Comments for putting down a marker http://mrkwr.wordpress.com STM and business publishing in transition Wed, 14 Oct 2009 14:02:16 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 Comment on The STM Report: An overview of scientific and scholarly journal publishing by Updating “Scientific Publishing in Transition” « putting down a marker http://mrkwr.wordpress.com/2009/10/13/the-stm-report-an-overview-of-scientific-and-scholarly-journal-publishing/#comment-7479 Updating “Scientific Publishing in Transition” « putting down a marker Wed, 14 Oct 2009 14:02:16 +0000 http://mrkwr.wordpress.com/2009/10/13/the-stm-report-an-overview-of-scientific-and-scholarly-journal-publishing/#comment-7479 [...] Updating “Scientific Publishing in Transition” Published 30 January 2009 Uncategorized 3 Comments [Update: the new version has now been released: see The STM Report] [...] [...] Updating “Scientific Publishing in Transition” Published 30 January 2009 Uncategorized 3 Comments [Update: the new version has now been released: see The STM Report] [...]

]]> Comment on A Guide to Rights and Royalties Management Software by Mark http://mrkwr.wordpress.com/2007/10/16/a-guide-to-rights-and-royalties-management-software/#comment-7476 Mark Tue, 06 Oct 2009 13:58:47 +0000 http://mrkwr.wordpress.com/2007/10/16/a-guide-to-rights-and-royalties-management-software/#comment-7476 Mickaelle Sorry that there's no "look inside" available for this report, but I just wrote it - the publisher is ALPSP ;) I'll send you the Contents page and extract from the intro by email, but I rather doubt this report will be what you're looking for, as it's primarily oriented to STM publishers. It's also a couple of years out of date now, and there are no current plans to produce an update. I'm afraid I'm not familiar with the particular needs of music publishers. Mickaelle
Sorry that there’s no “look inside” available for this report, but I just wrote it – the publisher is ALPSP ;)

I’ll send you the Contents page and extract from the intro by email, but I rather doubt this report will be what you’re looking for, as it’s primarily oriented to STM publishers. It’s also a couple of years out of date now, and there are no current plans to produce an update.

I’m afraid I’m not familiar with the particular needs of music publishers.

]]> Comment on A Guide to Rights and Royalties Management Software by Mickaelle http://mrkwr.wordpress.com/2007/10/16/a-guide-to-rights-and-royalties-management-software/#comment-7475 Mickaelle Mon, 05 Oct 2009 09:47:27 +0000 http://mrkwr.wordpress.com/2007/10/16/a-guide-to-rights-and-royalties-management-software/#comment-7475 is it possible to see inside this book before buying it ? i couldn't in amazon. i am a music publisher and i am looking for affordable royalties software that can help me manage royalties and tracking them. if not would you kindly suggest some softwares in the range of £100+ is it possible to see inside this book before buying it ? i couldn’t in amazon. i am a music publisher and i am looking for affordable royalties software that can help me manage royalties and tracking them. if not would you kindly suggest some softwares in the range of £100+

]]> Comment on Mark Ware Consulting by Easier Access for Small and Medium Enterprises « The Scholarly Kitchen http://mrkwr.wordpress.com/mark-ware-consulting/#comment-7471 Easier Access for Small and Medium Enterprises « The Scholarly Kitchen Fri, 18 Sep 2009 10:51:25 +0000 http://mrkwr.wordpress.com/mark-ware-consulting/#comment-7471 [...] is good, although it could be much easier.  These are the main results of a new report by Mark Ware commissioned by the Publishing Research Consortium [...] [...] is good, although it could be much easier.  These are the main results of a new report by Mark Ware commissioned by the Publishing Research Consortium [...]

]]> Comment on Web 2.0 and scholarly communication by Yannick Pouliot http://mrkwr.wordpress.com/2009/05/14/web-2-0-and-scholarly-communication/#comment-7467 Yannick Pouliot Mon, 07 Sep 2009 01:57:49 +0000 http://mrkwr.wordpress.com/2009/05/14/web-2-0-and-scholarly-communication/#comment-7467 Mark, excellent article. Here's an additional reason why Web 2.0 has been disappointing as far as most scientists are concerned. It is the same reason why almost no one out there uses Google's Advanced Query, a masterpiece of simplicity and ease of use: They can't be bothered to make the tiny expenditure of learning required to put in use. Yes, you did allude to that, but my point is deeper. Humans, on average, are just plain too lazy to invest in their skills unless they absolutely have to. Now, that is *not* true for top scientists (I was supporting bioresearchers struggling at Stanford for years and can attest to that). Those folks behave very differently when it comes to investing in themselves and their operation. However, *average* scientists, behave no differently than the Great Unwashed masses out there. And that's no surprise, if you consider our origins, namely, apes who would sit around grooming each other for hours once they've eluded predators, found enough food for the day and aren't in a mating frenzy :-) Mark, excellent article. Here’s an additional reason why Web 2.0 has been disappointing as far as most scientists are concerned. It is the same reason why almost no one out there uses Google’s Advanced Query, a masterpiece of simplicity and ease of use: They can’t be bothered to make the tiny expenditure of learning required to put in use. Yes, you did allude to that, but my point is deeper. Humans, on average, are just plain too lazy to invest in their skills unless they absolutely have to. Now, that is *not* true for top scientists (I was supporting bioresearchers struggling at Stanford for years and can attest to that). Those folks behave very differently when it comes to investing in themselves and their operation.

However, *average* scientists, behave no differently than the Great Unwashed masses out there. And that’s no surprise, if you consider our origins, namely, apes who would sit around grooming each other for hours once they’ve eluded predators, found enough food for the day and aren’t in a mating frenzy :-)

]]> Comment on eBooks: Elsevier/ScienceDirect trial by pikardi http://mrkwr.wordpress.com/2007/05/29/ebooks-elseviersciencedirect-trial/#comment-7460 pikardi Fri, 31 Jul 2009 04:32:09 +0000 http://mrkwr.wordpress.com/2007/05/29/ebooks-elseviersciencedirect-trial/#comment-7460 I would like contributing with more resources for science... http://www.meetscience.net/e-books.html Please enjoy.. Regards I would like contributing with more resources for science…

http://www.meetscience.net/e-books.html

Please enjoy..

Regards

]]> Comment on RIN Scholarly Communication Toolkit by Scholarly Communications Toolkit – new blog « putting down a marker http://mrkwr.wordpress.com/2009/05/15/rin-scholarly-communication-toolkit/#comment-7404 Scholarly Communications Toolkit – new blog « putting down a marker Tue, 02 Jun 2009 19:59:33 +0000 http://mrkwr.wordpress.com/?p=147#comment-7404 [...] , Libraries , Online publishing , Open Access , Peer review , Web2.0 0 Comments I mentioned a couple of weeks ago that I am working with Robin Beecroft of Searchlighter on the development of a web-based toolkit [...] [...] , Libraries , Online publishing , Open Access , Peer review , Web2.0 0 Comments I mentioned a couple of weeks ago that I am working with Robin Beecroft of Searchlighter on the development of a web-based toolkit [...]

]]> Comment on Web 2.0 and scholarly communication by Bob Badgett http://mrkwr.wordpress.com/2009/05/14/web-2-0-and-scholarly-communication/#comment-7396 Bob Badgett Tue, 26 May 2009 18:56:56 +0000 http://mrkwr.wordpress.com/2009/05/14/web-2-0-and-scholarly-communication/#comment-7396 Regarding “Why won’t they come?”, another issue is the lack of academic credit for contributing to review that is based on Web 2.0 tools. At present, I suspect most Deans, Department Chairs, and prospective employers in academia are much more interested in which journals do their faculty peer review rather than in which blogs do their faculty write. Similarly, if a faculty wants to write a detailed analysis on a published paper, publishing that analysis as a letter to the editor contributes to the faculty member's CV whereas more than a blog or wiki entry contributes. Thus faculty are more willing to provide traditional peer review than review that is Web 2.0 based. Regarding “Why won’t they come?”, another issue is the lack of academic credit for contributing to review that is based on Web 2.0 tools. At present, I suspect most Deans, Department Chairs, and prospective employers in academia are much more interested in which journals do their faculty peer review rather than in which blogs do their faculty write. Similarly, if a faculty wants to write a detailed analysis on a published paper, publishing that analysis as a letter to the editor contributes to the faculty member’s CV whereas more than a blog or wiki entry contributes. Thus faculty are more willing to provide traditional peer review than review that is Web 2.0 based.

]]> Comment on A Guide to Rights and Royalties Management Software by mrkwr http://mrkwr.wordpress.com/2007/10/16/a-guide-to-rights-and-royalties-management-software/#comment-7380 mrkwr Tue, 19 May 2009 06:33:55 +0000 http://mrkwr.wordpress.com/2007/10/16/a-guide-to-rights-and-royalties-management-software/#comment-7380 I hope we'll be able to do an update before too long but I've no firm plans for this year. I hope we’ll be able to do an update before too long but I’ve no firm plans for this year.

]]> Comment on A Guide to Rights and Royalties Management Software by Thad McIlroy http://mrkwr.wordpress.com/2007/10/16/a-guide-to-rights-and-royalties-management-software/#comment-7379 Thad McIlroy Tue, 19 May 2009 01:34:10 +0000 http://mrkwr.wordpress.com/2007/10/16/a-guide-to-rights-and-royalties-management-software/#comment-7379 I saw the positive review in the April issue of Learned Publishing. Will you be issuing an update? I saw the positive review in the April issue of Learned Publishing. Will you be issuing an update?

]]> Comment on Overview of trends in STM journals market by Mr. Gunn http://mrkwr.wordpress.com/2009/05/17/overview-of-trends-in-stm-journals-market/#comment-7378 Mr. Gunn Mon, 18 May 2009 05:58:03 +0000 http://mrkwr.wordpress.com/2009/05/17/overview-of-trends-in-stm-journals-market/#comment-7378 Interesting comments on Friendfeed. http://ff.im/2ZuYe Would you read this as foretelling buyouts of independent reference managers/bookmarking services by major publishers? Interesting comments on Friendfeed. http://ff.im/2ZuYe Would you read this as foretelling buyouts of independent reference managers/bookmarking services by major publishers?

]]> Comment on Web 2.0 and scholarly communication by William Gunn http://mrkwr.wordpress.com/2009/05/14/web-2-0-and-scholarly-communication/#comment-7375 William Gunn Fri, 15 May 2009 23:06:22 +0000 http://mrkwr.wordpress.com/2009/05/14/web-2-0-and-scholarly-communication/#comment-7375 Cameron, Mark, How would you define "functioning and useful" commmunity? One way to think about it is that what's going on is exactly what needs to go on. Perhaps a different interface would prompt different kinds of interactions, but aren't we mostly doing what we want to be doing re: networking? What could be added to Friendfeed that would drive adoption more widely among scientists? Cameron, Mark, How would you define “functioning and useful” commmunity? One way to think about it is that what’s going on is exactly what needs to go on. Perhaps a different interface would prompt different kinds of interactions, but aren’t we mostly doing what we want to be doing re: networking?

What could be added to Friendfeed that would drive adoption more widely among scientists?

]]> Comment on Web 2.0 and scholarly communication by Web 2.0 http://mrkwr.wordpress.com/2009/05/14/web-2-0-and-scholarly-communication/#comment-7374 Web 2.0 Fri, 15 May 2009 09:14:38 +0000 http://mrkwr.wordpress.com/2009/05/14/web-2-0-and-scholarly-communication/#comment-7374 Poor standards for impaired web users put accessibility high on the agenda ... <a href="http://web2.blogtells.com/" rel="nofollow">Web 2.0</a> Poor standards for impaired web users put accessibility high on the agenda … Web 2.0

]]> Comment on Web 2.0 and scholarly communication by Web 2.0 and scholarly communication « putting down a marker « MyPage Builder http://mrkwr.wordpress.com/2009/05/14/web-2-0-and-scholarly-communication/#comment-7373 Web 2.0 and scholarly communication « putting down a marker « MyPage Builder Fri, 15 May 2009 00:02:04 +0000 http://mrkwr.wordpress.com/2009/05/14/web-2-0-and-scholarly-communication/#comment-7373 [...] the original: Web 2.0 and scholarly communication « putting down a marker Bookmark [...] [...] the original: Web 2.0 and scholarly communication « putting down a marker Bookmark [...]

]]>