals” (infodocket.com)
- The death of the academic book and the path to Open Access (theconversation.com)