What we read this week (5 April)

Welcome to Things we read this week, a weekly post featuring articles from around the internet recommended by BMJ Labs.

Publishing

On the theme of publishers switching to workflow businesses:

  • Lindsay Ellis writes about how Elsevier’s Presence on Campuses Spans More Than Journals and that this has some scholars worried.
    “It just got me thinking,” [Colleen Lyon] said. Elsevier had it all: Institutional repositories, preprints of journal articles, and analytics. “Elsevier, Elsevier, Elsevier, Elsevier, Elsevier.”
  • On a similar theme SPARC’s (the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition) new report on the transition of some publishers from  moving from content-provision to data analytics and what this might mean for the future of academic publishing:
    “We are at a critical juncture where there is a pressing need for the academic
    community – individually and collectively – to make thoughtful and deliberate
    decisions about what and whom to support – and under what terms and conditions.
    These decisions will determine who ultimately controls the research and education
    process; and whether we meaningfully address inequities created by legacy players
    or simply recreate them in new ways. These decisions will shape libraries’ role in the
    scholarly enterprise, now and for the future.”
  • Whilst the tone and questions might be a little inflammatory Richard Poynder’s questions for eLife raise some interesting questions about the future of open scholarly infrastructure, how it will be funded, and how it will compete against the larger players such as Elsevier.

The robots are definitely coming…

Product management

  • Bar for the ironic start, see tweet below, Adobe’s Experience Festival contained some really good talks on a wide range of digital marketing related topics. Recorded sessions can be found here.

And finally….

Liz Fosslien and Mollie West-Duffy  have spent the last three years studying the science of emotions on the job for our new book, No Hard Feelings. We particularly liked their hierarchy of remote work needs:

More in this MIT Sloan Review article.

What we read this week (8 February)

Welcome to Things we read this week, a weekly post featuring articles from around the internet recommended by BMJ Labs.

Publishing

  • First up are two articles about commenting. The Ringer has a piece about ‘how the New York Times Cooking became the best comments section on the Internet‘ by calling the section Notes. ““The call to action was to leave a note on the recipe that helps make it better. That’s very different from ‘Leave a comment on a recipe.’”  PLOS, on the other hand, are struggling to attract comments. A new study in the Journal of Information Science found “that publishers are yet to encourage significant numbers of readers to leave comments, with implications for the effectiveness of commenting as a means of collecting and communicating community perceptions of an article’s importance.” (H/T: InfoDocket). Perhaps a tweak to the wording asking for notes rather than comments might help?

Innovation

 

 

Proudly powered by WordPress | Theme: Baskerville 2 by Anders Noren.

Up ↑