[Air-l] Trouble with journals

[Jeremy Hunsinger]

On Apr 25, 2007, at 9:01 PM, Ted M Coopman wrote:

> 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.

yes, i was talking about the ones that do see a dime.  I have no  
problems with departments paying for journal labor, being managing  
editor is valuable experience.

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

I was just speaking of those that I know.  They are my friends and  
under your scheme, they would not have had those jobs.  it is fine to  
be abstract, but at a certain point, a professor is trying to justify  
paying a student, journals perform the function of justification.
>
> 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..."

yes, and then you go on....  but I think you mistake the purpose of  
the editorial board.  the editorial board is not the review board at  
all.  the editorial board exists to generate submissions, and quality  
content, not to review texts.

>
> 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.

Well granted, it perhaps does not benefit you, but I suspect it is a  
matter of time, and if not time then ideology.  it benefits many  
people in aoir, and many people around the world.  It is a particular  
system of profits and redistribution of wealth.  that is granted.

My understand of it is from the basis of paid labor and volunteer  
labor.  I have to say paid labor is much preferred.

There are many different mechanisms through which journal distribute  
wealth, i think that before one assume profiteering, or other  
negative values, that the various possibilities need to be considered.

It is likely true that if aoir starts a virtual journal, it will gain  
slightly less respect than first monday, but should it start a print  
journal, it would likely garner more respect than that esteemed  
publication.   The thing is though that only print journals get into  
isi, and while scopus and other second tier ranking systems exist,  
they don't command the same respect.  paper is king, why?