In this fascinating look into the future, paidContent‘s media team offers their predictions for the coming year in the digital content business. Some seem obvious like the projection that the remaining book publishers will settle with the DOJ in the ebook pricing lawsuit while the other stretch credulity like the forecast of BuzzFeed earning a Pulitzer prize. Regardless, here are some of the others that you’ll want to read more about:
- Barnes & Noble will drastically cut back its Nook product line
- The app advantage will disappear
- Moving your content library among providers will become a big issue
- More newspaper chains will file for bankruptcy because of legacy costs
- Twitter will become even more of a competitor for media companies
Jeremy Greenfield contributor to Forbes (and Digital Book World) has his own predictions but he keeps his focus on ebook pricing. He points out that the recent settlement fashioned by three of the Big Six publishers with the DOJ has resulted in their signing new ebook deals retail partners resulting in the current drop in average pricing. However, Jeremy doesn’t think it will last long. He contends that we will “see a much more diverse ebook pricing marketplace, with retailers angling to eke out advantages against each other whenever possible.” And then he makes three thoughtful predictions. Check out the article to see what they are.
This article from TabTimes points to some new research from the UK based Professional Publishers Association (PPA) that “puts a positive spin on how tablet editions are helping magazine publishers that are struggling with falling print circulation.” The research helps dispel “the myth that tablet owners are abandoning print in favour of digital” citing the fact that “96% of tablet owners have read a printed magazine in the last year, compared to the national average of 80%.”
This Library Journal article acknowledge the continuing surge of the open access movement in academic circles but reports that there may be more at play here. At least that is what the article says Richard Price, founder and CEO of academia.edu argues. In fact, his new website is predicated on the belief that “academia is moving toward a system where the credibility of research, publications, and ultimately researchers themselves, is gauged not by the prestige of the journal in which works are published, but by the usage, citations, and professional feedback that the works generate online.” The article goes on to describe academia.edu and how it allows “researchers to share their papers and then use web analytics to track how often the papers are read, for example—hard numbers that could be used on a CV.” This article adds to the growing discussion of the value of altmetrics, and as such, is well worth the read.
Although this post does not deal with libraries or publishing, we thought that it might strike a chord with many of you. It notes that a “new Northwestern University study of professors in STEM fields at top research universities across the country shows that bias against women is ingrained in the workforce, despite a societal desire to believe workplace equality exists.” This quantitative study of more than 4200 faculty publication records points to a productivity gap “where female faculty publish fewer papers than male faculty but not for lack of talent or effort.” It seems that “in fields that require more resources, women publish less. This indicates the gap may exist because academic departments historically have not invested resources equally in female faculty from the start of their careers. Men are getting greater resources.” According to Teresa K. Woodruff who led the study “We are losing the potential of women — in science and engineering and many other fields – because of this biased difference.”
If you are interested in reading the full study it was published Dec. 12 in PLOS ONE with the title “The Possible Role of Resource Requirements and Academic Career-Choice Risk on Gender Differences in Publication Rate and Impact.”
Tom Gilson. Test Bio