NEWS

2018 saw 'rebalancing of power in scholarly comms' – report

The last 12 months have seen a rebalancing of power in scholarly publishing, according to a report released today by Research Information.

The Scholarly Publishing Research Cycle 2018 states that, despite the slow rate of change within the industry, there have been two significant changes in the last year: the growing recognition of the importance of policymakers’ scholarly publishing policies and measuring impact.

While publishers continue to hold a monopoly on content, researchers and librarians concerned about the abuse of positions of power have been boosted by two events: the stand against price rises in Germany and Sweden, and the publication of Plan S.

The increased importance of the challenge of measuring impact is also noteworthy because metrics play such a pivotal role in the evaluation and career progression of researchers.

This independent 64-page report has been commissioned by Research Information, which works equally with all the stakeholders in scholarly publishing, and sponsored by Highwire and Digital Science. The report analyses responses and data gathered by a survey of around 200 publishers, librarians and academic researchers, augmented by 13 in-depth interviews with leading names in all three sectors.

The report was launched in December 2018 at Challenges in the Scholarly Publishing Cycle, a one-day industry event organised by Research Information in London. The author of the report, David Stuart, is an independent informational professional, a former research fellow at King’s College London and an honorary research fellow at the University of Wolverhampton.

Download the free report here.

Other tags: 
Twitter icon
Google icon
Del.icio.us icon
Digg icon
LinkedIn icon
Reddit icon
e-mail icon
Interview

Danny Kingsley, deputy director at Cambridge University Library, looks back at her early days at Australian National University – and forward to the many challenges facing librarians

Analysis and opinion
Feature

While researchers, publishers and funders warm to data sharing, issues over misuse, citation and credit remain, reports Rebecca Pool