Search results

The purpose of this research is to show how the self‐archiving of journal papers is a major step towards providing open access to research. However, copyright transfer agreements (CTAs) that are signed by an author prior to publication often indicate whether, and in what form, self‐archiving is allowed. The SHERPA/RoMEO database enables easy access to publishers' policies in this area and uses a colour‐coding scheme to classify publishers according to their self‐archiving status. The database is currently being redeveloped and renamed the Copyright Knowledge Bank. However, it will still assign a colour to individual publishers indicating whether pre‐prints can be self‐archived (yellow), post‐prints can be self‐archived (blue), both pre‐print and post‐print can be archived (green) or neither (white). The nature of CTAs means that these decisions are rarely as straightforward as they may seem, and this paper describes the thinking and considerations that were used in assigning these colours in the light of the underlying principles and definitions of open access.

Detailed analysis of a large number of CTAs led to the development of controlled vocabulary of terms which was carefully analysed to determine how these terms equate to the definition and “spirit” of open access.

The paper reports on how conditions outlined by publishers in their CTAs, such as how or where a paper can be self‐archived, affect the assignment of a self‐archiving colour to the publisher.

The colour assignment is widely used by authors and repository administrators in determining whether academic papers can be self‐archived. This paper provides a starting‐point for further discussion and development of publisher classification in the open access environment.

The purpose of this research is to investigate: how many journal titles are both in LOCKSS and in Portico?; what is the relationship of small publishers to LOCKSS/CLOCKSS and Portico?; and what is the relationship of large publishers to LOCKSS/CLOCKSS and Portico?

The paper describes how data from Portico, LOCKSS, and CLOCKSS were cleaned and analyzed using Perl programs to discover duplications.

The findings show a significant overlap among the archiving systems. They also show that Portico has no prejudice against small publishers and that large publishers are as willing to choose the LOCKSS software as to choose Portico. LOCKSS does, however, archive many more small and arguably endangered publishers and may be the only economically viable choice for them.

The push for greater transparency has made more and more data available. Both LOCKSS and Portico deserve commendation for providing the detailed lists of titles and publishers on which this paper was based. Such data give the library community an opportunity to build decisions about the long‐term digital future on firm and verifiable ground.

The future possible roles of the publisher in industry markets are considered, especially for firms close to high technology. It is forecast that the Internet will become the dominant business space for firms. Even in physical manufacturing the advances of the Internet are becoming important with changes in supply and distribution patterns. In order to meet the new era of opportunity three scenarios are presented. Firstly, continuation of the current one with the publisher as information provider. Secondly, the publisher may become an orchestrator of interactivity. Hence they can be the hub of a new intelligence facility for firms to know their external environment better. This also would be an appropriate response to the expected steep increase in requests for more customised sources of information. Lastly, the publisher can go a stage further and become a consultant or facilitator of the agile enterprise based on the Internet. This would enable the client company to become a more adaptive and proactive entity afterwards. Recommendations are made for assisting the shift for these further scenarios to become possible.

To provide an overview of the Japanese publishing industry and to compare it with the publishing industry in the United Kingdom to see whether similarities and differences are industry- or culture-specific.

The paper provides detailed descriptions of the activities of the three main players in the Japanese publishing industry (publishers/editors; distributors; and booksellers). This tripartite structure of the industry encourages divide-and-rule mechanisms also found in the Japanese advertising industry. At the same time, a comparison with the UK publishing industry reveals certain structural differences between it and the Japanese publishing industry.

Three developments that have affected trade relations in the UK publishing industry (retail chains, literary agents, and mergers and acquisitions) do not have such great impact in Japan. In Japan, wholesale distributors are extremely powerful – something not noted, but possibly overlooked, by Thompson for the UK publishing industry. Comparative material between Japan and the United Kingdom, as well as across industries within Japan, suggest certain cultural influences prevail in the organization of Japanese publishing.

The Japanese publishing industry appears to operate under certain cultural constraints that inhibit cross-cultural comparison, while enabling cross-industry comparison within Japan. Why this is so needs further research. Can the parallels between advertising and publishing industries be extended to other forms of cultural production in Japan? In particular, the way in which money is circulated within an industry has an influential effect upon its structure.

A useful source of information for practitioners and academics interested in the functioning of a non-Western publishing industry. The paper also provides food for thought for those interested in trying to better the organization of publishing in Japan and/or the United Kingdom.

A hitherto undocumented comparative study in English of the Japanese publishing industry.

Libraries and professional publishers have long had a complicated relationship. This chapter seeks to explore some elements of this relationship in order to suggest new ways of regarding each of the parties and to generate an active dialog with the aim of improving collaboration and cooperation between them.

Academic library consortia activity has become an integral part of academic libraries’ operations. Consortia have come to assert considerable bargaining power over publishers and have provided libraries with considerable economic advantage. They interact with publishers both as consumers of publishers’ products, with much stronger bargaining power than individual libraries hold, and, increasingly, as rival publishers themselves. Are consortia changing the relationship between academic libraries and publishers? Is the role of academic library consortia placing academic libraries in a position that should and will attract the attention of competition policy regulators? Competition policy prohibits buying and selling cartels that can negatively impact the free market on which the Canadian economic system, like other Western economies, depends. Competition policy as part of economic policy is, however, only relevant where we are concerned with aspects of the market economy. Traditionally, public goods for the greater social and cultural benefit of society are not considered part of the market economic system. If the activities of academic library consortia are part of that public good perspective, competition policy may not be a relevant concern. Using evidence gained from in-depth interviews from a national sample of university librarians and from interviews with the relevant federal government policy makers, this research establishes whether library consortia are viewed as participating in the market economy of Canada or not. Are consortia viewed by librarians and government as serving a public good role of providing information for a greater social and cultural benefit or are they seen from a market-economic perspective of changing power relations with publishers? Findings show government has little in-depth understanding of academic library consortia activity, but would most likely consider such activity predominantly from a market economic perspective. University librarians view consortia from a public good perspective but also as having an important future role in library operations and in changing the existing scholarly publishing paradigm. One-third of librarian respondents felt that future consortia could compete with publishers by becoming publishers and through initiatives such as open source institutional repositories. Librarians also felt that consortia have had a positive effect on librarians’ professional roles through the facilitation of knowledge building and collaboration opportunities outside of the home institution.

Industry platforms can alter relations among exchange partners in such a way that the industry structure is changed. The focus of much industry platform research has been on how platform creation and leadership offers advantages to the most central firms, but platforms can also be advantageous for small specialist firms that compete with the most central firms. We examine book publishing as an example of an industry in which the central players – large publishing firms – are losing power to self-publishing authors because the distributor Amazon has a powerful platform for customers to communicate independently, and the non-publishing platform Twitter also serves as a medium for readers to discuss and review books. Our empirical analysis is based on downloaded sales statistics for Amazon Ebooks, matched with Amazon reviews of the same books and tweets that refer to the book or the author. We analyze how Ebook sales are a function of publisher, Amazon reviews, and tweets, and we are able to assess the importance of each factor in the sale of book titles. The main finding is that Amazon reviews are powerful drivers of book sales, and have greater effect on the sales of books that are not backed by publishers. Twitter also affects book sales, but less strongly than Amazon reviews.

This study gives insights into how marginalized logics evolve after having been replaced by a new dominant logic. In light of the case of UK trade book publishing where an editorial logic persisted and morphed after the increasing commercialization of the field – epitomized by the proliferation of so-called “factory fiction” – the authors identify three generative paths of marginalized logic evolution: preservation, purification and radicalization. The authors show how these paths hinge on the activities of three groups of actors who resist conforming to a dominant logic. The findings of this study advance scholars’ understanding of the historical evolution of institutional logics, but also remind them that the acts of resistance are typically embedded in macro-level dynamics related to broader institutional processes. In particular, this study sheds light on the different ways in which acts of resistance may be structured by actors’ experience of friction between competing institutional logics.

Book piracy represents a threat to the publishing industry, while for the society, book piracy provides some benefits. The purpose of this study is to examine views of readers, authors and publishers in Lithuania on book piracy’s benefits to society.

This study uses phenomenography to examine readers’, authors’ and publishers’ reflections on book piracy’s potential social benefits. The authors collected research data via semi-structured, face-to-face interviews with 10 participants from each group (readers, authors and publishers – a total of 30 interviews).

Six qualitatively different categories of attitudes were revealed, namely, that book piracy provides easier and more convenient access to books, helps readers save money, pushes readers to read more, helps for authors to gain more popularity, provides wider access to books and provides consumers with moral satisfaction. The similarities between readers’, authors’ and publishers’ views on benefits of book piracy outweigh the differences.

Theoretical background indicates that stakeholders’ explicitly stated attitudes towards book piracy contribute to their book piracy intentions. This study hopes to help publishers in Lithuania confront the challenge of book piracy and develop effective strategies to attenuate a normative framework with four actionable recommendations to help professionals in the publishing industry to better address book piracy.

Book piracy continues to perplex publishers, in part because they lack a clear understanding of the social and psychological underpinnings of book piracy. This study aims to develop such an understanding by filling gap in the literature on book piracy: the lack of work on readers’, authors’ and publishers’ perceptions of book piracy’s individual and social benefits.