12 may 2026

Lewis, D.W. (2020) A Bibliographic Scan of Digital Scholarly Communication Infrastructure. Atlanta, GA: Educopia Institute.

Lewis’s A Bibliographic Scan of Digital Scholarly Communication Infrastructure maps the fragmented ecosystem of tools, services, projects and organisations that sustain digital scholarship, presenting scholarly communication not as a single publishing pipeline but as a distributed infrastructure spanning research workflows, repositories, data, publishing, discovery, assessment and preservation. The report identifies 206 projects, distinguishing nonprofit and commercial actors, and situates them within a broader concern: whether the future of scholarly communication will be governed by market consolidation or by community-controlled open systems. Its central argument is that digital scholarship depends upon infrastructure whose sustainability, ownership and interoperability are as consequential as the publications and datasets it circulates. Lewis shows that commercial providers increasingly seek end-to-end integration across the research workflow, raising the risk that universities may lose control over core academic functions, while open and nonprofit initiatives face collective-action problems, unstable funding and the difficulty of long-term governance. The workflow map near the beginning of the report visually synthesises this ecology by placing researcher tools, repositories, publishing systems, discovery services, assessment mechanisms, preservation projects and general services within the scholarly process. As a case-study synthesis, the report’s treatment of repositories, open access publishing, research data management and preservation reveals that openness alone is insufficient unless supported by durable business models, shared standards, community investment and institutional commitment. Ultimately, Lewis concludes that scholarly communication must be understood as a collective infrastructural problem: the academy’s ability to preserve autonomy, equity and openness depends on coordinated funding, bibliodiversity and governance structures that protect knowledge production from commercial capture while sustaining the tools on which research now relies.