The Impact of Disruptive and Sustaining Digital Technologies on Scholarly Journals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clayton M. Christensen's The Innovator's Dilemma is viewed within academic circles as one of the most important management books of the last twenty years. Christensen described the impact that disruptive and sustaining technologies had on various industries. Yet no one has investigated disruptive and sustaining technologies by applying Christensen's analytical framework to scholarly journals. This paper begins by discussing Christensen's principles of disruptive and sustaining technologies and the response that other intellectuals have had to their explanatory power and possibility. The paper next discusses how scholarly publishers are being affected by disruptive or sustaining technologies, specifically digital journal operations (e.g., open access, preprints, library publishing operations, and open-resource repositories). What strategies, then, can journal publishers, university presses, or academic societies take to preserve their pivotal role when scholarly journal publishing continues to change in response to sustaining and disruptive digital technologies?
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.021 | 0.136 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.031 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".