[Air-l] Trouble with journals

[Ted M Coopman]

Jeremy,

I think you may wish to read my last post (if you are interested) a little closer.

A vast majority of those who contribute, edit, and review for journals never see a dime. There obviously is money to made in journals for publishers, as I don't think they are doing it out of a sense of civic responsibility. I'm sure there are some journals out there who pay for assistants to help editors. Since you invoke anecdotal evidence, mine is that editors are lucky to just get release time and use their RAs as labor, so the department, not the journals, pay.

I guess we would have to wait on some actual data to judge impacts on grad assistantships.

As far as reviewers go, you stated:
"thus taking out the level of professionalizing most people put into
their review by setting the standard of amateur reviews"

When I clearly stated:
"I think it should be restricted to editorial board members and ad hoc reviewers with expertise in that area and be blind..."

Perhaps you were confused by the ad hoc reviewer comment? Most journals farm out reviews to ad hoc reviewers with relevant expertise that are not on the editorial review board. Actually, a lot of articles are reviewed this way. It does not mean they are "amateurs," just not on the ERB. If you read carefully, the reviewers in the proposed system are the same, it is the process that is different.

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

Hmm, I don't see a particularly deep understanding on your end (perhaps my denial?). However, I'm not so much in denial that I would not appreciate you enlightening me and the other list members with your expert analysis of the journal publication system and who benefits from it.

-TED

Ted M. Coopman
Department of Communication
University of Washington

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007, Jeremy Hunsinger wrote:

>
> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> The air-l at 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/
>