[GOAL] Re: ‘It is all a bit of a mess’ – observations from Researcher to Reader conference

Thu Feb 18 13:12:49 GMT 2016

Dear Bernard,

Sure, if you want to replace a publisher oligopoly by a Google monopoly,
and secretive Twitter and Facebook algorithms to fill your content feeds,
go ahead. I favor diversity, using a variety of tools, and I attach
importance to actively consume content, next to passively consuming content
that is brought to me via search engines and content feeds (yes, be honest,
we do not "search" with search engines, we just click one of the top 5
results that is delivered to us with almost blind confidence that it's the
most "relevant" - again usually according to a secretive algorithm).

Having worked in a publishing house for 10 years and tracked user behavior,
I can say with confidence that there is still a significant portion of
direct traffic (people that directly visit a publisher/journal website) and
traffic based on email alerts (article alerts, issue alerts, etc.) and I
think it's a good thing.

Best,
Dietrich

--

Dietrich Rordorf
Hellring 9
CH-4125 Riehen
Switzerland

E-mail: drordorf at gmail.com
Tel. +41 61 601 91 87
Tel. +41 76 561 41 83

2016-02-18 13:28 GMT+01:00 <brentier at ulg.ac.be>:

> Dear Dietrich,
>
> In the nowadays full fledged Internet era, circulation is ensured by web
> search engines, particularly with the younger generation.
> Publisher-based circulation (of digital articles) is linked directly to
> branding.
> As long as branding remains the criterium of choice for research
> assessment, this bias will survive.  All DORA signatories should keep this
> in mind and act accordingly...
>
> Best regards,
>
> Bernard Rentier
> Rector Emeritus
> University of Liège, Belgium
>
> Le 18 févr. 2016 à 13:09, Dietrich Rordorf <drordorf at gmail.com> a écrit :
>
> Dear Danny,
>
> Interesting points, which I mostly agree with. However, I can not agree
> with "Dissemination is no longer the value added offered by publishers.
> Anyone can have a blog. The value-add is branding". Sure, I can open blog,
> without any technical skills, within 5 minutes on wordpress.com, but if
> now one finds and reads my blog, it's worthless. Thus, the value add by
> publisher for authors is not branding in the first place, but circulation
> (in its widest sense: readership / outreach). I would agree, though, that
> branding and circulation are somehow related.
>
> Best regards,
> Dietrich
>
>
> --
>
> Dietrich Rordorf
> Hellring 9
> CH-4125 Riehen
> Switzerland
>
> E-mail: drordorf at gmail.com
> Tel. +41 61 601 91 87
> Tel. +41 76 561 41 83
>
> 2016-02-18 10:16 GMT+01:00 Danny Kingsley <dak45 at cam.ac.uk>:
>
>> <Apologies for cross posting>
>>
>> Dear all
>>
>> My observations from this week’s Researcher to Reader conference are now
>> available as a blog https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p=539 A
>> taster:
>>
>> “It is all a bit of a mess. It used to be simple. Now it is complicated.”
>> This was the conclusion of Mark Carden, the coordinator of the Researcher
>> to Reader <http://r2rconf.com/> conference after two days of discussion,
>> debate and workshops about scholarly publication. The conference bills
>> itself as: ‘*The premier forum for discussion of the international
>> scholarly content supply chain – bringing knowledge from the Researcher to
>> the Reader.*’  <…>
>> Suggestions, ideas and salient points that came up
>>
>>    - Journals are dead – the publishing future is the platform
>>    - Journals are not dead – but we don’t need issues any more as they
>>    are entirely redundant in an online environment
>>    - Publishing in a journal benefits the author not the reader
>>    - Dissemination is no longer the value added offered by publishers.
>>    Anyone can have a blog. The value-add is branding
>>    - All research is generated from what was published the year before –
>>    and we can prove it
>>    - Why don’t we disaggregate the APC model and charge for sections of
>>    the service separately?
>>    - You need to provide good service to the free users if you want to
>>    build a premium product
>>    - The most valuable commodity as an editor is your reviewer time
>>    - Peer review is inconsistent and systematically biased.
>>    - The greater the novelty of the work the greater likelihood it is to
>>    have a negative review
>>    - Poor academic writing is rewarded
>>
>> Enjoy!
>>
>> Danny
>>
>> Dr Danny Kingsley
>> Head of Scholarly Communications
>> Cambridge University Library
>> West Road, Cambridge CB39DR
>> P: +44 (0) 1223 747 437
>> M: +44 (0) 7711 500 564
>> E: dak45 at cam.ac.uk
>> T: @dannykay68
>> ORCID iD: 0000-0002-3636-5939
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GOAL mailing list
>> GOAL at eprints.org
>> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL at eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL at eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20160218/c2c0d543/attachment-0001.html 