The infamous Georgia State University (GSU) e-reserves case (Cambridge University Press v. Patton) emerged last month from its long winter slumber to give us yet another 200+ page decision which librarians, lawyers, and publishers have begun to parse and analyze. And, like me, they are probably asking themselves: What does this decision actually mean?
A new industry award aims to highlight extraordinary programs in public libraries across the country. Sponsored by big five publisher Penguin Random House (PRH), the Library Awards for Innovation will “acknowledge innovative public library programs and services that engage citizens in reading while strengthening the social and cultural fabric of their communities” according to a press release. The awards will consist of one $10,000 grant and four $1,000 grants for runners-up. Additionally, each winning library will receive $1,000 in PRH books.
What does fracking have to do with scholarly publishing and journal pricing? While the library financial landscape has improved since the depth of the Great Recession of 2007 to 2009, it still cannot be considered robust. As articles such as this one chronicle annual serials price increases, libraries, publishers, and vendors search for innovative ways to fulfill information needs within the finite, predefined budget environment. New business and access models ranging from the initial e-journal big deal packages, article pay per view, open access, mega-journals, and publisher e-journal database pricing have evolved in response to the environment; libraries, publishers, and vendors have merged, consolidated, or disappeared along the way. Just as fracking keeps the oil and gas flowing, these strategies enable the current scholarly publishing ecosystem to extract the necessary resources—intellectual and financial—to survive.
Serving the public good has long been the mandate of all libraries. Providing everyone with access to information, without regard to income or demographic differences, is perhaps a library’s most noble aspiration. For patrons with visual challenges, this has meant providing books in multiple formats, including large print.
Hachette Book Group (HBG) announced on March 1 that it had entered into an agreement to buy the Perseus Books Group, an independent publishing company. On March 3, Ingram Content Group announced its plans to purchase Perseus’s distribution operations. The two agreements come a little more than 18 months after an initial deal to sell Perseus’s entire operation to HBG fell through. Both parties hope to close the deals by the end of March, pending regulatory approval. Terms of the transaction were not disclosed.
The New York Public Library in December announced a new partnership with nonprofit Benetech, and the organization’s Bookshare solution, to provide print disabled patrons with access to more than 370,000 accessible ebooks through NYPL and the Heiskell Braille and Talking Book Library. Although Bookshare provides free access to its collection for all U.S. students with qualifying disabilities through an award by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Special Education Programs, access to the collection for qualifying adults, seniors, and other non-students generally requires payment of a $25 setup fee and a $50 annual subscription fee. The partnership to provide free access to library patrons through NYPL is Bookshare’s first such partnership with a U.S. library, and Benetech officials have stated that the organization is hoping to establish similar agreements with public libraries throughout the U.S.
Oyster, the $9.95 all-you-can-read monthly ebook subscription service that came on the scene in 2013, quietly announced on its blog that it “will be taking steps to sunset the existing Oyster service over the next several months,” according to tech news site Re/Code. Perseus Books Group, home to publishers including Basic Books, Da Capo Press, Running Press, Public Affairs, and Avalon Travel, as well as one of the leading providers of distribution and client services to 600-plus independent publishers through PGW, Consortium, Legato, et al., announced in early September that it is once again up for sale.
“Altmetrics: A manifesto,” published five years ago this month, described an academic publishing landscape in which the volume of literature was exploding, and the three traditional filters used to help researchers gauge the relative importance of individual papers in their fields—peer review, citation counting, and a journal’s average citations per article—were failing to keep up. Scholars were moving their work onto the web, and alternative, article-level metrics drawn from online reference managers Zotero and Mendeley, scholarly social bookmarking services such as CiteULike, or even page-views of blogs and “likes” or comments on mainstream social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter could be used to track the impact of new research in real time, wrote Impactstory cofounder Jason Priem; Wikimedia Foundation head of research Dario Taraborelli; Paul Groth, then-researcher VU University Amsterdam; and Cameron Neylon, then–senior scientist at the Science and Technology Facilities Council. Could these new metrics be just as relevant as peer review and citations when judging the impact and influence of new research?