[Air-l] Trouble with journals

Wed Apr 25 19:14:58 PDT 2007

On the topic of who profits: one way that non-profit groups (like aoir)
can benefit from having their journals published by professional
publishers in subscriber-only versions (paper and online) is through
royalties.  Databases like EBSCOHost, ProQuest, etc. pay royalties to
journals for each downloaded article.  For organisations that have
official journals these royalties can provide important revenue.

I like that my professional organisation (I'm thinking of the
Australian Sociological Association here) profits from its
journal--royalties can help support scholarships for students to come to
conferences, special initiatives, etc.

Karen

>>> Ted M Coopman <coopman at u.washington.edu> 26/04/2007 11:46 am >>>

I think paper versus bytes is all about being change resistant. It is
like that old joke: "How many full professors does it take to change a
light bulb?"

The answer: CHANGE?!!

Credit to Phil Howard, apologies to full professors, but I think you
get my drift. Change does not come easily for most people and ceratinly
for large institutions.

You bring up an interesting idea (elijah touched on this as well) about
volunteer labor, paid labor, and who benefits. The whole system is an
interesting gift and profit economy confluence. The intersection between
largely public institutions, mostly unpaid labor, and for profit
corporations.

A question might be, how would we change the equation on who profits?
Or perhaps how it gets distributed?

-TED

Ted M. Coopman
Department of Communication
University of Washington

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007, Jeremy Hunsinger wrote:

>
> 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?
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/ 
>

_______________________________________________
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/

Education is only the beginning.
Let's get on with it.

Swinburne University of Technology
CRICOS Provider Code: 00111D

NOTICE
This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and intended only for the use of the addressee. They may contain information that is privileged or protected by copyright. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, printing, copying or use is strictly prohibited. The University does not warrant that this e-mail and any attachments are secure and there is also a risk that it may be corrupted in transmission. It is your responsibility to check any attachments for viruses or defects before opening them. If you have received this transmission in error, please contact us on +61 3 9214 8000 and delete it immediately from your system. We do not accept liability in connection with computer virus, data corruption, delay, interruption, unauthorised access or unauthorised amendment.

Please consider the environment before printing this email.