The role of academic publishers in shaping the development of Web 2.0 services for scholarly communication

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Academic publishing innovation intermediary open access scholarly communication Web 2.0

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Arms

Larsen

(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).

Björk

B-C

(2007) A model of scientific communication as a global distributed information system. Information Research 12(2). Available at: http://informationr.net/ir/12-2/p307.pdf (accessed 1 May 2012).

Davis

(2010) PLoS ONE: Is a high impact factor a blessing or a curse? In: The Scholarly Kitchen. Available at: http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2010/06/21/plosone-impact-factor-blessing-or-a-curse/ (accessed 09 September 2012).

Franklin

Van Harmelen

(2007) Web 2.0 for content for learning and teaching in higher education. Report for the Joint Information Systems Committee. Available at: www.jisc.ac.uk/publications/reports/2007/web2andpolicyreport.aspx (accessed 11 September 2012).

Glaser

Strauss

(1967) Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago, IL: Aldine Publishing Company.

Greaves

Scott

Clarke

. (2006) Nature’s trial of open peer review. Nature. Available at: www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/nature05535.html (accessed 1 May 2012).

Hammond

Hannay

Lund

. (2005) Social bookmarking tools (I): A general review. D-Lib Magazine 11(4). Available at: http://www.dlib.org/dlib/april05/hammond/04hammond.html?wa=IPEMBI12 (accessed 1 May 2012).

Harley

Earl-Novell

Krzys Acord

. (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).

Houghton

Rasmussen

Oppenheim

. (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.

Howells

(2006) Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Research Policy 35: 715–728.

11.

Hyysalo

(2006) Representations of use and practice-bound imaginaries in automating the safety of the elderly. Social Studies of Science 36: 599–626.

12.

Jensen

(2010) Analysis: Correlating the PLoS article-level metrics. In: Buried Treasure. Available at: larsjuhljensen.wordpress.com/2010/01/15/analysis-correlating-the-plos-article-level-metrics/ (accessed 1 May 2012).

13.

Latour

(1987) Science in Action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

14.

Lorimer

Provençal

Owen

. (2011) Digital technology innovation in scholarly communication and university engagement. Available at: tkbr.ccsp.sfu.ca/files/2011/02/Lorimer-DigInnovationScholCmn.pdf (accessed 27 April 2011).

15.

Morris

(2006) Software product management and the endless beta. Available at: jimmorris.blogspot.com/2006_08_01_jimmorris_archive.html (accessed 27 April 2012).

16.

Nature (2006) Peer review and fraud (editorial). Nature 444: 971–972.

17.

Neylon

(2008) Open science: Tools, approaches, and implications. Nature Precedings, 27 February. DOI: 10.1038/npre.2008.1633.1.

18.

O’Reilly

(2007) What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Communications & Strategies 1: 17. Available at: ssrn.com/abstract=1008839 (accessed 1 May 2012).

19.

Perciali

Aaron

(2008) Case study: Journals at bepress: New twists on an old model. Learned Publishing 21(2): 116–122.

20.

Priem

Hemminger

(2010) Scientometrics 2.0: Toward new metrics of scholarly impact on the social web. First Monday 15(7). Available at http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2874/2570 (accessed 16 November 2012).

21.

Procter

Rouncefield

Lin

Y-W

. (2011) Agile management: Strategies for developing a virtual research environment. Journal of Computer-Supported Cooperative Work 20(3): 197–225.

22.

Procter

Williams

Stewart

. (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.

23.

Procter

Williams

Stewart

. (2010b) If you build it, will they come? How researchers perceive and use Web 2.0. Report for the Research Information Network. Available at: www.rin.ac.uk/our-work/communicating-and-disseminating-research/use-and-relevance-web-20-researchers (accessed 1 May 2012).

24.

Sørensen

(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.

Stewart

Hyysalo

(2008) Intermediaries, users and social learning in technological innovation. International Journal of Innovation Management 12(3): 295–325.

26.

Surowieck

(2004) The Wisdom of Crowds. New York: Doubleday.

27.

Williams

Edge

(1996) The social shaping of technology. Research Policy 25(6): 865–899.

28.

Williams

Stewart

Slack

(2005) Social Learning in Technological Innovation: Experimenting with Information and Communication Technologies. Aldershot: Edward Elgar.