[Air-l] Trouble with journals

[Jeremy Hunsinger]

>
>
> I think this is dependent upon the journal. I know our editorial board
> serves as the reviewers who ensure quality content, and not as
> generators of submissions (we do sometimes publish works produced  
> by our
> editorial board of course, and in that case they do generate quality
> content). But for relatively visible journals, there is no lack of
> submissions (although the quality does vary).

the board of editor's role varies, but i don't see them as first line  
reviewers, but yes everyone can do their own thing.  I tend to think  
that they pull in submissions and they set the field.  they don't  
necessarily submit things, they get their friends and colleagues to  
submit things.   it is a social network function.
>
>
>> My understand of it is from the basis of paid labor and volunteer
>> labor.  I have to say paid labor is much preferred.
>
> Okay I lied -- I want to comment on this part too. Yes, paid labor is
> preferred, but the economics of production (particularly in academia)
> would need to significantly change to make this work on a large scale.
> Most of the knowledge produced by scholars is certainly labor but  
> it is
> often unpaid (in direct monetary form)

what is the solution to this then?   is it to have yet one more  
journal, or perhaps it is to close many journals?
> . However, particularly in
> academia, social capital can be accrued through volunteer labor, and
> sometimes that is a better incentive than money by itself (this is not
> to say that money isn't an incentive of course -- I do work-for-hire
> stuff for publishers when I can, but I also do a lot of my work for
> Kairos--unpaid/volunteer work--because it leads to greater value  
> for me
> as a member of a particular field).

I agree.... but this varies also.  I actually tend to think of kairos  
only as a blog, though there is a journal, but the labor here is  
really what you construct.
>>
>> 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?
>
> This is an excellent question. At an educational technology conference
> where the journal editors were concerned with figuring out how to get
> their journals in to ISI so they'd have an impact factor, I suggested
> that they come up with alternate forms of judging impact and work to
> make those accepted in their fields, rather than trying to buy into a
> system that is already stacked against them (these were mostly print
> journals).

my statement was based on the assumption of similar content to its  
comparison, which is what i'd expect.  I'd currently expect that the  
journal would publish things along the lines of first monday if it  
was electronic.
>
> In terms of the scenario you list above, *I* would view an AoIR  
> journal
> in print or virtual as having value based on what it publishes and how
> that work is used (and I mean this very broadly -- not just in  
> terms of
> formal citation). If the journal is good, I wouldn't see it as more or
> less respect-worthy than First Monday because in a way, that would be
> comparing apples and oranges and because there is no reason each
> couldn't be equally respected. The task at hand, then, becomes, how do
> we get *institutions* to understand value in this broader sense?

You do and you don't, this varies across institutions and  
disciplines.  in 10 years you'll see some shift perhaps, maybe more  
shift in 15.  You can try to make policies, but we know how that  
works, you make a policy today and you get a new dept head tomorrow,  
or new committee next year.  there tends to be a back and forth and  
in my mind it is less about inclusion than exclusion when the  
arguments are made.  to me then 'institutions' don't understand,  
individuals and occasionally disciplines might have an understanding,  
but we have to be careful about saying that x institution understands  
the value in any sense, because frequently they do not.

I think Ted is right in saying that journals matter for one primary  
issue, and that is tenure, but really, in the case of tenure is  
content king?  or is reputation king? and to what extent are they  
related.  there are bibliometrics already, i'm not sure they show  
that quality matters, but it depends on your definitions.

if we start from the assumption of a 'good' journal, i think we start  
falsely.  i think we should start thinking about where you would not  
recommend a junior faculty publish their work, discourage that first,  
then get them to aim higher.  i mean publish whatever you can, but  
there has to be some care, no?  isn't there judgement in relation to  
quality that faculty need to consider?