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.
 |
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 |
|
|
| “ |
@JessieNYC I have no problem believing open-access leads to more citations, though I think partly affect of who publishes there. |
|
|
| “ |
Seems to compare online vs print, not open-access RT @JessieNYC: OTOH, Questioning the ‘Citation Advantage’ (2011) http://bit.ly/hM3JEj |
|
|
| “ |
I just don’t see why scientific articles should be offensively pay-walled when academics write for free & other academics review for free. |
|
|
| “ |
Yes, databases cost money but that can be solved. For-profit publishers w/ legacy monopolies are profiting at the expense of scholarship. |
|
|
| “ |
Academia really needs the tenured-folk to take the lead on developing high-quality, open-access, peer-reviewed journals. |
|
|
| “ |
Some exist but the untenured cannot, by themselves, get them established. We tend not to be as prominent & risking tenure is very costly. |
|
|
| “ |
.@techsoc Yeah, lots of problems still in that research. The question I was wondering about was blogging as citation advantage. |
|
|
| “ |
.@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 Costs 40-50K$ 2 run a free journal. Managing (grad student) editor to herd authors, referees; released editor’s time; offc xpnses |
|
|
| “ |
totally agree @techsoc, est scholars need to take lead. this is good ex http://t.co/CGCqr1G cc @JessieNYC |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
| “ |
4 me personally it is as important to publish in classical journals and new formats like Triple Canopy cc @techsoc @JessieNYC |
|
|
| “ |
Universities shld allocate $$$ to a consortium to lead the open-access movement. Save all in the long run from price-gouging from publishers |
|
|
| “ |
Same here. RT @BiellaColeman: 4 me personally it is as important to publish in classical journals and new formats like Triple Canopy |
|
|
| “ |
I swear I heard a presentation at ASA a couple of years ago that linked blogging + citations in trad’l journals. @BiellaColeman @techsoc |
|
|
| “ |
.@BiellaColeman I’m mixed on the open-access (OA) b/c cost is often prohibitive, esp for those of us at public institutions. @techsoc |
|
|
| “ |
@BiellaColeman @techsoc @JessieNYC academic publishing totally f-ed. Next week I will have journal article out; paywalled, rsch done in 2008 |
|
|
| “ |
@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. |
|
|
| “ |
@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 |
|
|
| “ |
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 |
|
|
| “ |
@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 @techsoc @JessieNYC thats other thing- gotta do the peer review thing first, almost for sure, or be open to diff career path |
|
|
| “ |
@Chanders Right, I think that’s the situation most academic bloggers face. @BiellaColeman @techsoc |
|
|
| “ |
@Chanders: @BiellaColeman @JessieNYC Peer-review and open access are not opposites. Q is legacy journals vs newer, open-access ones. |
|
|
| “ |
@Nick_Lalone Most trad’l advice in academia is = don’t blog abt work.”Stealing” is an interesting issue. @BiellaColeman @techsoc @Chanders |
|
|
| “ |
.@BiellaColeman I tend to work on parallel tracks, both/and peer-reviewed, trad’l + OAblogging, tho’ hard to get balance @Chanders @techsoc |
|
|
| “ |
@techsoc @Chanders @JessieNYC 4 sure. but like you said, you need prestige for them to work and MUCH better design |
|
|
| “ |
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? |
|
|
| “ |
@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 @barrywellman yes. Univ could spend 50k on hosting one journal or millions on buying others. Prisoners Dilemma |
|
|
| “ |
@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 |
|
|
| “ |
@academicdave: @techsoc @barrywellman Need a consortium to solve the collective action problem. |
|
|
| “ |
@JessieNYC @Nick_Lalone @techsoc @Chanders hybrid formats like New Everyday and Social Text Periscope imp in this regard. |
|
|
| “ |
@techsoc @Nick_Lalone 1.can’t steal sharks being given away. 2. Blogging is better protection than secrecy, time stamped proof of idea |
|
|
| “ |
@techsoc @Nick_Lalone Should be can’t steal what is being given away |
|
|
| “ |
@techsoc @Nick_Lalone best to blog after your paper is “accepted”? |
|
|
| “ |
@academicdave: @Nick_Lalone Guess depends on field. But I thought of it first means very little to career if other guy has Nature article. |
|
|
| “ |
I’ve turned blog posts into drafts for journal articles a couple of times now. Blogging as rough drafts. @techsoc @BiellaColeman @Chanders |
|
|
| “ |
@techsoc #icantbelievewearestilldebatingthisshit #academicsareaconservativebunch |
|
|
| “ |
@techsoc @academicdave I’ve taken to blogging about source searches and theory surrounding what i’m working on instead of direct referencing |
|
|
| “ |
@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” |
|
|
| “ |
@techsoc Language Learning & Technology (journal) has been published free online since 1997, and has a high impact factor |
|
|
| “ |
RT @markwarschauer: @techsoc Language Learning & Technology (journal) has been published free online since 1997, & has a high impact factor |
|
|
| “ |
@techsoc have you seen @mendeley they got some interesting things going on |
|
|
| “ |
@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. |
|
|
| “ |
@techsoc LLT receives US Dept. of Ed grant funding to hire admin support; otherwise it would be difficult. Money is issue for free journals. |
|
|
| “ |
.@mendeley is for-profit. Fire to frying pan. RT @simoncast: @techsoc have you seen @mendeley they got some interesting things going on |
|
|
| “ |
@jonbecker Only few OA and they don’t count as much as legacy journals. |
|
|
| “ |
@techsoc I think there are more than a few. And if everyone stopped publishing in legacy journals, the OA journals would have to “count” |
|
|
| “ |
@techsoc where are our professional associations (other than in bed with the publishers)? Why don’t they make OA resolutions? |
|
|
| “ |
@jonbecker It would work if tenured, most established folk took the lead. Very risk for someone like me, untenured. |
|
|
| “ |
@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.” |
|
|
| “ |
@techsoc @simoncast #mendeley isn’t a publishing equivalent though, and we’re very focussed on supporting OA journal content. |
|
|
| “ |
@jonbecker @techsoc I did the same. Willing to die on that hill. |
|
|
| “ |
@subcide not being a publishing equivalent is why I think mendeley is disruptive @techsoc |
|
|
| “ |
.@subcide @mendeley is FOR PROFIT & proprietary. They’ll do what they want once they are established enough. NOT where academics should go. |
|
|
| “ |
Yes yes yes! RT @techsoc: Academia really needs tenured-folk 2 take lead on developing high-quality, open-access, peer-reviewed journals. |
|
|
| “ |
@techsoc Maybe I don’t get the difference between Mendeley, and things like WordPress, Twitter, or Youtube, all of which are also for profit |
|
|
| “ |
@techsoc which all serve a useful purpose, and are tools academics can (and do) leverage. |
|
|
| “ |
.@zotero is non-profit, academic & excellent. MT @subcide: I don’t get the diff. b/w Mendeley, & WordPress, TW, Youtube, also for profit |
|
|
| “ |
.@subcide Academics MUST avoid locking databases, libraries, notes, etc. into FOR-PROFIT & PROPRIETARY platforms like Mendeley. |
|
|
| “ |
@techsoc @zotero @subcide Even though #Zotero is non-profit, I believe #Mendeley is easier to use than #Zotero, and more sophisticated. |
|
|
| “ |
@techsoc @subcide What’s the problem with #Mendeley? |
|
|
| “ |
.@subcide Our print past is already locked in proprietary, for-profit platforms. We should NOT also lock our future. Mendeley is dangerous. |
|
|
| “ |
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 using caps and saying “must” isn’t an argument. Data within Mendeley can be taken out at any time, and is accessible via API. |
|
|
| “ |
@techsoc Well in theory, so could #zotero? Keeping aside all politics, which one is better to use and has more advanced features? |
|
|
| “ |
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 |
|
|
| “ |
.@cambgirl @zotero is open-source and maintained by an academic consortium. If they went crazy for some reason, we could fork dev & survive. |
|
|
| “ |
.@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 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. |
|
|
| “ |
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 thanks for this discussion on mendeley. I hadn’t heard of it and it’s a serious issue. |
|
|
| “ |
@techsoc I understand your concerns, but making money and serving our user base’s needs are not mutually exclusive. |
|
|
| “ |
@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. |
|
|
| “ |
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 totally agree they can be. No question there. It’s a concern we can only address by being as open as we can. |
|
|
| “ |
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. |
|
|
| “ |
.@subcide Look at legacy publishers –for-profit, lock-in & proprietary just like Mendeley. They do make a profit at the expense user-base. |
|
|
| “ |
@techsoc yes, I agree. But you can’t say something is inherently bad because there’s a possibility of something bad happening. |
|
|
| “ |
.@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 Yeah absolutely, I was just trying to understand your position so that we can try to address the concerns behind them. Thanks 🙂 |
|
|
| “ |
.@techsoc All your citation data can be exported or pulled out of your local SQLite database. No lock-in w/ Mendeley |
|
|
| “ |
@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 I hate that Mendeley’s not open but it is so superior to Zotero for sharing. |
|
|
| “ |
@techsoc so could any non-profit – it is about the people not whether for profit or non-profit @subcide |
|
|
| “ |
@techsoc comparison is mostly incidental to their recent API collab, but how might you say Mendeley is any better/worse than PLoS? |
|
|
| “ |
@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? |
|
|
| “ |
@katypearce May be but we’ll be in trouble if sharing happens on a platform dedicated to making money. Could replicate the print nightmare. |
|
|
| “ |
@katypearce Academics should campaign/push/pay/contribute to Zotero etc. & avoid non-open source, for-profit platforms. Honeytrap:-) |
|
|
| “ |
@simoncast A non-profit ruled by an academic consortium has no incentive to squeeze academics to make money. Mendeley does. |
|
|
| “ |
@lucyskylar @thesiswhisperer @techsoc @Anthroprobably i need to look at one that is i think 4 now free but all online (not ideal) |
|
|
| “ |
@techsoc you have to much faith in academic character. Power corrupts the same. The difference will be the squeezing is professional |
|
|
| “ |
@techsoc I tried to make zotero work for me so many times. 🙁 |
|
|
| “ |
@techsoc the only real freedom is a standard data format. A database is immaterial to control |
|
|
| “ |
@techsoc @jasonHoyt “why not OSS” is all but rhetorical – rights reserved to monetize premium SaaS model. |
|
|
| “ |
@simoncast I agree standard data format would be best. Still, potential for problems so much less w academic/non-profit/open-source venues. |
|
|
| “ |
@techsoc @jasonHoyt if mendeley turns evil, geeks will be around to help migrate from SQLite to zotero. for this reason, they won’t. |
|
|
| “ |
@techsoc @subcide Not just even. Not just a little better. But so much better that you become like YouTube for scholars. At LEAST. |
|
|
| “ |
@techsoc given the nature of academic professional rivalries I struggle to agree. |
|
|
| “ |
@tcarmody I would not want the future of academic digital sharing to be owned by one for-profit company. Open-source at minimum. |
|
|
| “ |
@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 @jasonHoyt I speak from (but not on behalf of) an OSS project that badly needs SaaS model for sustainability. |
|
|
| “ |
@techsoc @subcide google (gmail), twitter, github, etc are also for-profit and proprietary. Yet people use ’em. |
|
|
| “ |
@katypearce What doesn’t work for you? I use it fairly productively. Agree needs improv. but not willing to become hostage to corporation |
|
|
| “ |
@techsoc @jasonHoyt the cloud architecture is exactly why it’d be a considerable burden on them to go OSS. imagine dropbox doing so. |
|
|
| “ |
@CaptSolo We are talking about the future of digital academic sharing. Should avoid corporate monopoly while there is time. |
|
|
| “ |
@axfelix And that’s what the road to another corporate monopoly potentially squeezing scholarly practices to make money is paved. No thanks. |
|
|
| “ |
@techsoc APA formatting was poor (always had to fix), like Mendeley’s group sharing options. |
|
|
| “ |
@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? |
|
|
| “ |
@techsoc @jasonHoyt fair enough – I’m glad someone is still indignant 🙂 Zotero is great too, but they’re clearly squeezed for development. |
|
|
| “ |
@axfelix And hence why academics should put their weight, data and effort behind it and other projects like it. |
|
|
| “ |
@katypearce Sorry! I don’t doubt that it could improve but academics need to put weight & effort behind projects for us, not profit. |
|
|
| “ |
@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 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. |
|
|
| “ |
@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 For the moment. Anything could change anytime. You get paid by Mendeley and have no power to promise me about the future. |
|
|
| “ |
@techsoc This debate has danced around the impact programmatic expression and the lack of computer literacy within academia. Disappointing. |
|
|
| “ |
@techsoc – The belief non-profits run by academic consortiums have no incentive to squeeze academics 4 money doesn’t grok w/Journals |
|
|
| “ |
@techsoc – Totally sympathetic to the @Zotero argument (and hope one day to switch back), but right now @Mendeley “better” for my needs |
|
|
| “ |
@techsoc private company provided services (e.g., Mendeley) can be good and useful. not necessarily evil. |
|
|
| “ |
@techsoc most of online web services are proprietary. would be nice to have them open source and volunteer driven, but we still use ’em. |
|
|
| “ |
@techsoc – I totally agree about paying for @Zotero (I wished they shifted their plan to it – especially if it helped them release faster) |
|
|
| “ |
@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? |
|
|
| “ |
@techsoc – Beyond citation/doc sftwr, I’d luv a non-profit version of “Evernote” w/tight legal protections of data & kick ass encription |
|
|
| “ |
@techsoc Mendeley is a good thing (compared to status quo). we just need to hold them to openness, open APIs, linked data, … |
|
|
| “ |
@mattBernius @techsoc You *can* pay for Zotero: see the two buttons at the top of zotero.org (add storage and donate). |
|
|
| “ |
@geopoetic @SMEasterbrook. It really is time we took a stand against these outrageous academic paywalls. |
|
|
| “ |
Scientists tell us they want public to understand their disciplines. But the journals charge $30, $50 or more per article. |
|
|
| “ |
@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. |
|
|
| “ |
@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. |
|
|
| “ |
My guess is that the adverts probably pay most of their costs anyway. Can anyone enlighten us? |
|
|
| “ |
@GeorgeMonbiot Results of publicly funded research should be freely available to the public. No printing costs, dont see how fees justified |
|
|
| “ |
@GeorgeMonbiot Just discussed it on Twitter w/ some academics yesterday. Issue is legacy publishers have monopoly lock on best journals. |
|
|
| “ |
@Georgemonbiot Many scientists/academics are fuming at this situation. Unfortunately, it’s a collective action problem. But it is changing. |
|
|
| “ |
@GeorgeMonbiot Just discussed it on Twitter w/ some academics yesterday. Issue is legacy publishers have monopoly lock on best journals. |
|
|
| “ |
I’m not blaming the scientists for this. But journals must be coining it. Pay nothing for papers, charge fortune to read them. |
|
|
| “ |
Elsevier, Springer etc make Rupert Murdoch look like a socialist. |
|
|
| “ |
@GeorgeMonbiot Heard about page charges? Lots of US journals charge the lead author about $70 per printed page. Sucks on every level. |
|
|
| “ |
They even the charge the full whack for papers 30 years old! And letters. $31 to read 200 words. #OpenAccessScience |
|
|
| “ |
@GeorgeMonbiot Yes, for-profit “academic” publishers are highly-profitable and rates increase outrageously every year. Libraries drowning. |
|
|
| “ |
@GeorgeMonbiot Yes, for-profit “academic” publishers are highly-profitable and rates increase outrageously every year. Libraries drowning. |
|
|
| “ |
@GeorgeMonbiot Here’s what we need. Scientists should post their articles on own pages. At worst, they can post the pre-print, 100% legal. |
|
|
| “ |
@GeorgeMonbiot They can also post the published version often within a year, legally, or immediately. I doubt publishers will sue everyone. |
|
|
| “ |
@GeorgeMonbiot Univs. need a consortium to put resources to create high-quality open-access journals rather than paying these profiteers. |
|
|
| “ |
Any inside info on production costs and profits of academic journals gratefully recvd. In confidence via george@monbiot.info if you prefer. |
|
|
| “ |
@GeorgeMonbiot Yesterday, @barrywellman, very-experienced, well-respected academic, said on Twitter that it costs 40-50K annually. |
|
|
| “ |
.@techsoc No, I said Free online journals probably cost 40K to run. Basically for Managing Editor $$ & for Editor’s course release |
|
|
| “ |
@GeorgeMonbiot See, @barrywellman’s tweet for correction/clarification. |
|
|
| “ |
@GeorgeMonbiot Also, another big problem is for-profit publishers push “bundles” on libraries–i.e. if you want Nature, gotta buy 400 others |
|
|
| “ |
@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. |
|
|
| “ |
@grant_mcdermott: recent Economist article: economist.com/node/18744177 “Elsevier… made… an operating-profit margin of 36%.” |
|
|
 |
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. |
|
|
| “ |
@GeorgeMonbiot There’s an interesting plot on publication costs on my blog at http://goo.gl/Jcg57 You can get the source there. |
|
|
| “ |
Great info coming in folks, thanks. I feel an article coming on. |
|
|
 |
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. |
|
|
| “ |
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. |
|
|
| “ |
2. The journals pay NOTHING for scientific research and NOTHING for peer review. Their costs are confined to skeleton ed staff + production |
|
|
| “ |
3. Those costs are probably covered by advertising. If not, they need new business managers. |
|
|
| “ |
4. They then charge libraries – ie the taxpayer – a humungous fee for access to the science we’ve already paid for. |
|
|
| “ |
5. They charge individuals proportionately even more, again for access to science we’ve already paid for. |
|
|
| “ |
6. If someone isn’t salting away millions, I’m a banana. Any of these steps wrong? |
|
|
| “ |
Oh yes. 7. @jimineep: The journals also charge the scientist for publishing with them, i think you forgot that part |
|
|
| “ |
@GeorgeMonbiot Scientists responsible for journal content, publishers responsible for profits. Publishers are not accountable at all. |
|
|
| “ |
@GeorgeMonbiot I’ve rarely seen prominent advertisements in academic journals and would not want to. Otherwise, yep. It’s incredible. |
|
|
| “ |
@GeorgeMonbiot Every academic should create a homepage and posts all their articles. 100% legal w/ pre-print, 100% moral w/ post-print. |
|
|
| “ |
@SMEasterbrook @GeorgeMonbiot I can think of several commercial ones that do charge, often charge more for colour figs, extra pages etc. |
|
|
| “ |
@GeorgeMonbiot Standard contract is all rights in one year. Ppl can post immediately, temporarily take it down if asked w/in first 12 months |
|
|
| “ |
@SMEasterbrook @GeorgeMonbiot @jimineep Instead of being gouged by publishers, univs should assume journal costs upfront. Cheaper, moral. |
|
|
| “ |
@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! |
|
|
| “ |
@GeorgeMonbiot Also, people should search through Google Scholar which pulls in the PDFs posted by academics posted in their own homepages. |
|
|
| “ |
@GeorgeMonbiot But also note – some learned societies (good guys) share the profits and many are kept afloat by their publishing activities |
|
|
| “ |
@techsoc @GeorgeMonbiot I think academia.edu allows you to do this, excellent idea |
|
|
| “ |
.@techsoc I forgot to add $$ for copyeditor & for webmaster. Figure another $20K. In short, “free” costs $$s |
|
|
| “ |
@GeorgeMonbiot Also, people should search through Google Scholar which pulls in the PDFs posted by academics posted in their own homepages. |
|
|
| “ |
@techsoc @GeorgeMonbiot Every academic should have access to an institutional repository; usually managed/housed at library. |
|
|
| “ |
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) |
|
|
| “ |
@GeorgeMonbiot RT @barrywellman: @techsoc I forgot to add $$ for copyeditor & for webmaster. Figure another $20K. In short, “free” costs $$s |
|
|
| “ |
I like this idea but doubt the publishing housing will argee. RT @techsoc: @GeorgeMonbiot RT @barrywellman: @t… (cont) http://deck.ly/~EtQ92 |
|
|
| “ |
@barrywellman @techsoc The issue may be who pays not whether it is free. Reader pay? Institution pay? someone else? |
|
|
| “ |
@techsoc How do you solve ‘certification’ issue, which Academic Journals provide now, with self-posting? How do ‘new’ scholars get noticed? |
|
|
| “ |
@jobermallow Self-posting peer-reviewed articles. Nothing different regards to certification, just changing the accessibility. |
|
|
| “ |
@techsoc But if academic publishing is in trouble, what can ‘new’ scholars turn to to achieve that ‘certification’ journals now provide? |
|
|
| “ |
@techsoc BTW, I totally agree with academic self-posting. Greater access & circulation prompt more refined iterations of arguments, ideas. |
|
|
| “ |
@GeorgeMonbiot Taylor & Francis subs increased avg 12% at my library last year. One title costs went up by 42%. I shit you not. |
|
|
| “ |
@techsoc @GeorgeMonbiot and many publishers now allow postprints on non-commercial websites |
|
|
| “ |
.@techsoc My own feeling is that there are too many unread journals out there: really vanity presses, vita-padders. |
|
|
| “ |
@barrywellman Completely agree. I’ve seen many bad examples. Challenge is to get out from under drastic paywalls w/out further diffusing. |
|
|
| “ |
+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) |
|
|
| “ |
.@techsoc ideally academics should also post anon’d raw results, and articles written-not-published (like @jpom – http://bit.ly/jjpcPD) |
|
|
| “ |
.@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 Academics have full rights to pre-print and almost always full-rights to self-archive post-print w/in 12 months. |
|
|
| “ |
@techsoc right – it was post-print I wasn’t sure about. Thx! |
|
|
| “ |
.@techsoc I’ve started 2 journals, Connections & City & Community – but each had an existing cadre of scholars/potential readers. |
|
|
| “ |
@techsoc Lots of open-access preprint archives exist already, and this is the norm in physics. A FAQ: http://t.co/0d58CCc |
|
|
| “ |
@techsoc agreed. I recently posted articles on Scribd and the editor of the journal had it removed! I wrote it for Chrissake! @alanalentin |
|
|
| “ |
@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 @georgemonbiot the problem with that would be the difficulty of finding them. Now if each University would use their website… |
|
|
| “ |
@nadinehengen Google Scholar pulls them together. RT @nadinehengen: @georgemonbiot problem w/ that would be the difficulty of finding them. |
|
|
| “ |
@techsoc I’m planning to post mine via my public Facebook page, starting with my thesis after I’m done in a few weeks. |
|
|
| “ |
@techsoc Oh and on Academia.edu. Great website. |
|
|
| “ |
@techsoc Hmm, it may be legal w/ pre-print, but most academic journals will not published pre-released articles #AsFarAsIKnow |
|
|
| “ |
@eharrisondotorg I’m talking abt posting once accepted &/or published. That’s totally cool , no req to hold back pre-print post acceptance. |
|
|
| “ |
@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 |
|
|
| “ |
@techsoc points to consider: does Google Scholar require registration? Is it wise to rely on one US company to index all research long-term? |
|
|
powered by Storify
Comments 3
geekofhearts — July 3, 2011
hiya,
you missed out my later replies about what Donald Knuth wrote about this in 2003:
http://t.co/5lJ57ef
in case you didn't know, he built TeX, which LaTeX is based on.
Jessie Daniels (@JessieNYC) — July 5, 2011
Thanks for compiling & archiving this ~ I'd missed a bunch of while looking away from Twitter.
Network Society & Manuel Castells « Designing Culture — October 23, 2011
[...] the traditional channels of the academy. (Incidentally, an interesting Twitter conversation on open access publishing and limitations in academia was archived and sent to me on Twitter the other day). Manuel Castells is co-editor of the International [...]