However, we can also consider disruptive<\/i> in terms of Clayton Christensen\u2019s model of disruptive innovation<\/a>, first introduced in his 1997 book “The Innovator\u2019s Dilemma,”<\/i>\u00a0where \u201can innovation transforms an existing market or sector by introducing simplicity, convenience, accessibility, and affordability where complication and high cost are the status quo.\u201d Netflix\u2019s disruptive transformation of the DVD-rental industry, for example, killed Blockbuster Video and the corner video store before moving-on to leverage video streaming technology to make the transaction even simpler.<\/p>\n Open access certainly checks all the boxes on \u201cconvenience, accessibility, and affordability\u201d as compared to the traditional academic publishing model, but the debate about simplicity versus complicated is still ongoing. Traditional journals<\/a> weren\u2019t complicated, just prohibitively expensive for both individual and institutional subscribers! Research funding plays a vital role here.<\/p>\n To be sure, online access is easier than waiting for a printed journal to show-up in your mailbox, but that\u2019s more about accessibility than simplicity. Prevailing confusion over the benefits of “green” versus “gold”<\/a>\u00a0Open Access models suggests that there is still work to be done on the complication issue. And with the development of mega journals<\/a> to support the more esoteric topics in the Open Access space, the general direction of this new market is still unfolding.<\/p>\n Switching the revenue generation model from subscribers to authors via article processing charges<\/a> was certainly creative. But with that switch came a new stakeholder dynamic as these new customers started making demands.<\/p>\n Sacrificing prestige in favor of a wider audience for their work was, for the majority of Open Access enthusiasts, a fair deal, but there were additional expectations of this new model of academic publishing<\/a> that were unexpected. Many took the position that: \u201cIf we\u2019re going to transform this archaic model, let\u2019s do it properly and fix everything!\u201d which led to expectations of faster peer review<\/a> times, greater transparency of revenues, and post-publication peer review<\/a>.<\/p>\n All these innovations are currently in process, but not to the satisfaction of many critics of open access!<\/p>\nDisruptive Open Access<\/h2>\n
A Different Mix of Stakeholders<\/h2>\n
Open Access Vs. MOOC: Is MOOC Equally Disruptive?<\/h2>\n
![](\"https:\/\/www.enago.com\/academy\/wp-content\/plugins\/pdf-generator-for-wp\/admin\/src\/images\/PDF_Tray.svg\" "\\"Generate")
<\/a>\n\t\t<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"