Knowledge unlatched : A global library consortium model for funding Open Access scholarly books

Specialist scholarly books, including monographs, allow researchers to present their work, pose questions and to test and extend areas of theory through long-form writing. In spite of the fact that research communities all over the world value monographs and depend heavily on them as a requirement of tenure and promotion in many disciplines, sales of this kind of book are in free fall, with some estimates suggesting declines of as much as 90% over twenty years (Willinsky 2006). Cashstrapped monograph publishers have found themselves caught in a negative cycle of increasing prices and falling sales, with few resources left to support experimentation, business model innovation or engagement with digital technology and Open Access (OA). This chapter considers an important attempt to tackle failing markets for scholarly monographs, and to enable the wider adoption of OA licenses for book-length works: the 2012 – 2014 Knowledge Unlatched pilot. Knowledge Unlatched is a bold attempt to reconfigure the market for specialist scholarly books: moving it beyond the sale of ‘content’ towards a model that supports the services valued by scholarly and wider communities in the context of digital possibility. Its success has powerful implications for the way we understand copyright’s role in the creative industries, and the potential for established institutions and infrastructure to support the open and networked dynamics of a digital age.

The paradigm of relevance: Is it time to kill the sacred cow?

Prior to embarking on further study into the subject of relevance it is essential to consider why the concept of relevance has remained inconclusive, despite extensive research and its centrality to the discipline of information science. The approach taken in this paper is to reconstruct the science of information retrieval from first principles including the problem statement, role, scope and objective. This framework for document selection is put forward as a straw man for comparison with the historical relevance models. The paper examines five influential relevance models over the past 50 years. Each is examined with respect to its treatment of relevance and compared with the first principles model to identify contributions and deficiencies. The major conclusion drawn is that relevance is a significantly overloaded concept which is both confusing and detrimental to the science.