Libraries are at the forefront of both access to information and, online, to academic publishing. The role of institutional repositories to enable access to what an institution produces is essential, and these repositories are increasingly open access. The Library of the 21st century, through its online repository/repositories, is transforming the role of academic publishing. Librarianship deals with the collection, organization, preservation, and dissemination of information resources. Enabling access is what librarians do.

The Library of the 21st century, through its online repository, is transforming the role of academic publishing. Enabling access is what librarians do. | Open Access Button blog

Scientific, Technical, and Medical (STM) publishing is big business. It generates $19 billion in revenue per year, the majority of which is earned by a few powerful publishers that enjoy profit margins of up to 40 percent. Inflated subscriptions sold to academic libraries keep them moving ahead because the librarians feel they have no choice but to buy. These companies add little value to the actual publishing product but they are entrenched. Many forces are now at work to change the status quo which has existed for more than 100 years.

How The Digital Revolution Can Fix Scientific Publishing And Speed Up Discoveries | TechCrunch

In order to help secure a healthy future for both university presses and print books, scholars and deans must embrace the digital as a legitimate and credit-worthy format for quality scholarship.

Deans Love Books – The Conversation - Blogs - The Chronicle of Higher Education

Only 0.13 percent of education articles published in the field’s top 100 journals are replications, write Matthew Makel, a gifted-education research specialist at Duke University, and Jonathan Plucker, a professor of educational psychology and cognitive science at Indiana University. In psychology, by contrast, 1.07 percent of studies in the field’s top 100 journals are replications, a 2012 study found. Makel and Plucker searched the entire publication history of the top 100 education journals – ranked according to five-year impact factors — for the term replicat*. They found that 221 of 164,589 total articles replicated a previous study. Just 28.5 percent were direct replications rather than conceptual replications. (Only direct replications, which repeat an experiment’s procedure, can disconfirm or bolster a previous study. Conceptual replications, on the other hand, use different methods to test the same hypothesis.) What’s more, 48.2 percent of the replications were performed by the same research team that had produced the original study. Attempts to replicate an experiment failed more often if there was no author overlap. When the same authors who published the original study published a replication in the same journal, 88.7 percent of replications succeeded. (The figure dropped to 70.6 percent when the same authors published in a different journal.) By contrast, replications conducted by new authors succeeded 54 percent of the time.

Almost no education research is replicated, new article shows @insidehighered

Publishing is one of the most ballyhooed metrics of scientific careers, and every researcher hates to have a gap in that part of his or her CV. Here’s some consolation: A new study finds that very few scientists—fewer than 1%—manage to publish a paper every year. But these 150,608 scientists dominate the research journals, having their names on 41% of all papers. Among the most highly cited work, this elite group can be found among the co-authors of 87% of papers.

The 1% of scientific publishing | Science/AAAS | News

The reason for the mass retraction is mind-blowing: A “peer review and citation ring” was apparently rigging the review process to get articles published. You’ve heard of prostitution rings, gambling rings and extortion rings. Now there’s a “peer review ring.”

Scholarly journal retracts 60 articles, smashes ‘peer review ring’ - The Washington Post

The AAU/ARL task force describes its plan as a “prospectus for an institutionally funded first-book subvention” that would shift the burden of payment to authors’ home institutions. That would “address the principal causes and effects of the market failure for monographs,” the prospectus says. It envisions that colleges and universities would agree to pay for an openly available “basic digital edition” of some faculty members’ first books; scholarly publishers could offer those titles for sale in other formats too. The plan also envisions that universities with a high level of research activity would offer subventions for three or four books a year, with an “annual subvention exposure” of roughly $68,000 to $73,000. Small colleges would pay for one or two books a year, and offer more modest subventions.

Who Ought to Underwrite Publishing Scholars’ Books? – Wired Campus - Blogs - The Chronicle of Higher Education

The bottom line, it seems to me, is that for the first time in hundreds of years we have options for how we disseminate scholarship. Instead of calling for more money to prop up a traditional model that was never particularly viable in the first place, we need to embrace a variety of alternatives.

Can Libraries Help Stop this Madness? | Peer to Peer Review

They sounded less worried about whether publishing an open-access book would hurt their careers. Social media have already opened things up, Mr. Schaberg pointed out. “Twitter has had a leveling effect on the economy of prestige and reputation,” he said.

In the Digital Era, Print Still Gets Plenty of Love From Scholars – Wired Campus - Blogs - The Chronicle of Higher Education

Suspecting that some reviewers weren’t doing a thorough job on some conference papers, they put together a random gibberish paper generator for anyone who wanted to test whether reviewers were paying attention. Unfortunately, that software has since been used to get 120 pieces of gibberish published.

Publishing stings find predatory journals, shoddy peer review | Ars Technica