Funding bodies, the economics of publishing, and the affordances of Web 2.0 platforms have spurred learned societies, publishers, and scholars to experiment with new media venues for scholarly communication. Why, then, have we seen few widespread changes in how scholars disseminate research in most disciplines? Drawing on qualitative interview data from the Mellon-funded Future of Scholarly Communication Project (2005)(2006)(2007)(2008)(2009)(2010)(2011), we describe how scholars share their work-in-progress and the disciplinary values driving these practices. We then discuss credit, time, and personality as significant barriers to change across disciplines, and we explore these obstacles through an examination of two new paradigms for sharing: open peer review and data sharing. By situating larger discussions about the future of scholarly communication in the everyday lives of scholars, we argue that integration with disciplinary cultures will be key to the success of new media initiatives.

No abstract

Despite predictions that emerging technologies will transform how research is conducted, disseminated, and rewarded, why do we see so little actual shift in how scholars in the most competitive and aspirant institutions actually disseminate their research? I describe research on faculty values and needs in scholarly communication that confirm a number of conservative tendencies in publishing. These tendencies, influenced by tenure and promotion requirements, as well as disciplinary cultures, have both positive and negative consequences. Rigorous research could inform development of good practices and policies in academic publishing, as well as counter rhetoric concerning the future of peer review and scholarly communication.O ver two decades many have predicted that models of scholarly communication enabled by emerging technologies will transform how research is conducted, disseminated, and rewarded. The transformation would be driven by new generations of scholars weaned on file sharing, digital piracy, Facebook, Twitter, and yet-unrealized social media technologies. Prognostications about the future, however, are often devoid of empirical evidence useful in policy development. How can we achieve realistic publishing economies that serve the needs of scholars, as well as maintain quality in research output and institutional culture? In addition to laudable declarations and manifestos (1, 2), a critical mass of relevant and rigorous research would be welcome. This should include investigations into effective tenure and promotion (T&P) review practices in higher education globally; the role of bibliometrics and other mechanisms, such as open peer-review experiments, in providing a complement to traditional peer review; and ways to create sustainable and accessible publishing models that filter scholarship effectively, reliably, and in a way that cannot be gamed or abused.Expectations for change in academic publishing have been influenced by pundits in the Internet industry, the open-source movement in computer programming, the rise of Web 2.0 social media tools, and the Wikipedia model of crowd-sourced production [e.g, (3)]. The ArXiv preprint server-used heavily by computationally based, high-paradigm, and low-commercial value fields-was often held up as a one-sizefits-all model that all disciplines could aspire to. "Big data" (4) and cyberinfrastructure (5) have promised unlimited data sharing and reuse, replicability and reproducibility in highly collaborative and distributed research environments. In this context, the journal article or monograph is considered to be a format unconducive to effective transfer of knowledge.It has been suggested by some that making sense of the information overload resulting from this explosion of data and new publication forms could be ameliorated by new machine-generated algorithms (6), broadly referred to as alt-metrics (7). Adding to this mix is a proliferation of publication forms that take advantage of new media tools and shift the burden of payment for the production of s...

Analysis of data on age and reproductive performance in 16 captive female Hanuman langurs (Presbytis entellus) shows that adult females under the age of 6 years and over the age of 19 years had the lowest rates of reproductive success as measured by the production of viable young that survived beyond 30 days of age. With the possible exception of one female, females over the age of 19 years experienced a variety of idiosyncratic reproductive problems but did not experience a true menopause as defined by total cessation of menstrual cycles. There was no support for the hypothesis that langur monkey females have evolved a lengthy postreproductive period.

The textbook industry is in significant flux that is fueled by evolving technologies, increased availability of online open content and curricula, active used textbook markets, and, most recently, a rash of textbook rental start-ups, just to name a few of the factors at play. At the same time, Open Educational Resources (OERs)-learning materials distributed openly for either no or minimal cost-may have become commonplace enough that a credible, viable infrastructure for open textbooks, one that mainstream faculty would accept, could be imagined.Our research, which employed an online survey and focus groups, explored faculty perceptions about affordability and open textbooks. Our results indicate that faculty want a diversity of choices when they choose a textbook. They are independent thinkers, exceptionally busy, suffer from extreme information overload, are generally dedicated to ensuring their students' success, and do not take well to "one size fits all" solutions. Our data indicated that any discussion about textbook affordability solutions must also take into account that most faculty are active and independent decision makers when it comes to choosing a textbook or other curricular materials for their courses; the top-down high-school model of textbook adoption is anathema to many professors and instructors. Complicating the picture are the natural, heterogeneous needs among the institutions, disciplines, and courses encompassed by higher education; the type of institution and the level and content of the course will ultimately determine which curricular forms offer the best solutions. Faculty made clear that their students represent a plethora of learning backgrounds and goals, and also desire flexibility and choice in textbook options. What is notable and cannot be ignored is that purely electronic solutions will not be universally embraced in the near term. Reasons for resistance included students' need for the safety net of Harley et al.; AFFORDABLE AND OPEN TEXTBOOKS 2 a printed textbook and the positive pedagogical practice of engaging with the text by "writing in the margins" (which is not a practical reality in current electronic platforms).Regarding the demand for open textbooks, there simply are not enough currently available in enough disciplines to satisfy the multitude of faculty and student needs in lower and upper division courses; a much wider array of high-quality, easy-to-use, and reliable open textbooks will have to be produced for more widespread faculty adoption to be realized. Even then, open textbooks will likely be only one of many players in the curricular materials market.