Re: [Air-L] open-access is the future: boycott locked-down academic journals
This one has prompted me to respond! ... This is such an odd view of "powerful academics". It is precisely the "powerful academics", aka tenured and/or full Professors, who can afford to go to these new venues. Moreover, if work is not getting full play in journals -- because of the invisibility and inaccessibilty of print journals or fee-based online journals -- then why wouldn't we all flock to online publishing to gain the 'power' of widespread access. So, why don't we? -- because, believe it or not, many of us actually have put time and energy into journals -- setting them up, reviewing papers, considering the standards of good research, argumentation and knowledge, and wanting to make it worth someone taking the time to open up a journal, and for those outside our discipline to take us seriously as a discipline. Yes, it is a gatekeeper role, and I'm proud to be part of it as should be all others who strive for quality in their work and *their* journals. /Caroline ---- Original message ----
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2008 16:37:15 -0500 From: Christian Nelson <xianknelson@mac.com> Subject: Re: [Air-L] open-access is the future: boycott locked-down academic journals To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org
We're still talking about open-source journals that would utilize some sort of reader rating system to make editorial decisions, right? Why would powerful academics leave the current set of journals, over which they have total editorial control, for journals over which they would have considerably less control, considering that journal article publication is the main source of academic capital for most scholars? No one ever gives up power willingly.
On Feb 8, 2008, at 4:25 PM, Jimmy Wales wrote:
So yes, I agree: luring big names is part of what has to be done. I just don't find that particularly daunting.
The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
---------------------------------------- Caroline Haythornthwaite Associate Professor Graduate School of Library and Information Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 501 East Daniel St., Champaign IL 61820
On Feb 9, 2008, at 10:32 AM, Caroline Haythornthwaite wrote:
This one has prompted me to respond! ... This is such an odd view of "powerful academics". It is precisely the "powerful academics", aka tenured and/or full Professors, who can afford to go to these new venues.
See my response to a recent post about scholars wanting to extend their reputations into the future.
Moreover, if work is not getting full play in journals -- because of the invisibility and inaccessibilty of print journals or fee- based online journals -- then why wouldn't we all flock to online publishing to gain the 'power' of widespread access.
Because online publication isn't worth the trouble unless the big dogs publish there as well.
So, why don't we? -- because, believe it or not, many of us actually have put time and energy into journals -- setting them up, reviewing papers, considering the standards of good research, argumentation and knowledge, and wanting to make it worth someone taking the time to open up a journal, and for those outside our discipline to take us seriously as a discipline.
Ever notice that no one outside the field of communication regards it as something to take seriously. Administrators clearly perceive it as a dumping ground for students who can't make it in other departments (the faculty-student ration in most large communication departments far exceeds that of other departments. And I'd be rich if I had a nickle for every time someone in another discipline asked me what I was doing in such a backwater as communication. I'd say there's nothing to lose in trying something new. And what proof is there that any of my suggestions of how we should open our journals to more editorial voices lower standards? CNET.com, a commercial enterprise whose very survival depends on readers perceptions of the worth of its content, not only provides readers with their editors' judgments about the items they review, but also aggregates the opinions of their readers about those items and even lets them right long form reviews, many of which I have found more informative than those provided by the editors. How can more eyeballs focused on an item, and the free ability to debate an items merit, LOWER standards. That doesn't make any sense. Your argument that those presently possessing editorial power are the only one's capable of keeping up standards is the same argument that old school, short-sighted, MSM journalists say when they reject blogers' claims to being journalists as well. The old school folks support their argument by pointing to the inaccuracies that can be found in the blogosphere, But this is short-sighted because it not only ignores examples like Jason Blair or the failure of nearly the entire MSM journalism community to accurately report on Iraq's (completely lack of) WMDs and relations with Al Qaeda, but also ignores the fact that the blogosphere is self-correcting while MSM journalism is decidedly not. This is also the argument that all those old-school, short-sighted academics make about Wikipedia. They disallow their students from citing Wikipedia, and promulgate the claim that it is untrustworthy, because of the few instances where someone has manipulated a Wikipedia entry, without recognizing that Wikipedia is self-correcting, and fraud is easily detected by simply clicking on the "History" tab of each entry, while editorially locked- down encyclopedia's are not self-correcting and provide no such history file.
Yes, it is a gatekeeper role, and I'm proud to be part of it as should be all others who strive for quality in their work and *their* journals.
Wow. That says it all right there. I thought scientific discourse was supposed to be about the open exchange of ideas. How does gate- keeping square with that? Sure, my suggested reforms of the system change would increase the number of articles published and number of editorial voices hear. But there are plenty of successful models already in place on the Internet for filtering through the flood of information on the Internet. C'mon, doesn't anyone on this list believe in the open exchange of ideas and the ability of Internet tools and models like Wikipedia to help people find the truth. Not even the founder of Wikipedia. Gee Whiz. Christian Nelson
This argument seems to be chasing its tail a bit. Wikipedia is peer reviewed. It has evolved a peer-review structure that meets its needs as an open, public encyclopedia. If you think Wikipedia is open to all comers and all ideas, you clearly haven't been reading the vitriol heaped upon it from the margins. I think there may be models of collaborative filtering that *might* be borrowed from Wikipedia for scholarly communication, and I am not entirely satisfied with the current process of collaborative filtering that occurs in many journals. But peer review, in one form or another, is a vital piece of the conversation of scholarship, and replacing it will be difficult precisely because it has demonstrated its effectiveness. There is a reason Wikipedians insist on citations to peer-reviewed work. They know that it represents a good collaborative filter of informed peers. There is a space for the exchange of ideas, where you can be your own editor, where you can comment on other people's articles: it's called a blog. (As an aside, have folks seen this: http://researchblogging.org/ ?) Or, you can upload your paper onto a large pre-print server. Both are very good alternatives, but they do not address the problem of filtering. I read a lot of things as a referee so you don't have to, and I rely on my colleagues to do the same thing. If you think about it, it's actually a pretty elegant distributed system. Instead of all of us randomly reading the "not ready yet" or "never will be ready" papers, we divide that work among us, allowing for more attention to be paid to work that is most deserving of attention. Is it perfect? Clearly not. But it works. The question of open access is different from the question of filtering, and contrary to what you have said in an earlier post, I believe an important question. Once we have sorted out the most useful materials, it benefits everyone to have them as widely available as possible. The question is simply how best to make this happen, from a practical perspective. - Alex On Feb 9, 2008 3:31 PM, Christian Nelson <xianknelson@mac.com> wrote: <snip>
C'mon, doesn't anyone on this list believe in the open exchange of ideas and the ability of Internet tools and models like Wikipedia to help people find the truth. Not even the founder of Wikipedia. Gee Whiz.
Christian Nelson
_______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
-- -- // // This email is // [X] assumed public and may be blogged / forwarded. // [ ] assumed to be private, please ask before redistributing. // // Alexander C. Halavais // Social Architect // http://alex.halavais.net //
On Feb 9, 2008, at 4:55 PM, Alex Halavais wrote:
If you think Wikipedia is open to all comers and all ideas, you clearly haven't been reading the vitriol heaped upon it from the margins.
I've heard that stuff, but if I can figure out how to edit on wikipedia, then anyone can.
But peer review, in one form or another, is a vital piece of the conversation of scholarship, and replacing it will be difficult precisely because it has demonstrated its effectiveness.
There haven't been any alternatives to this form of review. You can't demonstrate the effectiveness of something when you cannot make comparsons.
There is a reason Wikipedians insist on citations to peer-reviewed work. They know that it represents a good collaborative filter of informed peers.
I've only encounted the insistence that all research be taken into account, most of which is, by necessity, peer-reviewed via the current system. BTW, how is the current peer review system collaborative?
There is a space for the exchange of ideas, where you can be your own editor, where you can comment on other people's articles: it's called a blog. (As an aside, have folks seen this: http:// researchblogging.org/ ?) Or, you can upload your paper onto a large pre-print server. Both are very good alternatives, but they do not address the problem of filtering.
That's not a viable way to conduct an exchange of ideas. Few readers of a journal will take the trouble to search out blogs that comment on that journal's content. Fewer still will find it. Separate but equal is an oxymoron, as folks in the US should know.
I read a lot of things as a referee so you don't have to, and I rely on my colleagues to do the same thing. If you think about it, it's actually a pretty elegant distributed system. Instead of all of us randomly reading the "not ready yet" or "never will be ready" papers, we divide that work among us, allowing for more attention to be paid to work that is most deserving of attention. Is it perfect? Clearly not. But it works.
"We" divide the work among us? No, those with editorial control do. Sure it works . . . for you, if you are part of the in-group. But it doesn't work for those who aren't, regardless of the quality of their scholarship. Don't believe me? Look up the studies that have already demonstrated that a journal's editor and reviewers will reject papers attributed to Podunk U. authors, but then accept the very same paper when re-sent to the same journal with the name of an author from a prestigious school. If that's not evidence of how broke things are, then I don't know what ever could be.
The question of open access is different from the question of filtering, and contrary to what you have said in an earlier post, I believe an important question.
Yeah its a different question. And it would be nice if scholars were able to get out from under the thumbs of the money grubbing publishers. But I kinda think that the issue of open exchange should be a lot more to folks who are supposedly committed to that as a defining feature of their enterprise.
Once we have sorted out the most useful materials, it benefits everyone to have them as widely available as possible. The question is simply how best to make this happen, from a practical perspective.
Why would it be impractical for a journal to provide space for its readers to make comments, post ratings, etc.? How would it slow down the discussion? Your implied claims make no sense. --Christian Nelson
Hi all Been reading this exchange with great interest as it intersects with what I'm currently interested in - the tension between traditional learned authority and newer "wisdom of the crowd" models a la Wikipedia, Amazom reviews, etc. The problem with the mass (and anonymous) "anyone can review" model is that it is very hard to credentialise people - i.e. remember what happened when Canadian Amazon glitched and it was revealed that authors had been reviewing their own works, plus not only getting their friends and relatives to give their works glowing reviews but also to give bad reviews to their competitors. As for WP, it's a beautiful thing, but as someone said you are expected to provide references to "authoritative" sources. Now, it's the job of new entrants to "challenge the logic of the field" in the name of the field's founding principles - academic excellence, truth, what have you. It's normal that more established journals will be less receptive to new paradigms - just like more established universities are less receptive to new disciplines (I was talking to a US Communication professor recently about why so many big US Communication Depts are in the Mid-West for example... historical / tech reasons but also to distinguish themselves from older faculties). Um, rambling too many things together. OK, what I'm trying to say is that there are two issues - the production of sound research on the one hand (as filtered by recognised authorities in their fields) and the original point, the increasing copyrighting of academic content - and conflating them is problematic, I think. Open access to content for _consumers_ of knowledge is easily achievable (release the good data) whereas open _production_ of knowledge does require some expertise: hackers had a built-in sorting mechanism (can person X code to a certain standard or not?), Wikipedia does not, which makes it instantly contestable and very fluid, not something you really want too much for scientific / academic production. Now, I'm not saying that expert peer review is wonderful - in fact there is an interesting paper called "Publishing as Prostitution? Choosing Between One's Own Ideas and Academic Failure" by Bruno Frey an economist which argues that in order to survive in academia authors who submit to journals have to slavishly agree with whatever changes reviewers demand or face rejection - a form of self-mutilation or "intellectual prostitution" (he argues that editors should take a much more active role in the decision). There is also probably some truth to the "unfair treatment according to which institution you are from" argument. The answer to both though is that if one is serious about one's work then one will publish wherever and that if one's ideas are interesting then reviewers will support them (I know I do - or try to). cheers, mathieu On 10/02/2008, at 9:36 AM, Christian Nelson wrote:
On Feb 9, 2008, at 4:55 PM, Alex Halavais wrote:
If you think Wikipedia is open to all comers and all ideas, you clearly haven't been reading the vitriol heaped upon it from the margins.
I've heard that stuff, but if I can figure out how to edit on wikipedia, then anyone can.
But peer review, in one form or another, is a vital piece of the conversation of scholarship, and replacing it will be difficult precisely because it has demonstrated its effectiveness.
There haven't been any alternatives to this form of review. You can't demonstrate the effectiveness of something when you cannot make comparsons.
There is a reason Wikipedians insist on citations to peer-reviewed work. They know that it represents a good collaborative filter of informed peers.
I've only encounted the insistence that all research be taken into account, most of which is, by necessity, peer-reviewed via the current system. BTW, how is the current peer review system collaborative?
There is a space for the exchange of ideas, where you can be your own editor, where you can comment on other people's articles: it's called a blog. (As an aside, have folks seen this: http:// researchblogging.org/ ?) Or, you can upload your paper onto a large pre-print server. Both are very good alternatives, but they do not address the problem of filtering.
That's not a viable way to conduct an exchange of ideas. Few readers of a journal will take the trouble to search out blogs that comment on that journal's content. Fewer still will find it. Separate but equal is an oxymoron, as folks in the US should know.
I read a lot of things as a referee so you don't have to, and I rely on my colleagues to do the same thing. If you think about it, it's actually a pretty elegant distributed system. Instead of all of us randomly reading the "not ready yet" or "never will be ready" papers, we divide that work among us, allowing for more attention to be paid to work that is most deserving of attention. Is it perfect? Clearly not. But it works.
"We" divide the work among us? No, those with editorial control do. Sure it works . . . for you, if you are part of the in-group. But it doesn't work for those who aren't, regardless of the quality of their scholarship. Don't believe me? Look up the studies that have already demonstrated that a journal's editor and reviewers will reject papers attributed to Podunk U. authors, but then accept the very same paper when re-sent to the same journal with the name of an author from a prestigious school. If that's not evidence of how broke things are, then I don't know what ever could be.
The question of open access is different from the question of filtering, and contrary to what you have said in an earlier post, I believe an important question.
Yeah its a different question. And it would be nice if scholars were able to get out from under the thumbs of the money grubbing publishers. But I kinda think that the issue of open exchange should be a lot more to folks who are supposedly committed to that as a defining feature of their enterprise.
Once we have sorted out the most useful materials, it benefits everyone to have them as widely available as possible. The question is simply how best to make this happen, from a practical perspective.
Why would it be impractical for a journal to provide space for its readers to make comments, post ratings, etc.? How would it slow down the discussion? Your implied claims make no sense.
--Christian Nelson _______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
Dr Mathieu O'Neil Adjunct Research Fellow Australian Demographic and Social Research Institute College of Arts and Social Science The Australian National University E-mail: mathieu.oneil@anu.edu.au Tel.: (61 02) 61 25 38 00 Web: http://adsri.anu.edu.au/people/visitors/mathieu.php Mail: Coombs Building, 9 Canberra, ACT 0200 - AUSTRALIA
participants (4)
-
Alex Halavais -
Caroline Haythornthwaite -
Christian Nelson -
Mathieu O'Neil