A number of articles and blogs have attracted our attention recently including:
Lies, Lies and Damned E-Book Lies: Where WSJ Got It Wrong. Forbes Contributor, Jeremy Greenfield debunks the figures cited in a widely read Wall Street Journal article titled “Your E-Book Is Reading You.” Quoting figures from the Association of American Publishers, the article stated that “e-books generated $282 million in sales, compared to $230 million for print.” Well evidently, that figure was for hardcover titles not paperbacks. According to Mr. Greenfield’s analysis “the true number that should be reported when it comes to digital versus print revenues as tracked by the AAP is $1.52 billion in print revenues versus $380 million in digital revenues (counting downloaded audio).”
(Mr Greenfield is also Editorial Director of Digital Book World
Finch Report Reignites OA Storm. Joanna Ptolomey does a nice job covering the “contentious debate” around the Finch Report and its perceived support for switching the “model of economic delivery for OA from the Green to Gold.” She provides straightforward definitions of the Green and Gold models as well as concise discussion of the pros and cons.
Plum Analytics Maps Success in Open Access Scholarship. Recounts the efforts of Plum Analytics a new start up that, “offers universities and other research institutions a way to track how researchers on staff have fared in the open access (OA) milieu.” It attempts to answer questions like: Where and how often have what they have written been referred to? What about the same information for co-authors, even ones not working at the client institution? What venues produce the best results for spreading the word?
3 Things You (Probably) Didn’t Know about Google Scholar. This article will tell you how to get Google Scholar to “tell you if your library has access to the article you want,” integrate Google Docs’ “Research Feature” with Google Scholar and how to get Google Scholar to “tell you not only how many times an article was cited, but also generate a list of those publications.”
PeerJ formally announced: Innovative new business model for open access. Here is blog post from science librarian John Dupuis that describes PeerJ the new start up from Peter Binfield and Jason Hoyt as “kind of like a cross between PLoS ONE and the arXiv” noting that it will be “like arXiv in that it will be a large collection of articles that will be at least somewhat unstructured. But at the same time, like a PLos ONE, will also have very strict peer review.” Mr. Dupuis also supplies the press release and some Q&A’ he received from PeerJ.