<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Publishing Online vs. Traditional Academic Publishers</title>
	<atom:link href="http://mattleifer.wordpress.com/2007/11/05/publishing-online-vs-traditional-academic-publishers/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://mattleifer.wordpress.com/2007/11/05/publishing-online-vs-traditional-academic-publishers/</link>
	<description>Foundations of Quantum Theory</description>
	<pubDate>Sun, 20 Jul 2008 14:33:42 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=MU</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Response from Chicago &#171; Quantum Quandaries</title>
		<link>http://mattleifer.wordpress.com/2007/11/05/publishing-online-vs-traditional-academic-publishers/#comment-7788</link>
		<dc:creator>Response from Chicago &#171; Quantum Quandaries</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Nov 2007 23:40:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mattleifer.wordpress.com/2007/11/05/publishing-online-vs-traditional-academic-publishers/#comment-7788</guid>
		<description>[...] Quantum Quandaries Foundations of Quantum Theory      &#171; Publishing Online vs. Traditional Academic&#160;Publishers [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Quantum Quandaries Foundations of Quantum Theory      &laquo; Publishing Online vs. Traditional Academic&nbsp;Publishers [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ian Durham</title>
		<link>http://mattleifer.wordpress.com/2007/11/05/publishing-online-vs-traditional-academic-publishers/#comment-7621</link>
		<dc:creator>Ian Durham</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Nov 2007 21:13:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mattleifer.wordpress.com/2007/11/05/publishing-online-vs-traditional-academic-publishers/#comment-7621</guid>
		<description>OK, let's try this again (my first attempt at a post vanished into cryberspace).

Anyway, my colleague and friend Jeff Schnick has recently published &lt;a href="http://www.anselm.edu/internet/physics/cbphysics/" rel="nofollow"&gt;an introductory physics textbook&lt;/a&gt; under the Creative Commons License and has come up with his own simple but ingenious marketing system - he's arranged it so that the book's website is among the top two or three hits (usually number one) when someone googles "calculus-based physics."

I find the cost of books, particularly academic and research books, to be outrageous.  A nice &lt;i&gt;used&lt;/i&gt; copy of JJ Sakurai's text on modern QM, for example, might cost you $90.  The problem stems from a) too many glossy, full-color pages in some texts (though not in Sakurai which is black-and-white), b) few paperback editions, and c) corporate greed (don't even get me started on journals).

Personally, I like Cambridge University Press and have noticed more people choosing to publish through them.  Most of their books are available in paperback and their paperback editions hold up better than some hardbacks from other publishers.  My only complaint is the low quality of photos in some reprints (e.g. Moore's bio of Schrödinger).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>OK, let&#8217;s try this again (my first attempt at a post vanished into cryberspace).</p>
<p>Anyway, my colleague and friend Jeff Schnick has recently published <a href="http://www.anselm.edu/internet/physics/cbphysics/" rel="nofollow">an introductory physics textbook</a> under the Creative Commons License and has come up with his own simple but ingenious marketing system - he&#8217;s arranged it so that the book&#8217;s website is among the top two or three hits (usually number one) when someone googles &#8220;calculus-based physics.&#8221;</p>
<p>I find the cost of books, particularly academic and research books, to be outrageous.  A nice <i>used</i> copy of JJ Sakurai&#8217;s text on modern QM, for example, might cost you $90.  The problem stems from a) too many glossy, full-color pages in some texts (though not in Sakurai which is black-and-white), b) few paperback editions, and c) corporate greed (don&#8217;t even get me started on journals).</p>
<p>Personally, I like Cambridge University Press and have noticed more people choosing to publish through them.  Most of their books are available in paperback and their paperback editions hold up better than some hardbacks from other publishers.  My only complaint is the low quality of photos in some reprints (e.g. Moore&#8217;s bio of Schrödinger).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matthew Leifer</title>
		<link>http://mattleifer.wordpress.com/2007/11/05/publishing-online-vs-traditional-academic-publishers/#comment-7608</link>
		<dc:creator>Matthew Leifer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Nov 2007 15:51:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mattleifer.wordpress.com/2007/11/05/publishing-online-vs-traditional-academic-publishers/#comment-7608</guid>
		<description>I did actually contact Chicago and just forgot to include them in the list.  

No responses so far, but I agree that they might not have definite policies, so they might not want to make a statement at this level of generality.  Also, I suspect they might either ignore me or pass me off to their PR people, since I said I might quote their responses on this blog.  I can always follow up on this at the March meeting if I get no responses.

As for book projects, it's a bit early to say anything definite, but it will be a topic of a future blog post.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I did actually contact Chicago and just forgot to include them in the list.  </p>
<p>No responses so far, but I agree that they might not have definite policies, so they might not want to make a statement at this level of generality.  Also, I suspect they might either ignore me or pass me off to their PR people, since I said I might quote their responses on this blog.  I can always follow up on this at the March meeting if I get no responses.</p>
<p>As for book projects, it&#8217;s a bit early to say anything definite, but it will be a topic of a future blog post.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ernesto</title>
		<link>http://mattleifer.wordpress.com/2007/11/05/publishing-online-vs-traditional-academic-publishers/#comment-7605</link>
		<dc:creator>Ernesto</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Nov 2007 13:17:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mattleifer.wordpress.com/2007/11/05/publishing-online-vs-traditional-academic-publishers/#comment-7605</guid>
		<description>Hi Matt,

I'm looking forward to hearing from them, but I suspect that many of them might not have definite policies on some of these issues, working on a case-by-case basis. I was curious about the same things, as I have just published a short book on quantum computing (in Portuguese).
What book projects have you been thinking about?
Cheers,
Ernesto.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Matt,</p>
<p>I&#8217;m looking forward to hearing from them, but I suspect that many of them might not have definite policies on some of these issues, working on a case-by-case basis. I was curious about the same things, as I have just published a short book on quantum computing (in Portuguese).<br />
What book projects have you been thinking about?<br />
Cheers,<br />
Ernesto.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ponder Stibbons</title>
		<link>http://mattleifer.wordpress.com/2007/11/05/publishing-online-vs-traditional-academic-publishers/#comment-7598</link>
		<dc:creator>Ponder Stibbons</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Nov 2007 02:10:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mattleifer.wordpress.com/2007/11/05/publishing-online-vs-traditional-academic-publishers/#comment-7598</guid>
		<description>I'd be interested to know how the University of Chicago Press would respond. They are the largest university press in the US, after all.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;d be interested to know how the University of Chicago Press would respond. They are the largest university press in the US, after all.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
