Phil Davis, the writer of this impact entry, questions the sustainability of, what he calls, AO Mega Journals. AO Megas are journals that have no real content area to focus on, are generally open access, and prove an alternative to traditional publication. He believes that the impact factors and decline in citations of the site may cause concern for people looking to publish their work. He also addresses the issue of smaller, more meticulous, and content focused journals. This article was written in 2010, and although PLoS One didn't experience the slow deflation of the "citation bubble," (it is still considered the larges scholarly journal), he makes good points on the adavantages and disadvantages of using the "large blob."

CNI's focus is to transfer scholarship into the digital age. It states that it is made of 200 institutions from universities, publishing, and libraries that must pay membership dues. CNI is supported soley through the membership dues. IT encourages collaboration throughout its own community as well as outside of it.

Peerj offers three different types of memberships, each with their own advantages and restrictions, but all are for life. They emphasis that they do not publish based on possible "impact" or "interest," but focus on scientific soundness. They also offers "No questions asked" waivers for people in certain countries.

Scholastica is a server that allows people to publish journals and articles. The main point is to bring together "editors, authors, and reviewers" to one area. It also emphasizes the idea that using their system makes the process of getting material published in and peer reviewed is much simpler, less time consuming, and generates genuine interest and collaboration between all parties. It is open for all subjects, and even welcomes people to create a journal in a content area that may be lacking. It is a paid membership, but also provides options of community support with their "The Conversation," what I am assuming is a question-answer section.

PeerJ is an open access journal that researchers in Biological and Medical Sciences publish their works for a one time membership fee, which covers their lifetime. The PeerJ, Inc. has two different publication venues: PeerJ is a peer reviewed journal and PeerJ Preprint is where they can post their unfinished works for feedback.

arXiv is another open access collection/publication (?) maintained by Cornell University. The publications are based primarily in any field of science and mathematics (such as work on K-Theory and quantitative biology). It does not state if the articles are peer reviewed, but it does say that "Submissions...must conform of Cornell University academic standards." I don't know if this means that all of the work in the collection is by students and teachers, or if the were able to scan in articles from the library.

PLOS One is a open access, peer reviewed journal set up specifically for scientists. PLOS One does not pick and choose which papers are important. It peer reviews all articles/journals to make sure all of the material is sound, then publishes it. This means, that any work that is holds validity and is scientifically sound will get published. Because PLOS One is open access, it allows anyone to download, reprint, copy, etc... as long as a credit is given without fees or other charges. It also keeps the writer/researchers right of ownership.

Cohen blogs about the emergence of several new ways of publishing within the scientific field that is still considered scholarly and many times peer reviewed. Some of the websites mentioned offer to publish a writer's work for a lifetime, for a few dollars. The emergence of these self-publishing, academic, scientific sites also shows a slight shift in philosophy. By restricting the publication through certain channels, the publishing companies and universities were choosing what will be the topic "of next year." Some times they were right, sometimes they were wrong, but either way, great and important papers were lost because they were not considered "the next big thing" or they are too "normal."

Creative Commons is a website, or tool, that you can use to create your our copyright restrictions. Instead of have a traditional blanket copyright, creative commons allows publishers/creators personalize the copyright and protection of their material. For example, a person who uses Creative Commons to set up restrictions for their photographs can allow other the repost and cite his photos. However, it restricts companies from using it in ads (like on facebook).

Cohen cites PressForward as a model for the "catching the good" 'style' publication. He believes that scholarly journals should "catch" works that they think should see a wider audience, as opposed to reject and criticize those that are deemed "bad." He emphasizes that there is no submission process. He argues that this form encourages publication and creativity.

I linked this page from ADHO. It is a descriptive article of Gregory Chatonsky's project (?), The Subnetwork. A majority of the article focuses on the abstract relationships that Chatonsky uses to connect many aspects of his work, including participants' interaction (passive and active), animation, and general presentation of the work. It also notes that Chatonsky use of 'metaphor' goes beyond the accepted academic definition of the term, and uses it as an active 'member' or 'tool' to connect the text/concept to the presentation.

Stanford's Lit. Lab is a collection of short-term research-based projects/experiments. It is a new 'project,' created in 2010 by Matthew Jockers and Franco Moretti. They make a note that all projects are collaborative, even if only one author is cited. The best way to describe this project is a collection of 'mini-research-based' projects/experiments presented in/through a "digital and quantitative nature."