Michael Jubb at the Research Information Network blogs about the new journal version standards released by the NISO/ALPSP JAV Technical Working Group (seriously?). I'm all for standards, even if they appear a bit late, and slightly anachronistic.
I'm not sure how long we, as a society, will continue saying something is finished, especially items like "journal" articles. The standards presume a publication date, even if they've changed the terminology:
"Journal articles record the 'minutes of science' and are intended as a fixed record
of a body of work at a moment in time chosen by the scholar. This leads us to the Version of Record as a useful definition for formalizing academic achievement."
I'm disappointed to see that they dropped concepts, such as "siblings" (related papers on the same subject, probably using the same research), which could have made some review much easier. I also think it has limited the long-term use of the terms given the relatively rapid pace at which the means of dissemination of knowledge is changing, esp. compared to the length of time it took them to come up with the standards.
The report definitely deserves more than the quick reading I've given it. The current version is less than 27 pages, and still manages to introduce the terms, their definitions, and includes some of the formal discussions that took place during the process.
Showing posts with label academic publishing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label academic publishing. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
New Release to Watch from OUP
Cheryl Laguardia, a blogger at LibraryJournal.com, has taken a look at a new collection of digitized 19th-century materials from Oxford called "Electronic Enlightenment." Cheryl writes,
"They present this as a community resource, and are inviting researchers to contribute to the file by adding information about previously unknown correspondents and materials from the period."
It’s heavily gated, and doesn’t appear to have a teaser/free side without registration. I don't really like registering for items that I won't use (I really don't even like registering most of the time when I will use them). So, I'll be watching for user responses and commentary. I'm interested to see how it will compare with the Labyrinth, a "free" resourse on Medieval studies that has been around since the mid-1990s. Several years ago I used it on a research project for a local museum. It functioned more like a cross between an academic Wiki and a host for classroom lectures, etc. The Labyrinth has "recently" (since last I used it) added a tree/search structure, but otherwise looks the same.V ery useful, if not as pretty as OUP's product.
"They present this as a community resource, and are inviting researchers to contribute to the file by adding information about previously unknown correspondents and materials from the period."
It’s heavily gated, and doesn’t appear to have a teaser/free side without registration. I don't really like registering for items that I won't use (I really don't even like registering most of the time when I will use them). So, I'll be watching for user responses and commentary. I'm interested to see how it will compare with the Labyrinth, a "free" resourse on Medieval studies that has been around since the mid-1990s. Several years ago I used it on a research project for a local museum. It functioned more like a cross between an academic Wiki and a host for classroom lectures, etc. The Labyrinth has "recently" (since last I used it) added a tree/search structure, but otherwise looks the same.V ery useful, if not as pretty as OUP's product.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
The Future of DRM
Will audiobooks show paper books "The Way?" Today's LJ features coverage of BEA and the Audio Publishers Association Conference on DRM and audiobooks. Apparently industry studies have confirmed everyone's suspicion that DRM is a "speedbump," and that many people will go ahead and purchase (or lease) an audiobook without illegally ripping it.
That's not exactly what UIP's experience in making books available as webpages showed. Instead, making the digital copies available on our website seemed to erase demand of the paper copies. Of course, people were just linking and reading those books, not making their own copies. That might be the point on which the GSU e-reserve result hinges (discussed in a post earlier today). If libraries are making copies to post on their in-house webpages, it is most likely a clear violation of copyright. If they are creating pages of links to materials that they own in digital format, I can't see how that is a violation. We'll see.
That's not exactly what UIP's experience in making books available as webpages showed. Instead, making the digital copies available on our website seemed to erase demand of the paper copies. Of course, people were just linking and reading those books, not making their own copies. That might be the point on which the GSU e-reserve result hinges (discussed in a post earlier today). If libraries are making copies to post on their in-house webpages, it is most likely a clear violation of copyright. If they are creating pages of links to materials that they own in digital format, I can't see how that is a violation. We'll see.
Monday, June 9, 2008
Guttenberg-e went Open Access
I don't remember seeing this announcement back in February.
The titles are pretty standard low-print-run monographs. It sounds as though they're going ahead with new titles, even though the original Gutenberg-e funding has dropped off, and the press release states that the open-access model is not sustainable without outside funding.
It always surprises me when other professionals are surprised when professional publishing (not these bloggy things) costs real money. Computers, buildings, personnel (no matter how little we work for) are not free. That said, good on them for freeing the books for other scholars and readers to use.
The titles are pretty standard low-print-run monographs. It sounds as though they're going ahead with new titles, even though the original Gutenberg-e funding has dropped off, and the press release states that the open-access model is not sustainable without outside funding.
It always surprises me when other professionals are surprised when professional publishing (not these bloggy things) costs real money. Computers, buildings, personnel (no matter how little we work for) are not free. That said, good on them for freeing the books for other scholars and readers to use.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
LJ Interview with Harvard's OA Architect
LJ's Academic Newswire today features an interview with Stuart Shieber, In New Job, Harvard Professor Downplays the Role of “Revolutionary”.
Highlights:
He is fostering a relationship with Harvard University Press in an effort to support the mandate. HUP is in the process of starting up an "open-access, faculty-edited journal,The Journal of Legal Analysis.
Ambiguous quote: "Authors don't get underwriting help from the library when they publish in OA journals, while they do from publishing in subscription-based journals," he explains. To put OA and subscription journals on a "level playing field," he suggests, "you'd want to underwrite OA journals just as you do subscription journals." Wouldn't a library (or journal otherwise underwritten by readers) be a subscription journal? I realize advertising, author fees, and donations are also forms of underwriting, but I found the quote confusing.
Highlights:
He is fostering a relationship with Harvard University Press in an effort to support the mandate. HUP is in the process of starting up an "open-access, faculty-edited journal,The Journal of Legal Analysis.
Ambiguous quote: "Authors don't get underwriting help from the library when they publish in OA journals, while they do from publishing in subscription-based journals," he explains. To put OA and subscription journals on a "level playing field," he suggests, "you'd want to underwrite OA journals just as you do subscription journals." Wouldn't a library (or journal otherwise underwritten by readers) be a subscription journal? I realize advertising, author fees, and donations are also forms of underwriting, but I found the quote confusing.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
LJ @ IDPF
Library Journal has a short item today on the International Digital Publishing Forum meeting last week.
I blogged about the announcement last month about Digital Book 2008 (the name of the conference). It turns out that the .epub is XML based, to support page-readers, but will reformat depending upon the reader. (Obviously we'll have to give up page numbers as a reference point.)
Today Wendy Davis blogged on MediaPost's OnlineExaminer that Napster is opening a DRM-free music store.
I still hold with my earlier comments that most publishers need to jump in to the eBook with little or no DRM. I think us small fishes could end up shelling out money for scalable walls that should go towards creating better, viable online content.
I blogged about the announcement last month about Digital Book 2008 (the name of the conference). It turns out that the .epub is XML based, to support page-readers, but will reformat depending upon the reader. (Obviously we'll have to give up page numbers as a reference point.)
Today Wendy Davis blogged on MediaPost's OnlineExaminer that Napster is opening a DRM-free music store.
I still hold with my earlier comments that most publishers need to jump in to the eBook with little or no DRM. I think us small fishes could end up shelling out money for scalable walls that should go towards creating better, viable online content.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Who makes a book? (Idealist version)
Yesterday I was a bit harsh in my evaluation of a couple of new models for writing, authoring, and publishing books. Today several other new ideas caught my attention that don't push my "bullshit" button.
Foreword This Week reported that The Wall Street Journal reported that HarperCollins has announced an as-yet-unnamed imprint that will not accept returns from buyers, nor will they pay authors advances. Okay, so this is just a bit late for rumor that smacks of a late April Fool's Day joke. Maybe the new imprint will be graphic novels, and will be eased by the existing no-returns, no-exchanges comic book sales model.
Forward also announced "Digital Book 2008." Wow, standards for digital books. One of the sponsors listed is Adobe, so maybe they can actually make this work. DRM in music is failing, and books cannot be performed live (most, anyway). What is the future of a true digital book? A DRM-based Kindle, or the ubiquitous PDF? Given the disposable nature of mass market paperbacks, an advertising-based model could work (chapter headers, rather than embedded, I hope). Long disquisitions won't be such an easy sell. But those might be worth paper, outside class use.
Boing Boing reports on We Tell Stories: web-native storytelling from Penguin. These look pretty good, and, if not exactly innovative, it is certainly innovative for a mainstream "classics" imprint to be making these available. I read the first "chapter" of "The 21 Steps" and will probably read the next. Slick.
And, Todd Bryant at Academic Commons announced Sophie 1.0, a "multimedia authoring tool released under a creative commons license." The comments indicate that the tool is definately a 1.0 version. Looks like something I might check out at 1.5 or 2.0. I hope it will last that long.
Goodnight
Foreword This Week reported that The Wall Street Journal reported that HarperCollins has announced an as-yet-unnamed imprint that will not accept returns from buyers, nor will they pay authors advances. Okay, so this is just a bit late for rumor that smacks of a late April Fool's Day joke. Maybe the new imprint will be graphic novels, and will be eased by the existing no-returns, no-exchanges comic book sales model.
Forward also announced "Digital Book 2008." Wow, standards for digital books. One of the sponsors listed is Adobe, so maybe they can actually make this work. DRM in music is failing, and books cannot be performed live (most, anyway). What is the future of a true digital book? A DRM-based Kindle, or the ubiquitous PDF? Given the disposable nature of mass market paperbacks, an advertising-based model could work (chapter headers, rather than embedded, I hope). Long disquisitions won't be such an easy sell. But those might be worth paper, outside class use.
Boing Boing reports on We Tell Stories: web-native storytelling from Penguin. These look pretty good, and, if not exactly innovative, it is certainly innovative for a mainstream "classics" imprint to be making these available. I read the first "chapter" of "The 21 Steps" and will probably read the next. Slick.
And, Todd Bryant at Academic Commons announced Sophie 1.0, a "multimedia authoring tool released under a creative commons license." The comments indicate that the tool is definately a 1.0 version. Looks like something I might check out at 1.5 or 2.0. I hope it will last that long.
Goodnight
Monday, March 31, 2008
Good Books Independently Cataloged
This morning The Chronicle featured this news story, "Librarians Duel Over the Future of Producing Bibliographic Records", essentially a story about the protests librarians are making against the IT-ification of the profession--the move to take the "know" out of knowledge in favor of "Knol" and the like.
I've also become aware of the UI libraries' move to consolidate and make other changes in a move towards "Planning for New Service Models" (ugh, more money-sucking administrative committees).
I started searching for a recent Journal of the American Academy of Information Science article on algorithms and academic search, instead finding this article titled, "A user-centered functional metadata evaluation of moving image collections." Thinking it, like about half of the articles in JAAIS, was close to what I was looking for, I clicked on the link at the bottom of the page: Related Articles, * Find other articles like this in Wiley InterScience. The first two returns weren't bad. The third, "Corporate public affairs research: chronological reference list," fourth, " Confocal laser scanning microscopy of calcium dynamics in living cells," and fifth, "Biliary drainage in obstructive jaundice: Experimental and clinical aspects" just illustrate the reason for the librarians' ire and words of caution. As long as "AI" and "algorithms" are nearly interchangeable for search and other associative tasks, humans cannot be replaced by machines. (Helped, yes.)
These are also reasons why traditional libraries have collections of related items. While the algorithm can look across Wiley's "collection" and make connections that a human would not necessarily see, it also makes connections that are largely nonsensical and a waste of time to mere mortals who, while we won't be replaced by humans twice as fast in 18 months, do not have 18 months of our lives to waste wading through bungled corporate computer code.
So, just as I alluded to in "Good Books Independently Edited" librarians are important to the efficient transfer of information just as editors are. And perhaps small and/or academic presses, and libraries, occupy niches that big corporations cannot fill.
I've also become aware of the UI libraries' move to consolidate and make other changes in a move towards "Planning for New Service Models" (ugh, more money-sucking administrative committees).
I started searching for a recent Journal of the American Academy of Information Science article on algorithms and academic search, instead finding this article titled, "A user-centered functional metadata evaluation of moving image collections." Thinking it, like about half of the articles in JAAIS, was close to what I was looking for, I clicked on the link at the bottom of the page: Related Articles, * Find other articles like this in Wiley InterScience. The first two returns weren't bad. The third, "Corporate public affairs research: chronological reference list," fourth, " Confocal laser scanning microscopy of calcium dynamics in living cells," and fifth, "Biliary drainage in obstructive jaundice: Experimental and clinical aspects" just illustrate the reason for the librarians' ire and words of caution. As long as "AI" and "algorithms" are nearly interchangeable for search and other associative tasks, humans cannot be replaced by machines. (Helped, yes.)
These are also reasons why traditional libraries have collections of related items. While the algorithm can look across Wiley's "collection" and make connections that a human would not necessarily see, it also makes connections that are largely nonsensical and a waste of time to mere mortals who, while we won't be replaced by humans twice as fast in 18 months, do not have 18 months of our lives to waste wading through bungled corporate computer code.
So, just as I alluded to in "Good Books Independently Edited" librarians are important to the efficient transfer of information just as editors are. And perhaps small and/or academic presses, and libraries, occupy niches that big corporations cannot fill.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Good Books Independently Edited
Jim Lichtenberg of Lightspeed, LLC., wrote an entry in ForeWord's (Good Books Independently Published) Publishing Insider blog today called (with unconscious irony) "Where are the Editors?"
The editors work for independent (non-corporate) publishers. I'm not saying that no editors work at the big houses, but rather that many smaller presses, because of specialization and less greed, still focus on books, not product. Besides, for a real comparison to most of what HarperCollins publishes today, we should ask if anyone really ever edited classics such as Sinister Stories, or even Peyton Place? ("We need more emphasis--I know, -m- dashes!")
The basic premise of Lichtenberg's blog is probably true. Eventually well-crafted paper books might become a niche good the way storytelling has. Hmm. A print run of 5000 is considered high where I work, and the audience is frequently defined as the "educated lay-reader." In a country that hovers around (mostly below) a 30% college graduation rate (see here and here) where fewer and fewer people read, maybe we're already in the niche.
The editors work for independent (non-corporate) publishers. I'm not saying that no editors work at the big houses, but rather that many smaller presses, because of specialization and less greed, still focus on books, not product. Besides, for a real comparison to most of what HarperCollins publishes today, we should ask if anyone really ever edited classics such as Sinister Stories, or even Peyton Place? ("We need more emphasis--I know, -m- dashes!")
The basic premise of Lichtenberg's blog is probably true. Eventually well-crafted paper books might become a niche good the way storytelling has. Hmm. A print run of 5000 is considered high where I work, and the audience is frequently defined as the "educated lay-reader." In a country that hovers around (mostly below) a 30% college graduation rate (see here and here) where fewer and fewer people read, maybe we're already in the niche.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)