[Air-l] Trouble with journals

[Jeremy Hunsinger]

On Apr 25, 2007, at 5:01 PM, Ted M Coopman wrote:

> All,
>
> The "purpose" of journal publication is seeming more closely tied  
> to job acquisition, retention, and promotion than sharing  
> knowledge. Changing the system (in IMO we need to radically revise  
> it) is quite a challenge when there are still significant numbers  
> of scholars who think that an online journal is not as prestigious  
> as a paper one simply because it is online (this is regardless of  
> peer review, rejection rates, readership, or who is on the  
> editorial board). In fact, I remember during our discussion of an  
> potential AoIR publication at the 2003 Brighton conference several  
> people expressed the opinion that anything we did would have to be  
> physically published to be taken "seriously."
>
> If I may toss my own bomb out there, I believe that several things  
> need to happen to keep our work relevant and more accessible in an  
> information rich world.
>
> 1. Take the money out of it. Get rid of the publishers and  
> associations that make bank off our writing and editorial work. Go  
> online and make it free and accessible to everyone. Then maybe  
> someone will read it!
>
and thus cut funding to around 10 graduate students that are friends  
and colleagues, who make their money from the journal

> 2. Adopt a (mostly) open review system, although I think it should  
> be restricted to editorial board members and ad hoc reviewers with  
> expertise in that area and be blind. Lay out the process as it  
> develops. I like the idea of a signed review, and often you can  
> tell who the writer is, but personalities and politics are a reality.

thus taking out the level of professionalizing most people put into  
their review by setting the standard of amateur reviews
>
> 3. Allows readers who register to add comments along side an  
> article to stimulate interactivity and allow authors to add new  
> insights or data as it becomes available. You might also allow a  
> rating system on usefulness, innovation, or other criteria.

yeah, i can see this one, for online journals.
>
> Thoughts?

but i think the rest indicates a deep denial of the way the system  
works and who benefits.