Two post at Teleread.com
An interesting article reporting on a recent session at the meeting of the American Association of University Presses (AAUP), relating a discussion about patron-driven acquisitions (PDA) and its impact on library collection development.
"Libraries...are beginning to flip the process of collection-building on its head by striking deals that let their patrons’ reading habits determine which works they purchase."
Publishing consultant Mike Shatzkin argues that publishers will need to be able to sell direct to consumers in the future. Interesting question is that if this happens what will be the effect on libraries?
Some authors, like the novelist James Patterson, are producing 12 or more books a year to satisfy readers who are increasingly used to on-demand entertainment.
"They are behaving much as one would expect: offering minimal concessions that will look as good as possible while keeping their profits intact. I realize that asking them to deal with the objections to bundling and exposing their journals to genuine competition is making a demand they are most unlikely to accede to, since their huge profits are based on stifling this competition. So instead, we must press on with the more positive step of developing alternative models, something I shall report on in the near future. "
High Court judge quashes Surrey 'volunteers' library decision
A High Court judge has quashed a decision by Surrey County Council to hand over the running of 10 libraries to volunteers.
Mr Justice Wilkie made a court order stopping paid workers from being taken out of the library.
The council said it will make a fresh decision on the plans on 19 June.
Author collectives signal a new chapter for self-publishing
With online groups working to sift out the hidden gems, and a New York co-operative instituting a 'seal of quality', is the world of independent publishing finally getting organised?
20 years of cowardice: the pathetic response of American universities to the crisis in scholarly publishing
Although their record is pretty bad, universities could still play a major role in making scholarly publishing work better – and save themselves money in the process – with two simple actions:
--Stop the flow of money to subscription journals. Universities should not renew ANY subscriptions. They should, instead, approach them with a new deal – they’ll maintain payments at current levels for 3 more years if the journal(s) commit to being fully open access at the end of that time.
--Introduce – and heavily promote – new criteria for hiring and promotion that actively discourage the use of journal titles in evaluating candidates.
Is Academic Publishing Finally At A Crossroads?
So, where does that leave us? Libraries are grumbling, funders are disquieted, and individual faculty members are happy to sign petitions of protest. But none of this addresses what I see as the key issue: faculty give these journals this much power because they rest entire careers on them. You get tenure based on your academic publications. You submit your publications list when you apply for grants and funding. Look at any academic C.V. and you'll see that it's structured so that the big name journals in which the person has published are listed promptly. It's one of the first things that gets looked at when someone applies for an academic job.
As Book Sales Grow, Publishers Flock to India
David Davidar recalls the advice once given to him by the writer R.K. Narayan about publishing books in India. “Don’t worry, you’ll be gone in a few years,” Mr. Narayan warned. “There aren’t enough writers here.”
Imagine that: An India lacking in writers.