In a post titled “Why Journals are the Dinosaurs of Academia,” I recently considered whether traditional journals may, increasingly, be serving to hinder the communication of ideas, rather than optimally facilitating such exchanges.  I argued two main points:  1.)  We need to get beyond the notion that the mere fact that journals is printed makes it somehow more legitimate than digital-only journals.  2.) In the age of the Internet, conventional articles may no longer be the most efficient way to communicate some ideas (which was the original justification for making journals the centerpiece of disciplinary discourses).

Over the past few days, Twitter has been abuzz with academics discussing another, related issue: Whether disciplinary discourses are better facilitated by non-profit, open-access journals or proprietary, pay-walled journals.  I have archived that discussion below and will follow up with my own thoughts later in the week.

Sharing Open Data Increases Citations http://bit.ly/mGV6n0 (from 2007) cc: @techsoc
JessieNYC
June 29, 2011
On the other hand: Questioning the ‘Citation Advantage’ (2011) http://bit.ly/hM3JEj @techsoc
JessieNYC
June 29, 2011
News: Questioning the ‘Citation Advantage’ – Inside Higher Ed 

What if everything you knew about the incentives for publishing in an open-access journal was wrong? That is the provocative idea put forward in a new working paper by two scholars of scholarly publishing: Mark McCabe, an adjunct professor at the University of Michigan’s School of Information, and Christopher Snyder, an economics professor at Dartmouth College.
Unfortunately, regression does not control for author prominence. RT @JessieNYC: Sharing Open Data Increases Citations http://bit.ly/mGV6n0
techsoc
June 29, 2011
@JessieNYC I have no problem believing open-access leads to more citations, though I think partly affect of who publishes there.
techsoc
June 29, 2011
Seems to compare online vs print, not open-access RT @JessieNYC: OTOH, Questioning the ‘Citation Advantage’ (2011) http://bit.ly/hM3JEj
techsoc
June 29, 2011
I just don’t see why scientific articles should be offensively pay-walled when academics write for free & other academics review for free.
techsoc
June 29, 2011
Yes, databases cost money but that can be solved. For-profit publishers w/ legacy monopolies are profiting at the expense of scholarship.
techsoc
June 29, 2011
Academia really needs the tenured-folk to take the lead on developing high-quality, open-access, peer-reviewed journals.
techsoc
June 29, 2011
Some exist but the untenured cannot, by themselves, get them established. We tend not to be as prominent & risking tenure is very costly.
techsoc
June 29, 2011
.@techsoc Yeah, lots of problems still in that research. The question I was wondering about was blogging as citation advantage.
JessieNYC
June 29, 2011
.@JessieNYC I’m going to blog more about my academic research. I do it just to share but will see if any overlap b/w blog commenters & cites
techsoc
June 29, 2011
.@techsoc Costs 40-50K$ 2 run a free journal. Managing (grad student) editor to herd authors, referees; released editor’s time; offc xpnses
barrywellman
June 29, 2011
totally agree @techsoc, est scholars need to take lead. this is good ex http://t.co/CGCqr1G cc @JessieNYC
BiellaColeman
June 29, 2011
HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory 

As every experienced fieldworker knows, the most difficult task in social anthropological fieldwork is to determine the meaning of a few key words, upon an understanding of which the success of the whole investigation depends. – E.E.
.@barrywellman Considering how many million of ever-increasing dollars univ libraries pay each year, this should be doable w leadership.
techsoc
June 29, 2011
4 me personally it is as important to publish in classical journals and new formats like Triple Canopy cc @techsoc @JessieNYC
BiellaColeman
June 29, 2011
Universities shld allocate $$$ to a consortium to lead the open-access movement. Save all in the long run from price-gouging from publishers
techsoc
June 29, 2011
Same here. RT @BiellaColeman: 4 me personally it is as important to publish in classical journals and new formats like Triple Canopy
techsoc
June 29, 2011
I swear I heard a presentation at ASA a couple of years ago that linked blogging + citations in trad’l journals. @BiellaColeman @techsoc
JessieNYC
June 29, 2011
.@BiellaColeman I’m mixed on the open-access (OA) b/c cost is often prohibitive, esp for those of us at public institutions. @techsoc
JessieNYC
June 29, 2011
@BiellaColeman @techsoc @JessieNYC academic publishing totally f-ed. Next week I will have journal article out; paywalled, rsch done in 2008
Chanders
June 29, 2011
@BiellaColeman @techsoc @JessieNYC now- because I do a shit ton of extra work to get my ideas out, folks know ideas in there. But still.
Chanders
June 29, 2011
@techsoc @JessieNYC was told not to blog about my work but i ignored it. didn’t think anything of it til stuff started being stolen
Nick_Lalone
June 29, 2011
What abt this? RT @Nick_Lalone: was told not to blog abt my work, i ignored it. didn’t think anything of it til stuff started being stolen
techsoc
June 29, 2011
@Chanders @techsoc @JessieNYC honestly, i worked my ASS off 4 2-3 years mostly on the peer reviewed stuff and only now i feel more free
BiellaColeman
June 29, 2011
@BiellaColeman @techsoc @JessieNYC thats other thing- gotta do the peer review thing first, almost for sure, or be open to diff career path
Chanders
June 29, 2011
@Chanders Right, I think that’s the situation most academic bloggers face. @BiellaColeman @techsoc
JessieNYC
June 29, 2011
@Chanders: @BiellaColeman @JessieNYC Peer-review and open access are not opposites. Q is legacy journals vs newer, open-access ones.
techsoc
June 29, 2011
@Nick_Lalone Most trad’l advice in academia is = don’t blog abt work.”Stealing” is an interesting issue. @BiellaColeman @techsoc @Chanders
JessieNYC
June 29, 2011
.@BiellaColeman I tend to work on parallel tracks, both/and peer-reviewed, trad’l + OAblogging, tho’ hard to get balance @Chanders @techsoc
JessieNYC
June 29, 2011
@techsoc @Chanders @JessieNYC 4 sure. but like you said, you need prestige for them to work and MUCH better design
BiellaColeman
June 29, 2011
I got some Marx lying around here if you’d like. 🙂 MT @techsoc: I just don’t see why scientific articles should be offensively pay-walled?
academicdave
June 29, 2011
@JessieNYC I’ve blogged abt ideas which I could have turned into journal articles w more work. Still could, I suppose. Time is biggest cost.
techsoc
June 29, 2011
@techsoc @barrywellman yes. Univ could spend 50k on hosting one journal or millions on buying others. Prisoners Dilemma
academicdave
June 29, 2011
@JessieNYC @BiellaColeman @Chanders Not asking for short tenure clock at UNC b/c of this. Trading time for security so can do trad+new media
techsoc
June 29, 2011
@academicdave: @techsoc @barrywellman Need a consortium to solve the collective action problem.
techsoc
June 29, 2011
@JessieNYC @Nick_Lalone @techsoc @Chanders hybrid formats like New Everyday and Social Text Periscope imp in this regard.
BiellaColeman
June 29, 2011
@techsoc @Nick_Lalone 1.can’t steal sharks being given away. 2. Blogging is better protection than secrecy, time stamped proof of idea
academicdave
June 29, 2011
@techsoc @Nick_Lalone Should be can’t steal what is being given away
academicdave
June 29, 2011
@techsoc @Nick_Lalone best to blog after your paper is “accepted”?
nathanjurgenson
June 29, 2011
@academicdave: @Nick_Lalone Guess depends on field. But I thought of it first means very little to career if other guy has Nature article.
techsoc
June 29, 2011
I’ve turned blog posts into drafts for journal articles a couple of times now. Blogging as rough drafts. @techsoc @BiellaColeman @Chanders
JessieNYC
June 29, 2011
@techsoc #icantbelievewearestilldebatingthisshit #academicsareaconservativebunch
academicdave
June 29, 2011
@techsoc @academicdave I’ve taken to blogging about source searches and theory surrounding what i’m working on instead of direct referencing
Nick_Lalone
June 29, 2011
@academicdave @techsoc in case you missed it, and FWIW, here’s my bit: http://bit.ly/scholar20. Now writing a follow-up on “impact factor”
jonbecker
June 29, 2011
UCEA || University Council for Educational Administration – Special_Feature_52_2_PCP – Scholar 2.0: Public Intellectualism Meets the Open Web 

NOTE 1: As a little background, I fought against including any text in the print version of the UCEA Review. I have become so used to publishing directly to the Web that I felt shackled by the constraints of the print medium.
@techsoc Language Learning & Technology (journal) has been published free online since 1997, and has a high impact factor
markwarschauer
June 29, 2011
RT @markwarschauer: @techsoc Language Learning & Technology (journal) has been published free online since 1997, & has a high impact factor
techsoc
June 29, 2011
@techsoc have you seen @mendeley they got some interesting things going on
simoncast
June 29, 2011
@techsoc seems to me there are plenty. See e.g. doaj.org. So, why reinvent the wheel? Folks should just submit to existing OA journals.
jonbecker
June 29, 2011
@techsoc LLT receives US Dept. of Ed grant funding to hire admin support; otherwise it would be difficult. Money is issue for free journals.
markwarschauer
June 29, 2011
.@mendeley is for-profit. Fire to frying pan. RT @simoncast: @techsoc have you seen @mendeley they got some interesting things going on
techsoc
June 29, 2011
@jonbecker Only few OA and they don’t count as much as legacy journals.
techsoc
June 29, 2011
@techsoc I think there are more than a few. And if everyone stopped publishing in legacy journals, the OA journals would have to “count”
jonbecker
June 29, 2011
@techsoc where are our professional associations (other than in bed with the publishers)? Why don’t they make OA resolutions?
jonbecker
June 29, 2011
@jonbecker It would work if tenured, most established folk took the lead. Very risk for someone like me, untenured.
techsoc
June 29, 2011
@techsoc I’m in the same boat. I told my dept. chair that I will ONLY publish in OA journals. It’s a hill on which I’m willing to “die.”
jonbecker
June 29, 2011
@techsoc @simoncast #mendeley isn’t a publishing equivalent though, and we’re very focussed on supporting OA journal content.
subcide
June 29, 2011
@jonbecker @techsoc I did the same. Willing to die on that hill.
academicdave
June 29, 2011
@subcide not being a publishing equivalent is why I think mendeley is disruptive @techsoc
simoncast
June 29, 2011
.@subcide @mendeley is FOR PROFIT & proprietary. They’ll do what they want once they are established enough. NOT where academics should go.
techsoc
June 29, 2011
Yes yes yes! RT @techsoc: Academia really needs tenured-folk 2 take lead on developing high-quality, open-access, peer-reviewed journals.
DiscourseMarker
June 29, 2011
@techsoc Maybe I don’t get the difference between Mendeley, and things like WordPress, Twitter, or Youtube, all of which are also for profit
subcide
June 29, 2011
@techsoc which all serve a useful purpose, and are tools academics can (and do) leverage.
subcide
June 29, 2011
.@zotero is non-profit, academic & excellent. MT @subcide: I don’t get the diff. b/w Mendeley, & WordPress, TW, Youtube, also for profit
techsoc
June 29, 2011
.@subcide Academics MUST avoid locking databases, libraries, notes, etc. into FOR-PROFIT & PROPRIETARY platforms like Mendeley.
techsoc
June 29, 2011
@techsoc @zotero @subcide Even though #Zotero is non-profit, I believe #Mendeley is easier to use than #Zotero, and more sophisticated.
cambgirl
June 29, 2011
@techsoc @subcide What’s the problem with #Mendeley?
cambgirl
June 29, 2011
.@subcide Our print past is already locked in proprietary, for-profit platforms. We should NOT also lock our future. Mendeley is dangerous.
techsoc
June 29, 2011
For-profit, not open-source, propriety. Can do whatever they want to squeeze you in future. RT @cambgirl: What’s the problem with #Mendeley?
techsoc
June 29, 2011
@techsoc using caps and saying “must” isn’t an argument. Data within Mendeley can be taken out at any time, and is accessible via API.
subcide
June 29, 2011
@techsoc Well in theory, so could #zotero? Keeping aside all politics, which one is better to use and has more advanced features?
cambgirl
June 29, 2011
They can change that anytime RT @subcide: using caps isn’t an argument. Data in Mendeley can be taken out at any time, is accessible via API
techsoc
June 29, 2011
.@cambgirl @zotero is open-source and maintained by an academic consortium. If they went crazy for some reason, we could fork dev & survive.
techsoc
June 29, 2011
.@subcide I understand you work for @mendeley–point is you have no power to promise anything. Its owners want to make money. They will try
techsoc
June 29, 2011
@techsoc So can any non-profit solution, and being a business is an excellent reason to *not* want to piss off your users for no reason.
subcide
June 29, 2011
So is squeezing yr locked-in customers. RT @subcide: Being a business is an excellent reason to *not* want to piss off users for no reason.
techsoc
June 29, 2011
@techsoc thanks for this discussion on mendeley. I hadn’t heard of it and it’s a serious issue.
substitute
June 29, 2011
@techsoc I understand your concerns, but making money and serving our user base’s needs are not mutually exclusive.
subcide
June 29, 2011
@techsoc and if you’re going to argue that they are, then that’s interesting to me, and I’d like to see that qualified.
subcide
June 29, 2011
But can be. We are not in control w mendeley . MT @subcide: .. making money & serving our user base’s needs are not mutually exclusive.
techsoc
June 29, 2011
@techsoc totally agree they can be. No question there. It’s a concern we can only address by being as open as we can.
subcide
June 29, 2011
Mendeley at least goes open-source, we can talk. RT @subcide: It’s a concern we can only address by being as open as we can.
techsoc
June 29, 2011
.@subcide Look at legacy publishers –for-profit, lock-in & proprietary just like Mendeley. They do make a profit at the expense user-base.
techsoc
June 29, 2011
@techsoc yes, I agree. But you can’t say something is inherently bad because there’s a possibility of something bad happening.
subcide
June 29, 2011
.@subcide I can say Mendeley to be be avoided unless it gives up the power to squeeze us through lock-in. It’s refusing so far to do so.
techsoc
June 29, 2011
@techsoc Yeah absolutely, I was just trying to understand your position so that we can try to address the concerns behind them. Thanks 🙂
subcide
June 29, 2011
.@techsoc All your citation data can be exported or pulled out of your local SQLite database. No lock-in w/ Mendeley
jasonhoyt
June 29, 2011
@katypearce I don’t object to paying for projects. I’d pay for Zotero. I just object to proprietary for-profit corporations gaining control.
techsoc
June 29, 2011
@techsoc I hate that Mendeley’s not open but it is so superior to Zotero for sharing.
katypearce
June 29, 2011
@techsoc so could any non-profit – it is about the people not whether for profit or non-profit @subcide
simoncast
June 29, 2011
@techsoc comparison is mostly incidental to their recent API collab, but how might you say Mendeley is any better/worse than PLoS?
axfelix
June 29, 2011
@jasonHoyt For the moment. Neither you nor can any employee can give me a iron-clad guarantee this won’t change. Why not open-source?
techsoc
June 29, 2011
@katypearce May be but we’ll be in trouble if sharing happens on a platform dedicated to making money. Could replicate the print nightmare.
techsoc
June 29, 2011
@katypearce Academics should campaign/push/pay/contribute to Zotero etc. & avoid non-open source, for-profit platforms. Honeytrap:-)
techsoc
June 29, 2011
@simoncast A non-profit ruled by an academic consortium has no incentive to squeeze academics to make money. Mendeley does.
techsoc
June 29, 2011
@lucyskylar @thesiswhisperer @techsoc @Anthroprobably i need to look at one that is i think 4 now free but all online (not ideal)
BiellaColeman
June 29, 2011
@techsoc you have to much faith in academic character. Power corrupts the same. The difference will be the squeezing is professional
simoncast
June 29, 2011
@techsoc I tried to make zotero work for me so many times. 🙁
katypearce
June 29, 2011
@techsoc the only real freedom is a standard data format. A database is immaterial to control
simoncast
June 29, 2011
@techsoc @jasonHoyt “why not OSS” is all but rhetorical – rights reserved to monetize premium SaaS model.
axfelix
June 29, 2011
@simoncast I agree standard data format would be best. Still, potential for problems so much less w academic/non-profit/open-source venues.
techsoc
June 29, 2011
@techsoc @jasonHoyt if mendeley turns evil, geeks will be around to help migrate from SQLite to zotero. for this reason, they won’t.
axfelix
June 29, 2011
@techsoc @subcide Not just even. Not just a little better. But so much better that you become like YouTube for scholars. At LEAST.
tcarmody
June 29, 2011
@techsoc given the nature of academic professional rivalries I struggle to agree.
simoncast
June 29, 2011
@tcarmody I would not want the future of academic digital sharing to be owned by one for-profit company. Open-source at minimum.
techsoc
June 29, 2011
@axfelix There’s the sharing part in the cloud. There would be friction & legacy power. Why not avoid the clash? Seen it happen w journals
techsoc
June 29, 2011
@techsoc @jasonHoyt I speak from (but not on behalf of) an OSS project that badly needs SaaS model for sustainability.
axfelix
June 29, 2011
@techsoc @subcide google (gmail), twitter, github, etc are also for-profit and proprietary. Yet people use ’em.
CaptSolo
June 29, 2011
@katypearce What doesn’t work for you? I use it fairly productively. Agree needs improv. but not willing to become hostage to corporation
techsoc
June 29, 2011
@techsoc @jasonHoyt the cloud architecture is exactly why it’d be a considerable burden on them to go OSS. imagine dropbox doing so.
axfelix
June 29, 2011
@CaptSolo We are talking about the future of digital academic sharing. Should avoid corporate monopoly while there is time.
techsoc
June 29, 2011
@axfelix And that’s what the road to another corporate monopoly potentially squeezing scholarly practices to make money is paved. No thanks.
techsoc
June 29, 2011
@techsoc APA formatting was poor (always had to fix), like Mendeley’s group sharing options.
katypearce
June 29, 2011
@techsoc OS is great and everything but will you reprogram these tools towork how you need them too instead of how others think they should?
Nick_Lalone
June 29, 2011
@techsoc @jasonHoyt fair enough – I’m glad someone is still indignant 🙂 Zotero is great too, but they’re clearly squeezed for development.
axfelix
June 29, 2011
@axfelix And hence why academics should put their weight, data and effort behind it and other projects like it.
techsoc
June 29, 2011
@katypearce Sorry! I don’t doubt that it could improve but academics need to put weight & effort behind projects for us, not profit.
techsoc
June 29, 2011
@katypearce I don’t object to paying for projects. I’d pay for Zotero. I just object to proprietary for-profit corporations gaining control.
techsoc
June 29, 2011
@techsoc if we make it a moral issue, OA is more important here than OSS. it’s -hard- to build academic OSS dev communities. progress wins.
axfelix
June 29, 2011
@techsoc @cambgirl That’s not correct. The Mendeley API is open, so there’s no lock-in, plus you can export your data at any time.
mrgunn
June 29, 2011
@mrgunn For the moment. Anything could change anytime. You get paid by Mendeley and have no power to promise me about the future.
techsoc
June 29, 2011
@techsoc This debate has danced around the impact programmatic expression and the lack of computer literacy within academia. Disappointing.
Nick_Lalone
June 29, 2011
@techsoc – The belief non-profits run by academic consortiums have no incentive to squeeze academics 4 money doesn’t grok w/Journals
mattBernius
June 29, 2011
@techsoc – Totally sympathetic to the @Zotero argument (and hope one day to switch back), but right now @Mendeley “better” for my needs
mattBernius
June 29, 2011
@techsoc private company provided services (e.g., Mendeley) can be good and useful. not necessarily evil.
CaptSolo
June 29, 2011
@techsoc most of online web services are proprietary. would be nice to have them open source and volunteer driven, but we still use ’em.
CaptSolo
June 29, 2011
@techsoc – I totally agree about paying for @Zotero (I wished they shifted their plan to it – especially if it helped them release faster)
mattBernius
June 29, 2011
@techsoc in fact, volunteer-driven service w/o financial backing might be less trustful. what if it just goes down and your data with it?
CaptSolo
June 29, 2011
@techsoc – Beyond citation/doc sftwr, I’d luv a non-profit version of “Evernote” w/tight legal protections of data & kick ass encription
mattBernius
June 29, 2011
@techsoc Mendeley is a good thing (compared to status quo). we just need to hold them to openness, open APIs, linked data, …
CaptSolo
June 29, 2011
@mattBernius @techsoc You *can* pay for Zotero: see the two buttons at the top of zotero.org (add storage and donate).
stakats
June 29, 2011
@geopoetic @SMEasterbrook. It really is time we took a stand against these outrageous academic paywalls.
GeorgeMonbiot
June 30, 2011
Scientists tell us they want public to understand their disciplines. But the journals charge $30, $50 or more per article.
GeorgeMonbiot
June 30, 2011
@GeorgeMonbiot to be fair, majority of scientists hate that. It’s the publishers. There’ll be big move to online, open, very soon I think.
davidjcraven
June 30, 2011
@GeorgeMonbiot I’m a PhD student. It makes me mad that in order to get my work recognised I have to give copyright to for profit journals.
SciPolTech
June 30, 2011
My guess is that the adverts probably pay most of their costs anyway. Can anyone enlighten us?
GeorgeMonbiot
June 30, 2011
@GeorgeMonbiot Results of publicly funded research should be freely available to the public. No printing costs, dont see how fees justified
SciPolTech
June 30, 2011
@GeorgeMonbiot Just discussed it on Twitter w/ some academics yesterday. Issue is legacy publishers have monopoly lock on best journals.
techsoc
June 30, 2011
@Georgemonbiot Many scientists/academics are fuming at this situation. Unfortunately, it’s a collective action problem. But it is changing.
techsoc
June 30, 2011
@GeorgeMonbiot Just discussed it on Twitter w/ some academics yesterday. Issue is legacy publishers have monopoly lock on best journals.
techsoc
June 30, 2011
I’m not blaming the scientists for this. But journals must be coining it. Pay nothing for papers, charge fortune to read them.
GeorgeMonbiot
June 30, 2011
Elsevier, Springer etc make Rupert Murdoch look like a socialist.
GeorgeMonbiot
June 30, 2011
@GeorgeMonbiot Heard about page charges? Lots of US journals charge the lead author about $70 per printed page. Sucks on every level.
DrMarkBurnley
June 30, 2011
They even the charge the full whack for papers 30 years old! And letters. $31 to read 200 words. #OpenAccessScience
GeorgeMonbiot
June 30, 2011
@GeorgeMonbiot Yes, for-profit “academic” publishers are highly-profitable and rates increase outrageously every year. Libraries drowning.
techsoc
June 30, 2011
@GeorgeMonbiot Yes, for-profit “academic” publishers are highly-profitable and rates increase outrageously every year. Libraries drowning.
techsoc
June 30, 2011
@GeorgeMonbiot Here’s what we need. Scientists should post their articles on own pages. At worst, they can post the pre-print, 100% legal.
techsoc
June 30, 2011
@GeorgeMonbiot They can also post the published version often within a year, legally, or immediately. I doubt publishers will sue everyone.
techsoc
June 30, 2011
@GeorgeMonbiot Univs. need a consortium to put resources to create high-quality open-access journals rather than paying these profiteers.
techsoc
June 30, 2011
Any inside info on production costs and profits of academic journals gratefully recvd. In confidence via george@monbiot.info if you prefer.
GeorgeMonbiot
June 30, 2011
@GeorgeMonbiot Yesterday, @barrywellman, very-experienced, well-respected academic, said on Twitter that it costs 40-50K annually.
techsoc
June 30, 2011
.@techsoc No, I said Free online journals probably cost 40K to run. Basically for Managing Editor $$ & for Editor’s course release
barrywellman
June 30, 2011
@GeorgeMonbiot See, @barrywellman’s tweet for correction/clarification.
techsoc
June 30, 2011
@GeorgeMonbiot You can DM me but I can’t DM you? Twitter issue? Anyway- http://chronicle.com.edu/article/U-of-California-Tries-Just/65823/
techsoc
June 30, 2011
@GeorgeMonbiot Also check this out — http://t.co/wlpOxqJ
techsoc
June 30, 2011
@GeorgeMonbiot Also, another big problem is for-profit publishers push “bundles” on libraries–i.e. if you want Nature, gotta buy 400 others
techsoc
June 30, 2011
@GeorgeMonbiot And then they raise the prices of those bundles every year. And change the content so huge costs to just figuring it all out.
techsoc
June 30, 2011
@grant_mcdermott: recent Economist article: economist.com/node/18744177 “Elsevier… made… an operating-profit margin of 36%.”
GeorgeMonbiot
June 30, 2011
Of goats and headaches 

HOW much would you pay for an annual subscription to Small Ruminant Research, Queueing Systems or Headache? University librarians pay rather a lot. In Britain, 65% of the money spent on content in academic libraries goes on journals, up from a little more than half ten years ago.
@GeorgeMonbiot This is inevitably going to be phased out but in order of decades unless someone really organizes an effective campaign now.
techsoc
June 30, 2011
@GeorgeMonbiot There’s an interesting plot on publication costs on my blog at http://goo.gl/Jcg57 You can get the source there.
bnlawrence
June 30, 2011

Great info coming in folks, thanks. I feel an article coming on.
GeorgeMonbiot
June 30, 2011

@GeorgeMonbiot details on cost models of journal publishers here: http://bit.ly/4Nfkka
SMEasterbrook
June 30, 2011

The Business of Academic Publishing 

Glenn S. McGuigan, Business and Public Administration Reference Librarian Penn State Harrisburg, USAgxm22@psu.edu Robert D. Russell Department of Management, School of Business Administration, Penn State Harrisburg, USArdr7@psu.edu Academic libraries cannot pay the regularly escalating subscription prices for scholarly journals.

@techsoc But would the public understand their writing? Some of it is hardly accessible.
antonioaprado
June 30, 2011

Ok, this is how it looks to me. Let me know if I’ve got it wrong. 1. The public pays for scientific research, as we should.
GeorgeMonbiot
June 30, 2011

2. The journals pay NOTHING for scientific research and NOTHING for peer review. Their costs are confined to skeleton ed staff + production
GeorgeMonbiot
June 30, 2011

3. Those costs are probably covered by advertising. If not, they need new business managers.
GeorgeMonbiot
June 30, 2011

4. They then charge libraries – ie the taxpayer – a humungous fee for access to the science we’ve already paid for.
GeorgeMonbiot
June 30, 2011

5. They charge individuals proportionately even more, again for access to science we’ve already paid for.
GeorgeMonbiot
June 30, 2011

6. If someone isn’t salting away millions, I’m a banana. Any of these steps wrong?
GeorgeMonbiot
June 30, 2011

Oh yes. 7. @jimineep: The journals also charge the scientist for publishing with them, i think you forgot that part
GeorgeMonbiot
June 30, 2011

@GeorgeMonbiot Scientists responsible for journal content, publishers responsible for profits. Publishers are not accountable at all.
DrMarkBurnley
June 30, 2011

@GeorgeMonbiot I’ve rarely seen prominent advertisements in academic journals and would not want to. Otherwise, yep. It’s incredible.
techsoc
June 30, 2011

@GeorgeMonbiot Every academic should create a homepage and posts all their articles. 100% legal w/ pre-print, 100% moral w/ post-print.
techsoc
June 30, 2011

@techsoc @GeorgeMonbiot my supervisor does this. http://t.co/f1ih23q
geekofhearts
June 30, 2011

@SMEasterbrook @GeorgeMonbiot I can think of several commercial ones that do charge, often charge more for colour figs, extra pages etc.
jimineep
June 30, 2011

@GeorgeMonbiot Standard contract is all rights in one year. Ppl can post immediately, temporarily take it down if asked w/in first 12 months
techsoc
June 30, 2011

@SMEasterbrook @GeorgeMonbiot @jimineep Instead of being gouged by publishers, univs should assume journal costs upfront. Cheaper, moral.
techsoc
June 30, 2011

@GeorgeMonbiot Don’t forget that most academic editors are also unpaid – least not by the publishers – we do it for the fun and the glory!
RobbieAMcDonald
June 30, 2011

@GeorgeMonbiot Also, people should search through Google Scholar which pulls in the PDFs posted by academics posted in their own homepages.
techsoc
June 30, 2011

@GeorgeMonbiot But also note – some learned societies (good guys) share the profits and many are kept afloat by their publishing activities
RobbieAMcDonald
June 30, 2011

@techsoc @GeorgeMonbiot I think academia.edu allows you to do this, excellent idea
domcavlan
June 30, 2011

.@techsoc I forgot to add $$ for copyeditor & for webmaster. Figure another $20K. In short, “free” costs $$s
barrywellman
June 30, 2011

@GeorgeMonbiot Also, people should search through Google Scholar which pulls in the PDFs posted by academics posted in their own homepages.
techsoc
June 30, 2011

@techsoc @GeorgeMonbiot Every academic should have access to an institutional repository; usually managed/housed at library.
janeschmidt
June 30, 2011

Academics should have a website & posts all their articles. 100% legal w/ pre-print, 100% moral w/ post-print (legal w/in 12 months anyway)
techsoc
June 30, 2011

@GeorgeMonbiot RT @barrywellman: @techsoc I forgot to add $$ for copyeditor & for webmaster. Figure another $20K. In short, “free” costs $$s
techsoc
June 30, 2011

I like this idea but doubt the publishing housing will argee. RT @techsoc: @GeorgeMonbiot RT @barrywellman: @t… (cont) http://deck.ly/~EtQ92
Jwillia2
June 30, 2011

@barrywellman @techsoc The issue may be who pays not whether it is free. Reader pay? Institution pay? someone else?
jovanevery
June 30, 2011

@techsoc How do you solve ‘certification’ issue, which Academic Journals provide now, with self-posting? How do ‘new’ scholars get noticed?
jobermallow
June 30, 2011

@jobermallow Self-posting peer-reviewed articles. Nothing different regards to certification, just changing the accessibility.
techsoc
June 30, 2011

@techsoc But if academic publishing is in trouble, what can ‘new’ scholars turn to to achieve that ‘certification’ journals now provide?
jobermallow
June 30, 2011

@techsoc BTW, I totally agree with academic self-posting. Greater access & circulation prompt more refined iterations of arguments, ideas.
jobermallow
June 30, 2011

@GeorgeMonbiot Taylor & Francis subs increased avg 12% at my library last year. One title costs went up by 42%. I shit you not.
julieakon
June 30, 2011

@techsoc @GeorgeMonbiot and many publishers now allow postprints on non-commercial websites
dirkvl
June 30, 2011

.@techsoc My own feeling is that there are too many unread journals out there: really vanity presses, vita-padders.
barrywellman
June 30, 2011

@barrywellman Completely agree. I’ve seen many bad examples. Challenge is to get out from under drastic paywalls w/out further diffusing.
techsoc
June 30, 2011

+1 RT @techsoc: Academics should have websites, post all their articles. 100% legal w/pre-print, 100% moral w/post-print (legal w/in 12 mos)
jaykaydee
June 30, 2011

.@techsoc ideally academics should also post anon’d raw results, and articles written-not-published (like @jpom – http://bit.ly/jjpcPD)
jaykaydee
June 30, 2011

.@techsoc I love this idea & wondered abt legal issues. Now, if we can just get that whole “website” idea 2 catch on w/ academics…
JessieNYC
June 30, 2011

.@JessieNYC Academics have full rights to pre-print and almost always full-rights to self-archive post-print w/in 12 months.
techsoc
June 30, 2011

@techsoc right – it was post-print I wasn’t sure about. Thx!
JessieNYC
June 30, 2011

.@techsoc I’ve started 2 journals, Connections & City & Community – but each had an existing cadre of scholars/potential readers.
barrywellman
June 30, 2011

@techsoc Lots of open-access preprint archives exist already, and this is the norm in physics. A FAQ: http://t.co/0d58CCc
benjamingeer
June 30, 2011

@techsoc a directory of open-access repositories: http://t.co/3nPIYX9
benjamingeer
June 30, 2011

@techsoc agreed. I recently posted articles on Scribd and the editor of the journal had it removed! I wrote it for Chrissake! @alanalentin
mcincrisis
June 30, 2011

@mcincrisis Put it in your own homepage. That’s called ‘self-archiving’ and will be hard for them to touch. At a minimum, the pre-print.
techsoc
June 30, 2011

@techsoc @georgemonbiot the problem with that would be the difficulty of finding them. Now if each University would use their website…
nadinehengen
June 30, 2011

@nadinehengen Google Scholar pulls them together. RT @nadinehengen: @georgemonbiot problem w/ that would be the difficulty of finding them.
techsoc
June 30, 2011

@techsoc I’m planning to post mine via my public Facebook page, starting with my thesis after I’m done in a few weeks.
antonioaprado
June 30, 2011

@techsoc Oh and on Academia.edu. Great website.
antonioaprado
June 30, 2011

@techsoc Hmm, it may be legal w/ pre-print, but most academic journals will not published pre-released articles #AsFarAsIKnow
EHarrisonDotOrg
June 30, 2011

@eharrisondotorg I’m talking abt posting once accepted &/or published. That’s totally cool , no req to hold back pre-print post acceptance.
techsoc
June 30, 2011

@techsoc mind you, I’m not saying online is worse than journals, just that it will bring it’s own set of challenges that need to be overcome
nadinehengen
June 30, 2011

@techsoc points to consider: does Google Scholar require registration? Is it wise to rely on one US company to index all research long-term?
nadinehengen
June 30, 2011

powered by Storify