This analysis examines sustainability in scholarly communications platforms, suggesting hidden assumptions about business models and funding dynamics.
The title here is a little deceptive. Because, clearly, I do know what we mean when we call scholarly communications platforms 'sustainable'. We mean that they will, through one business model or another, manage to maintain themselves without research funders ploughing endless cash into them. Yet, I've been thinking about this recently and it comes with several pre-assumptions that are quite tricky to unpick.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Martin Paul Eve (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: