This paper examines how two contrasting academic publishers are responding to the opportunities and challenges of Web 2.0 to innovate their services. Our findings highlight the need to take seriously the role of publishers in the move towards a vision of more rapid and open scholarly communication and to understand the factors that shape their role as intermediaries in the innovation pathways that may be needed to achieve it.
ArmsWYLarsenRL (2007) The future of scholarly communication: Building the infrastructure for cyberscholarship. In: Report of workshop, National Science Foundation and Joint Information Systems Committee, Phoenix, AZ, 17–19 April. Available at: www.sis.pitt.edu/~repwkshop/NSF-JISC-report.pdf (accessed 1 May 2012).
2.
BjörkB-C (2007) A model of scientific communication as a global distributed information system. Information Research12(2). Available at: http://informationr.net/ir/12-2/p307.pdf (accessed 1 May 2012).
HarleyDEarl-NovellSKrzys AcordS. (2010) Final report: Assessing the future landscape of scholarly communication: An exploration of faculty values and needs in seven disciplines. Center for Studies in Higher Education. Available at: escholarship.org/uc/cshe (accessed 27 April 2011).
9.
HoughtonJRasmussenBOppenheimC. (2009) Economic implications of alternative scholarly publishing models: Exploring the costs and benefits. Report for the Joint Information Systems Committee. Available at: www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/publications/rpteconomicoapublishing.pdf (accessed 1 May 2012).
10.
HowellsJ (2006) Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Research Policy35: 715–728.
11.
HyysaloS (2006) Representations of use and practice-bound imaginaries in automating the safety of the elderly. Social Studies of Science36: 599–626.
Nature (2006) Peer review and fraud (editorial). Nature444: 971–972.
17.
NeylonCWuS (2008) Open science: Tools, approaches, and implications. Nature Precedings, 27February. DOI: 10.1038/npre.2008.1633.1.
18.
O’ReillyT (2007) What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Communications & Strategies1: 17. Available at: ssrn.com/abstract=1008839 (accessed 1 May 2012).
19.
PercialiIAaronE (2008) Case study: Journals at bepress: New twists on an old model. Learned Publishing21(2): 116–122.
ProcterRRouncefieldMLinY-W. (2011) Agile management: Strategies for developing a virtual research environment. Journal of Computer-Supported Cooperative Work20(3): 197–225.
22.
ProcterRWilliamsRStewartJ. (2010a) Adoption and use of Web 2.0 in scholarly communications. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences (Special issue on e-Science) 368: 4039–4056.
SørensenKH (1996) Learning technology, constructing culture. Sociotechnical change as social learning. STS working paper no. 18/96, Centre for Technology and Society, University of Trondheim, Norway.
25.
StewartJHyysaloS (2008) Intermediaries, users and social learning in technological innovation. International Journal of Innovation Management12(3): 295–325.
26.
SurowieckJ (2004) The Wisdom of Crowds. New York: Doubleday.
27.
WilliamsREdgeD (1996) The social shaping of technology. Research Policy25(6): 865–899.
28.
WilliamsRStewartJSlackR (2005) Social Learning in Technological Innovation: Experimenting with Information and Communication Technologies. Aldershot: Edward Elgar.
