Joseph Esposito, writing for the Scholarly Kitchen, asks "Are university presses better off now than they were four years ago?" Esposito analyzes the journal publishing hierarchy and suggests that the business model of journal publishing is scale (which puts smaller publishers, smaller journals, and smaller society-published journals at a disadvantage). Details here: http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/06/12/are-university-presses-bet...

Coniam, David. Exploring reviewer reactions to manuscripts submitted to academic journals. System: An International Journal of Educational Technology and Applied Linguistics, 2012 Dec; 40 (4): 544-553. Abstract: This paper extends a previous study (Coniam, 2011) into a corpus of manuscript (MS) reviews conducted for the journal System by one reviewer in the eight-year period 2003–2011. The current paper highlights additional facets of the review process that focus on issues involving authors themselves. The study examines two related sets of research questions. The first set concerns the relationship between verdict (whether the MS is accepted or rejected) with the geographical area in which the study is situated and with the ‘International English’ quality of submissions. The second set explores the distribution of comments across the different categories of analysis together with the ratio of negative to positive comments produced by the reviewer. The paper closes with the reassurance to authors that reviews appear to be written individually and with respect for the MS in hand, rather than external criteria or biases– at least from the perspective of the current reviewer. Authors contemplating article submission may wish to consider the extent to which the number of negative comments in a particular category reflects aspects of their own writing in that area.

Alice Meadows reporting on the Society for Scholarly Publishing's recent annual conference acknowledges that open access is now a given but it doesn't always live up to its hype. Identifying some of the challenges, Meadows suggests solutions: "Gathering more rigorous, scientific metrics – qualitative and quantitative – on OA publishing would be a good start, including monitoring the impact of changes to the traditional publishing model on all stakeholders and across all disciplines within the global scholarly community. Equally important is listening – and responding to – the needs and concerns of all stakeholders, positive and negative. I’m happy to say that this does seem to be happening more – see, for example, the recent announcement about CHORUS. This proposed project would bring together publishers, societies, vendors, and other stakeholders in a partnership to provide public access to the results of US-funded research, as required by the February 22 OSTP memo – just the sort of collaboration that will be increasingly important in future." Details here: http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/06/13/open-access-keeping-it-real/