Skip to:

Can you charge for adding metadata to free content?

Clearly you can. A recent post in Book Business Magazine describes how McGraw-Hill Education will include free teaching resources within its paid education platform, Engrade, alongside its own paid resources, on the basis that these free resources are better curated and hence easier to find and to make use of. However, users will be charged for access to the free resources within the platform, since McGraw-Hill state they have had to pay to have them tagged. McGraw-Hill is open about what they are doing: they say they pay to have the material selected for quality and then tagged, so it is only reasonable to charge end users for the selection and better navigation.

Engrade

 

Access to Research – the ALPSP answer

 

There is an article in the latest issue of Learned Publishing, the journal of the ALPSP, a trade association representing academic publishers, entitled “Access to Research: an innovative and successful initiative by the UK publishing industry”. That’s all you will learn about this article, because if you go to ALPSP’s host website (Wiley Online Library) you will find the article locked. 

Europeana creates a business strategy

 

Europeana, the EU-funded digital “library” (although it is more a discovery service than a library), has released its business plan for the next five years. The document is excellently designed and produced, but contains little in the way of a business plan. The section “why this is good for you” is placed before the section “how we are going to finance this”. Unfortunately, the section on how we are going to finance it states little. So where will the revenue come from?

Is Digital Disruption the cause of quality decline?

David Crotty, in a Scholarly Kitchen post, talked about declining editorial standards, and suggested that “digital disruption” was at least partly to blame. “Digital disruption” is the phrase used by Clayton Christensen in his book The Innovator’s Dilemma.  Christensen’s idea, as you probably know, is that companies fail because they continue to provide the same services that satisfied their customers in earlier years.

Is this the age of the university press?

Is this, as Mandy Hill suggested in her keynote, “the age of the university press”? Certainly the timing of this conference (the University Press REDUX Conference, Liverpool, 16-17 March 2016) was well-nigh perfect. The organisers should be commended for thinking up the right event at the right time – it’s not every year that you get five or six new university presses founded in the preceding twelve months!

Getting a feel for sentiment analysis

An excellent session of the London Text Analytics Group (March 14) contrasted two approaches to sentiment analysis: one proudly (and publicly) ditches grammar, while the other uses grammar to disambiguate content. Both approaches made ambitious claims for their software; which is the best approach?

Stephen Pulman of TheySay, a start up from the University of Oxford, had the more traditional approach.  He pointed out that taking individual words by themselves can lead to great confusion. Just assessing whether something is positive or negative is not so simple: “Bacteria” is negative, and “kill” is negative, but “kills bacteria” is positive.  More complex still, the phrase “never fails to kill bacteria” is highly positive.  A bag-of-words approach is unlikely to pick up all these distinctions.

Pages