I'm an evil senior professor of the sort that has been denounced by some list posters. I referee, edit, have published -- and I read. Here are some thoughts: 1. Evil senior professors have more -- rather than less -- scope to publish where they want. So they don't have a vested interest in squelching journals. I don't think somewhat paranoid discussion about what evil senior professors want and do helps analysis. 2. Printing and mailing costs are not the only costs of journals. A journal that I helped start pays the equivalent of a Research Assistant's salary to the Managing Editor; it has to arrange for reduced teaching load for the editor; and there are some computer and office costs. In short, this is $30-$40K per year, and it is damn hard to find universities to cough up that money. Subscription fees might, though. I do know we are working hard to find a few qualified editors in another journal who are willing -- and whose universities will help. Unpaid volunteers work as referees and advisory editors -- I do a lot of that -- but would rarely last at the daily grind of constant submission, referee-finding, and editing. Treasure such people, and reward them, either with released time or with some salary. 3. The real problem is readers need filtering. Not eveyone wants to read everything. Journals serve as a filtering mechanism. Sometimes they make mistakes, but as a frequent editor, I am usually gladdened by the rough consensus among reviewers. As someone who has solicited pieces from all-comers and then filtered for publication, I know how much is not ready for prime time. Do you, as a reader, want to wade through this? I am not talking about genre, theory, qual vs quant, or stuff like that. I am talking about quality level. 4. Refereeing also serves a mentoring function. Not everyone was lucky enough to be mentored at a good university by a caring advisor or three. Moreover, I've had the experience of turning down a paper written by someone at a great university. "How dare you?" they basically asked. We explained why, and with luck, they learned something. One of the unsung benefits of refereeing is having some folks take a careful look at what you wrote and give you feedback 5. I was at a conference last week at which a frequent blogger was often quoted as the authority, although I think this blogger has had at most one refereed article published. "Have you checked on the validity of [this blogger's] assertions?" I asked. "Well now, we just assumed," was the answer. Is this any way to build a discipline? 6. So the real question is Open What? JCMC avoids printing and mailing, but is still a refereed journal -- of high quality. That is quite different than the anything goes model. Of course, there are variations in that. I tend to put on my web page serious conference papers and even recently, developed ppts. One of my mentors, by contrast, will only put up articles a decent interval after they have been published. "I like to know that I am right when I go public with something." 7. I'd love to see more journals and other venues. But the day a journal abandons the refereeing process, is probably the day I will stop reading it. YMMV Barry Wellman _______________________________________________________________________ S.D. Clark Professor of Sociology, FRSC NetLab Director Centre for Urban & Community Studies University of Toronto 455 Spadina Avenue Room 418 Toronto Canada M5S 2G8 http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman fax:+1-416-978-7162 Updating history: http://chass.utoronto.ca/oldnew/cybertimes.php Elvis wouldn't be singing "Return to Sender" these days _______________________________________________________________________
Barry Wellman wrote:
1. Evil senior professors have more -- rather than less -- scope to publish where they want. So they don't have a vested interest in squelching journals. I don't think somewhat paranoid discussion about what evil senior professors want and do helps analysis.
I think that's right. People with established reputations have low switching costs. Young academics may feel forced to go the traditional route.
2. Printing and mailing costs are not the only costs of journals.
Very true, and I think we can think seriously about a wide variety of ways that technology can radically alter the cost structure of high quality journal production in ways beyond simply doing away with printing and mailing costs.
3. The real problem is readers need filtering. Not eveyone wants to read everything. Journals serve as a filtering mechanism. Sometimes they make mistakes, but as a frequent editor, I am usually gladdened by the rough consensus among reviewers. As someone who has solicited pieces from all-comers and then filtered for publication, I know how much is not ready for prime time. Do you, as a reader, want to wade through this? I am not talking about genre, theory, qual vs quant, or stuff like that. I am talking about quality level.
4. Refereeing also serves a mentoring function. Not everyone was lucky enough to be mentored at a good university by a caring advisor or three. Moreover, I've had the experience of turning down a paper written by someone at a great university. "How dare you?" they basically asked. We explained why, and with luck, they learned something. One of the unsung benefits of refereeing is having some folks take a careful look at what you wrote and give you feedback
I don't think the question of open access has anything at all to do with eliminating either filtering or mentoring. Why should it?
5. I was at a conference last week at which a frequent blogger was often quoted as the authority, although I think this blogger has had at most one refereed article published. "Have you checked on the validity of [this blogger's] assertions?" I asked. "Well now, we just assumed," was the answer. Is this any way to build a discipline?
Is ignoring someone because they don't adhere to the antiquated rituals any way to build a discipline?
6. So the real question is Open What?
If you don't know the definitions of what open access means, perhaps you should go learn about it.
JCMC avoids printing and mailing, but is still a refereed journal -- of high quality. That is quite different than the anything goes model. Of course, there are variations in that. I tend to put on my web page serious conference papers and even recently, developed ppts. One of my mentors, by contrast, will only put up articles a decent interval after they have been published. "I like to know that I am right when I go public with something."
7. I'd love to see more journals and other venues. But the day a journal abandons the refereeing process, is probably the day I will stop reading it.
It's sad that the open access movement has not yet done a good enough job in educating people. Because obviously you have absolutely zero concept of what we are talking about. --Jimbo
On Feb 8, 2008, at 10:37 PM, Jimmy Wales wrote:
Barry Wellman wrote:
1. Evil senior professors have more -- rather than less -- scope to publish where they want. So they don't have a vested interest in squelching journals. I don't think somewhat paranoid discussion about what evil senior professors want and do helps analysis.
I think that's right. People with established reputations have low switching costs. Young academics may feel forced to go the traditional route.
People with established reputations wish to have those established reputations last. As senior scholars well know, those reputations won't last if they don't make sure their younger disciples take over the reins of editorial control. If you think this is paranoid, you haven't witnessed what I have. As just one example, I know of a very successful senior scholar, who, while he was a junior scholar, had a paper of his rejected without review at a top-tier communication journal because it "had nothing to do with communication." Imagine his surprise when that same editor published an article by one of his own students about the very same research question just a few issues later. And I've seen a variable analytic article about interpersonal communication published in QJS (a humanist-oriented journal about rhetoric) just after the editor of Communication Monographs (who had published nothing but variable analytic articles during his tenure) published a humanistic article about rhetoric that had been written by one of the QJS edtior's students. And on, and on, and on it goes. And if you don't believe me, take a look at the scholarship on the sociology of science by folks like Robert Merton, Bruno Latour, Michael Mulkay, Pierre Bourdieu, etc. It's not like I came up with this out of nowhere.
4. Refereeing also serves a mentoring function.
Sure it does, but not when editors tell you, that they aren't going to publish your paper because it comes at the subject in question from a perspective that is new and different, period. Yes, that is exactly what has happened to me, twice.
7. I'd love to see more journals and other venues. But the day a journal abandons the refereeing process, is probably the day I will stop reading it.
So, you don't find wikipedia worth reading, either? Yikes. Christian Nelson
5. I was at a conference last week at which a frequent blogger was often quoted as the authority, although I think this blogger has had at most one refereed article published. "Have you checked on the validity of [this blogger's] assertions?" I asked. "Well now, we just assumed," was the answer. Is this any way to build a discipline?
Is ignoring someone because they don't adhere to the antiquated rituals any way to build a discipline?
Depends on the field. In medicine, certainly. Engaging with the antiquated rituals of the field is, for the most part, how you filter cranks from experts. Creationists are a good example - lots of blogging, no refereed articles. That's not to say a prolific blogger can't be an expert, but they should also be able to do refereed articles. It's a pretty good litmus test. -- Barry Saunders ---- http://investigativeblog.net http://gatewatching.org http://d-notice.net ---- PhD Candidate // researcher http://creativeindustries.qut.edu.au http://eprints.qut.edu.au/view/person/Saunders,_Barry.html ph: +617 3138 0155 skype: barry_saunders CRICOS No. 00213J
5. I was at a conference last week at which a frequent blogger was often quoted as the authority, although I think this blogger has had at most one refereed article published. "Have you checked on the validity of [this blogger's] assertions?" I asked. "Well now, we just assumed," was the answer. Is this any way to build a discipline?
Is ignoring someone because they don't adhere to the antiquated rituals any way to build a discipline?
This is not ignoring someone because of antiquated rituals; a person of this stripe will be ignored (or at least have their work *seriously* questioned...) because they haven't done the work (peer review, publishing, external oversight) that is necessary to establish themselves as a trusted member of the scholarly community. Most people want that - to be trusted. Blogging regularly and at length does not establish a person's position on any sane metric of trust... scholarly or otherwise. Sorry, my apologies, et cetera -- it just doesn't. There are people who have managed to become 'authorities' without going through the established mechanisms for doing so, but they are rather few and far between. --elijah
There are people who have managed to become 'authorities' without going through the established mechanisms for doing so, but they are rather few and far between.
--elijah
I think Elijah hit's something very key here. There is a plurality of modes of publication for a plurality of audience types. Two different spectrums for analysis of modes of publication tied to that are authority and expertise, one other that he indicates is popularity and one other implied by that are spaces of being a public intellectual. If we thinking about the way we construct knowledge and we think about the publics in general, we can see that not all knowledge works for all people in all situations in all times. One clear example of this is the Public Library of Science and its medical repository. It does provide material, but to whom, and for what purpose? There was a story floating around the net and I'm sure I can find it somewhere, where a doctor was reading the medical materials there in order to help his patient, however, the doctor lacked the appropriate level of statistical literacy and/or judgement to truly understand that the nuances of the argument indicated that for his case, the treatment that was being reported on was unlikely to benefit the subjects and in fact if he would have read later articles citing this article, he would have seen that this bit of knowledge about medicine was likely harmful. Science and all writing, goes through many filters to reach different audiences, the doctor in question would have been better consulting with an expert or three in his field than reading articles, but alas as the story had it, that was not an option. The question then becomes not only which papers should be public but which forms of expertise, for whom, for what reasons? Open systems aren't a simple questions to say, 'Let's boycott', as that is what i would call throwing away the baby with the bathwater... there are far more systems and conventions that have arisen in publishing and elsewhere that have arisen to help people and prevent misunderstanding than I think many people are comprehending. There is a time to boycott of course, I boycott Walmart and BestBuy for unfair labor practices as reported in media, other people boycott eating animals. Boycotts depends on your issue, in which spectrums of life you apply yourself and your political capital and the goal is to make those decisions in an informed way, but even then, it is a personal choice issue, and not necessarily one where you will find wide agreement. jeremy hunsinger Information Ethics Fellow, Center for Information Policy Research, School of Information Studies, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (www.cipr.uwm.edu ) wiki.tmttlt.com www.tmttlt.com () ascii ribbon campaign - against html mail /\ - against microsoft attachments http://www.stswiki.org/ sts wiki http://cfp.learning-inquiry.info/ Learning Inquiry-the journal http://transdisciplinarystudies.tmttlt.com/ Transdisciplinary Studies:the book series
I never said successful scholars are evil. I said they weren't stupid. Big difference. According to the logic of our society, its stupid to give up power, to get off the gravy train (or at least share their controls if you don't have to), etc. Let's stick to what is stated, not to paranoid, straw man constructions of arguments. That is what will help analysis. BTW, I also never said successful scholars have a desire to squelch journals. They just aren't going to flock to them. And if they don't, neither will younger scholars, who know that they need to publish in the high status journals if they are to get tenure and/or become upwardly mobile. On Feb 8, 2008, at 9:47 PM, Barry Wellman wrote:
1. Evil senior professors have more -- rather than less -- scope to publish where they want. So they don't have a vested interest in squelching journals. I don't think somewhat paranoid discussion about what evil senior professors want and do helps analysis.
I get rather frustrated with the false dichotomy rhetoric in open access debates. Life rarely functions in predictable binary ways (I know this is an over-simplification in itself, but I digress). Open access, whichever way you define it, has proven to be a viable publishing model, particularly in the "hard" sciences. I believe this to be a factual statement. Similarly, open access publishing does not do away with some traditional functions of scientific publication, such as gate-keeping and peer-reviewing. Similarly, I do not think that open access heralds the end of traditional publishing. It may prompt a change in some antiquated business models, but that is another topic entirely. (Shameless plug alert) If you want to have a look at an open access journal that operates a strict peer-review policy, let me introduce you to SCRIPT-ed. We operate thanks to the kind support of the UK's Arts and Humanities Research Council: http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/ahrc/script-ed/ Let me address some of your points: Barry Wellman wrote:
2. Printing and mailing costs are not the only costs of journals. A journal that I helped start pays the equivalent of a Research Assistant's salary to the Managing Editor; it has to arrange for reduced teaching load for the editor; and there are some computer and office costs. In short, this is $30-$40K per year, and it is damn hard to find universities to cough up that money. Subscription fees might, though. I do know we are working hard to find a few qualified editors in another journal who are willing -- and whose universities will help. Unpaid volunteers work as referees and advisory editors -- I do a lot of that -- but would rarely last at the daily grind of constant submission, referee-finding, and editing. Treasure such people, and reward them, either with released time or with some salary.
I agree, editing a journal is hard work, and can be expensive. We have been reducing costs by allowing talented PhD students to take over editorship for one or two years (early in their degree). They have been doing a sterling job so far, and they also get paid to do it. This is an experience that has worked for us, but your mileage may vary. I believe that there is funding out there for a determined journal that wants to go the open access route.
3. The real problem is readers need filtering. Not eveyone wants to read everything. Journals serve as a filtering mechanism. Sometimes they make mistakes, but as a frequent editor, I am usually gladdened by the rough consensus among reviewers. As someone who has solicited pieces from all-comers and then filtered for publication, I know how much is not ready for prime time. Do you, as a reader, want to wade through this? I am not talking about genre, theory, qual vs quant, or stuff like that. I am talking about quality level.
As I mentioned already, peer-review and filtering are not incompatible with open access. On the contrary, some of the OA definitions include peer-review as a requisite.
4. Refereeing also serves a mentoring function. Not everyone was lucky enough to be mentored at a good university by a caring advisor or three. Moreover, I've had the experience of turning down a paper written by someone at a great university. "How dare you?" they basically asked. We explained why, and with luck, they learned something. One of the unsung benefits of refereeing is having some folks take a careful look at what you wrote and give you feedback
In SCRIPT-ed our articles are refereed anonymously, which guarantees fairness.
5. I was at a conference last week at which a frequent blogger was often quoted as the authority, although I think this blogger has had at most one refereed article published. "Have you checked on the validity of [this blogger's] assertions?" I asked. "Well now, we just assumed," was the answer. Is this any way to build a discipline?
Excuse me if I misunderstand this statement, but what does blogging have to do with open access? You seem to be conflating OA with other forms of web publication, the internet is a big place, in case you had not noticed. By the way, I agree that using a blogger as an authority is bad scholarly practice, regardless of the blogger's reputation. As a keen blogger, I have to admit that I find it a lot of fun, but I do not believe my posts should be cited in scholarly publications.
6. So the real question is Open What? JCMC avoids printing and mailing, but is still a refereed journal -- of high quality. That is quite different than the anything goes model. Of course, there are variations in that. I tend to put on my web page serious conference papers and even recently, developed ppts. One of my mentors, by contrast, will only put up articles a decent interval after they have been published. "I like to know that I am right when I go public with something."
I'm curious as why you think that OA equates "anything goes". Regards, Andres -- Andres Guadamuz AHRC Research Centre for Studies in Intellectual Property and Technology Law Old College, South Bridge Edinburgh, EH8 9YL Tel: 44 (0)131 6509699 Fax: 44 (0)131 6506317 a.guadamuz@ed.ac.uk http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/ahrc/ SCRIPT-ed Journal of Law, Technology and Society http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/ahrc/script-ed IP/IT/Medical Law LLM by Distance Learning http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/distancelearning/
Quick question, well, somewhat quick. Andres Guadamuz, you say:
Open access, whichever way you define it, has proven to be a viable publishing model, particularly in the "hard" sciences.
How are they funded in general, or does it vary greatly? Two reasons I ask. One, the author pays model is much more viable in the "hard" sciences because it is difficult if not impossible to do most "hard" science research without grants. Therefore, the costs of publishing can be written into the grants, and accepted as an added cost of doing academic work. Without a grant, you (essentially) cannot do research, and therefore have no findings, and have nothing to publish. An exception to this would be the theoretical side of fields such as physics (and non-science fields often considered "hard" such as math). In social science/studies, however, not all professors are able to get grants, yet many of them are still able to conduct research of one sort or another. If they must pay to publish, then there will be a serious barrier to research production (and to obtaining tenure). An author pays model is thus much less viable as a solution. Second, if it is organizational funding (government, universities, non-profits, for-profits, whatever), how easy is it to create a new journal? Do supported journals ever get dropped? At least from my limited experience observing others trying to obtain money in the US, I would be loathe to rely on the government (on any level), or non-profits, to directly support academic publishing, especially innovation in academic publishing. Of course, indirect government funding via libraries is becoming more and more problematic anyway, so the point may be moot. Now, you mention that you do not foresee the end of traditional publishing, so I acknowledge that it's not either/or. But I'm still concerned about the sustainability of any particular model. If I were running a journal (I'm not, and never have), I'd rather that my own activities funded the journal, than be reliant on the whims of a granting organization. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this, given that you seem to have evidence I've not encountered so far. Ingbert P.S.: I made this post public because it seems there are other people on this list interested in the potential answers to my question. If there's a general outcry, I'm happy to take this thread private. On Feb 11, 2008 3:04 AM, Andres Guadamuz <a.guadamuz@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
I get rather frustrated with the false dichotomy rhetoric in open access debates. Life rarely functions in predictable binary ways (I know this is an over-simplification in itself, but I digress).
Open access, whichever way you define it, has proven to be a viable publishing model, particularly in the "hard" sciences. I believe this to be a factual statement. Similarly, open access publishing does not do away with some traditional functions of scientific publication, such as gate-keeping and peer-reviewing. Similarly, I do not think that open access heralds the end of traditional publishing. It may prompt a change in some antiquated business models, but that is another topic entirely.
(Shameless plug alert) If you want to have a look at an open access journal that operates a strict peer-review policy, let me introduce you to SCRIPT-ed. We operate thanks to the kind support of the UK's Arts and Humanities Research Council: http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/ahrc/script-ed/
Let me address some of your points:
Barry Wellman wrote:
2. Printing and mailing costs are not the only costs of journals. A journal that I helped start pays the equivalent of a Research Assistant's salary to the Managing Editor; it has to arrange for reduced teaching load for the editor; and there are some computer and office costs. In short, this is $30-$40K per year, and it is damn hard to find universities to cough up that money. Subscription fees might, though. I do know we are working hard to find a few qualified editors in another journal who are willing -- and whose universities will help. Unpaid volunteers work as referees and advisory editors -- I do a lot of that -- but would rarely last at the daily grind of constant submission, referee-finding, and editing. Treasure such people, and reward them, either with released time or with some salary.
I agree, editing a journal is hard work, and can be expensive. We have been reducing costs by allowing talented PhD students to take over editorship for one or two years (early in their degree). They have been doing a sterling job so far, and they also get paid to do it. This is an experience that has worked for us, but your mileage may vary. I believe that there is funding out there for a determined journal that wants to go the open access route.
3. The real problem is readers need filtering. Not eveyone wants to read everything. Journals serve as a filtering mechanism. Sometimes they make mistakes, but as a frequent editor, I am usually gladdened by the rough consensus among reviewers. As someone who has solicited pieces from all-comers and then filtered for publication, I know how much is not ready for prime time. Do you, as a reader, want to wade through this? I am not talking about genre, theory, qual vs quant, or stuff like that. I am talking about quality level.
As I mentioned already, peer-review and filtering are not incompatible with open access. On the contrary, some of the OA definitions include peer-review as a requisite.
4. Refereeing also serves a mentoring function. Not everyone was lucky enough to be mentored at a good university by a caring advisor or three. Moreover, I've had the experience of turning down a paper written by someone at a great university. "How dare you?" they basically asked. We explained why, and with luck, they learned something. One of the unsung benefits of refereeing is having some folks take a careful look at what you wrote and give you feedback
In SCRIPT-ed our articles are refereed anonymously, which guarantees fairness.
5. I was at a conference last week at which a frequent blogger was often quoted as the authority, although I think this blogger has had at most one refereed article published. "Have you checked on the validity of [this blogger's] assertions?" I asked. "Well now, we just assumed," was the answer. Is this any way to build a discipline?
Excuse me if I misunderstand this statement, but what does blogging have to do with open access? You seem to be conflating OA with other forms of web publication, the internet is a big place, in case you had not noticed. By the way, I agree that using a blogger as an authority is bad scholarly practice, regardless of the blogger's reputation. As a keen blogger, I have to admit that I find it a lot of fun, but I do not believe my posts should be cited in scholarly publications.
6. So the real question is Open What? JCMC avoids printing and mailing, but is still a refereed journal -- of high quality. That is quite different than the anything goes model. Of course, there are variations in that. I tend to put on my web page serious conference papers and even recently, developed ppts. One of my mentors, by contrast, will only put up articles a decent interval after they have been published. "I like to know that I am right when I go public with something."
I'm curious as why you think that OA equates "anything goes".
Regards,
Andres
-- Andres Guadamuz AHRC Research Centre for Studies in Intellectual Property and Technology Law Old College, South Bridge Edinburgh, EH8 9YL
Tel: 44 (0)131 6509699 Fax: 44 (0)131 6506317 a.guadamuz@ed.ac.uk http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/ahrc/
SCRIPT-ed Journal of Law, Technology and Society http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/ahrc/script-ed
IP/IT/Medical Law LLM by Distance Learning http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/distancelearning/
_______________________________________________ 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/
-- ========================================== Ingbert Floyd PhD Student Graduate School of Library and Information Science University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign http://ingbert.org/ || skype: spacesoon Check out the unofficial GSLIS Wiki: http://www.gslis.org/ "Dream in a pragmatic way." -Aldous Huxley
Ingbert Floyd wrote:
How are they funded in general, or does it vary greatly?
In my experience, it varies greatly. Some journals manage to survive on the "author pays" model, which seems to work well in some circles. As you have mentioned, getting funding is more difficult to achieve in the social sciences. In our case, we fund our journal through public funds. There are two other legal journals operating in the UK, and as far as I know, they are funded via their host institutions (IIRC, Warwick and Newcastle). This is viable in Europe, as both the UK Research Councils and the European Union have been heavily involved in enforcing open access policies for projects funded by the public. If academics are encouraged (and often required) to make their findings available to the public, then it is only natural that there must be scholarly sites that are up to the task. We have found that at least in our case the Arts and Humanities Research Council in the UK has been keen to provide us with some assistance. I believe that this is a viable avenue of income for some journals.
Two reasons I ask. One, the author pays model is much more viable in the "hard" sciences because it is difficult if not impossible to do most "hard" science research without grants. Therefore, the costs of publishing can be written into the grants, and accepted as an added cost of doing academic work. Without a grant, you (essentially) cannot do research, and therefore have no findings, and have nothing to publish. An exception to this would be the theoretical side of fields such as physics (and non-science fields often considered "hard" such as math). In social science/studies, however, not all professors are able to get grants, yet many of them are still able to conduct research of one sort or another. If they must pay to publish, then there will be a serious barrier to research production (and to obtaining tenure). An author pays model is thus much less viable as a solution.
I agree with this statement.
Second, if it is organizational funding (government, universities, non-profits, for-profits, whatever), how easy is it to create a new journal? Do supported journals ever get dropped? At least from my limited experience observing others trying to obtain money in the US, I would be loathe to rely on the government (on any level), or non-profits, to directly support academic publishing, especially innovation in academic publishing. Of course, indirect government funding via libraries is becoming more and more problematic anyway, so the point may be moot. Now, you mention that you do not foresee the end of traditional publishing, so I acknowledge that it's not either/or. But I'm still concerned about the sustainability of any particular model. If I were running a journal (I'm not, and never have), I'd rather that my own activities funded the journal, than be reliant on the whims of a granting organization.
I cannot comment on the state of public funding in the U.S. As I mentioned, the experience in Europe is that if you can present a good and solid case for funding, then it can be obtained. At the moment we have viable funds until 2012. Can we obtain funding to keep the journal going further than that? I do not know, but isn't it the same with privately-funded journals? We all know that journals come and go all the time, so there is nothing new there.
I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this, given that you seem to have evidence I've not encountered so far.
I know that I am offering my own personal experience with SCRIPT-ed, but I think that it is a success story of the open access model (if I may say so myself). We are on our fourth year, and getting stronger with each issue. let me stress this, I do not think that open access works for all journals, and I do not think that it will be the end of traditional publishing models. However, given the nature of the market, and given the right conditions, I would say that there is a good public policy argument to allocate some amount of research funds into funding open access journals. Best Regards, Andres -- Andres Guadamuz AHRC Research Centre for Studies in Intellectual Property and Technology Law Old College, South Bridge Edinburgh, EH8 9YL Tel: 44 (0)131 6509699 Fax: 44 (0)131 6506317 a.guadamuz@ed.ac.uk http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/ahrc/ SCRIPT-ed Journal of Law, Technology and Society http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/ahrc/script-ed IP/IT/Medical Law LLM by Distance Learning http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/distancelearning/
participants (8)
-
Andres Guadamuz -
Barry Saunders -
Barry Wellman -
Christian Nelson -
elijah wright -
Ingbert Floyd -
Jeremy Hunsinger -
Jimmy Wales