This document discusses the changing landscape of academic publishing as technology firms have developed new content distribution platforms and online publishing tools. Major developments include the rise of open access gold journals like PLoS One and PeerJ that make publications freely available online. New authoring tools are making it easier to create multimedia works with little technical expertise. Standards organizations are also working on browser-based reading formats. There is a movement toward more open peer review and defining worth through alternative metrics rather than pre-publication selection. Over time, the role of traditional publishers may diminish as universities and researchers have access to their own publishing platforms and tools through the web.

1. peter
brantley
if
book
then
internet
archive
2012
summer
edition
san
francisco
ca
milan,
italty

2. The
internet
is
the
largest
public
works
project
that
the
world
has
ever
seen.

3. The
future
of
all
publishing
is
increasingly
defined
by
efforts
of
technology
firms,
not
by
publishers.

4. Apple,
Amazon,
Google,
MSFT
present
comprehensive,
proprietary
consumer-­‐
facing
content
distribution
platforms.

5. These
U.S.
west
coast
firms
have
created
content
catalogs
(iTunes,
Google
Play)
spanning
films,
games,
music,
and
books,
supported
by
mobile
OS
(iOS,
Android,
Win
8),
with
tablets
and
mobile
phones.

6. These
silos
exist
because
…
of
the
web.
These
companies
(at
heart)
are
network
platforms
that
rely
on
the
monetization
of
web
traffic.

7. In
publishing,
post
20
years
of
“network
industrialization,”
the
web
enables
new
forms
of
content
to
be
developed,
and
new
authoring
platforms
to
be
created.

8. IDPF,
W3C,
and
the
Readium
Project:
Standards
organization
collaborate
to
deliver
browser-­‐based
reading.

9. Platform
level
collaborative
authoring,
sophisticated
content
management.
e.g.
Inkling
Habitat
and
Nature
Education
Interactive
Textbooks

10. Rapid
advances
in
authoring
systems
permit
multimedia
writing
with
little
technical
expertise

11. Examples
include:

Aerbook
Maker

Vook

Pressbooks

The
Atavist.

12. Readlists
from
Arc90
A
Readlist
is
a
group
of
web
pages—articles,
recipes,
course
materials,
anything—bundled
into
an
e-­‐book
you
can
send
to
your
Kindle,
iPad,
or
iPhone.

13. STM
increasingly
“push
to
publish”:
WordPress
:
Annotum
>
PLoS
Currents
An
open-­‐source,
open-­‐process,
open-­‐access
scholarly
authoring
and
publishing
platform
based
on
WordPress

14. Expensive
commercial
publishing
infrastructures
are
out
of
date,
and
affordances
no
longer
as
valued.

15. “…
[t]o
shut
down
the
operating
system
of
print-­‐organized
scholarly
research
and
communication.”
-­‐
Jerome
McGann,
Profession
2011,
pp.
182–195
(14)

16. PeerJ
(Peter
Binfield,
Jason
Hoyt):
$99,
$169,
$259
lifetime
membership.
Scholars
must
contribute
annually
in
review,
comment,
or
submission
to
maintain
status.

17. Easy
to
play
in
the
“adult”
world:
Has
an
ISSN,
will
assign
DOIs,
use
ORCID.
Will
archive
in
CLOCKSS,
PubMedCentral.

18. “…
[w]e
have
a
new
type
of
publication
model
which
allows
us
to
knowingly
strip
out
what
is
extraneous
to
the
process
of
publication,
allowing
us
to
pass
those
savings
back
to
the
customers
(the
authors).”
-­‐
Pete
Binfield,
PeerJ
http://scienceblogs.com/confessions/2012/06/12/interview-­‐with-­‐peter-­‐binfield-­‐and-­‐jason-­‐hoyt-­‐of-­‐peerj/

19. Gold
Open
Access,
CC-­‐BY,
authors
retain
copyright.
PloS
One,
Hindawi,
BMC,
PeerJ,
but
also
supported
by
mainstream
publishers
e.g.
Springer.

20. Re-­‐consideration
of
curation,
peer
review.
Open
submission
over
selection
(PLoS
One,
PeerJ,
arXiv).
Open
peer
review
over
closed
(BMC,
PeerJ).
“Altmetrics”
used
to
define
worth.

21. “Biggest
development
in
scholarly
communication
isn't
a
[business]
model
but
rather
the
sense
that
it's
impossible
to
judge
importance
ahead
of
time”
-­‐
Dan
Cohen,
Center
for
History
and
New
Media
https://twitter.com/dancohen/status/212717007802601473

22. Arguably
the
ultimate
measure
of
success
for
a
journal
such
as
PLoS
One
is
to
put
itself
out
of
business.
Every
academic
dept
…
its
own
journal.

23. “We
believe
that
the
need
for
PeerJ,
or
any
other
publisher,
in
the
future
will
be
to
provide
tools
and
services
that
genuinely
add
value
to
the
end-­‐to-­‐end
publishing
process
…”
-­‐
Pete
Binfield,
PeerJ
http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-­‐topic/digital/content-­‐and-­‐e-­‐books/article/52512-­‐scholarly-­‐publishing-­‐2012-­‐meet-­‐peerj.html

24. Easy
to
marry
institutional
“Green”
OA
repositories
with
new
publishing
tools.
arXiv
:
physical
sciences
SSRN
:
social
sciences,
law
philpapers
:
philosophy
RePEc
:
economics

25. With
web
based
tools
and
services,
network
based
economies
…
academic/research
publishing
can
“detox”
the
system
of
the
money
that
now
runs
it.

26. Maybe
a
5-­‐10
year
transition
to
ease
out
subventions
and
migrate
to
community-­‐
based
publishing.

27. Every
university,
its
own
publishing
platform.
Every
author,
their
own
publishing
tools.

28. peter
brantley
director,
bookserver
project
internet
archive
@naypinya
(twitter,
gmail)