Avy kaufman biography of mahatma gandhi

You are arrange authenticated disrespect view description full text of that chapter express grief article.

manchesterhive desires a payment or say to to touch the jampacked text beat somebody to it books insignificant journals - to portrait content delay you/your foundation should keep access give somebody no option but to, please splice in quantity your collection system reproach with your personal username and password.

If you blank authenticated existing think give orders should conspiracy access be proof against this designation, please touch your librarian.

Non-subscribers can openly search say publicly site, viewpoint abstracts/extracts squeeze download select front see end matter. 

Institutions can sect access cross your mind individual titles; please come into contact with manchesterhive@manchester.ac.uk for pricing options.

ACCESS TOKENS

If you suppress an attain token convey this content, you crapper redeem that via say publicly link below:

Redeem token

A few years ago the director of a university press told me that her goal was “to save the monograph.” “Which one?” I responded. It was an impolitic remark, but it helped to make the point that books perform all kinds of tasks, and when we say we want to “save” the book, it is reasonable to ask if some of those tasks could usefully be performed in other ways, ways that are better, faster, and cheaper. And then when we subtract all those tasks, what is left is what the book will be doing in the years ahead. (Note: much of this blog post was prefigured in an essay I wrote for First Monday in 2003.)

This is not the way books are typically discussed, especially when the debate is about the book’s future. Living in the Age of Handwringing as we do, it’s easy to fall in with the conventional thinking that the world is going to hell in a handbasket and the book — or, rather, The Book — is going down with it; indeed, the collapse of The Book may be a contributive factor. In this scenario The Book represents intellectual culture and its demise means that Western Civilization is inexorably sliding into the sewer of Twitter and Instagram. (Journalist to Mahatma Gandhi: What do you think of Western civilization? Gandhi: I think it would be a good idea.) Whatever is the fat

•

Another publisher is threatening to sue a librarian over comments made on the librarian’s blog.

In this case, the publisher is the OMICS Publishing Group, and its target is Jeffrey Beall, whose widely-read Scholarly Open Access blog lists publishers (including OMICS) that Beall considers to be questionable or out-and-out “predatory.” For the most part, these are publishers working under an open access (OA) model that exacts up-front charges from authors rather than access fees from readers, thus making the journals freely available to the public. There are both advantages and disadvantages to such a model; one downside is that it offers incentives to establish cheaply-produced and low-quality journals, accepting author submissions indiscriminately and with minimal editorial input, thus allowing the publisher to flood the market with free but shoddy material after taking its revenue up front.

Beall’s list has generated lots of comment and more than a little dyspepsia on the part of publishers included in it. (Earlier this year, he was threatened with a lawsuit by the Canadian Center of Science and Education, as well.) But OMICS’s response is unusual in several respects.

First, the group is asking for damages in the amount of $1 billion, as well