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 <drord...@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: drord...@gmail.com > Tel. +41 61 601 91 87 > Tel. +41 76 561 41 83 > > 2016-02-18 10:16 GMT+01:00 Danny Kingsley <da...@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 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: da...@cam.ac.uk >> T: @dannykay68 >> ORCID iD: 0000-0002-3636-5939 >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> GOAL mailing list >> GOAL@eprints.org >> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL@eprints.org > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
