[Air-L] open-access is the future: boycott locked-down academic journals

[Christian Nelson]

On Feb 9, 2008, at 10:32 AM, Caroline Haythornthwaite wrote:

> This one has prompted me to respond! ... This is such an odd view  
> of "powerful academics". It is precisely the "powerful academics",  
> aka tenured and/or full Professors, who can afford to go to these  
> new venues.

See my response to a recent post about scholars wanting to extend  
their reputations into the future.

> Moreover, if work is not getting full play in journals -- because  
> of the invisibility and inaccessibilty of print journals or fee- 
> based online journals -- then why wouldn't we all flock to online  
> publishing to gain the 'power' of widespread access.

Because online publication isn't worth the trouble unless the big  
dogs publish there as well.

> So, why don't we? -- because, believe it or not, many of us  
> actually have put time and energy into journals -- setting them up,  
> reviewing papers, considering the standards of good research,  
> argumentation and knowledge, and wanting to make it worth someone  
> taking the time to open up a journal, and for those outside our  
> discipline to take us seriously as a discipline.

Ever notice that no one outside the field of communication regards it  
as something to take seriously. Administrators clearly perceive it as  
a dumping ground for students who can't make it in other departments  
(the faculty-student ration in most large communication departments  
far exceeds that of other departments. And I'd be rich if I had a  
nickle for every time someone in another discipline asked me what I  
was doing in such a backwater as communication. I'd say there's  
nothing to lose in trying something new.

And what proof is there that any of my suggestions of how we should  
open our journals to more editorial voices lower standards? CNET.com,  
a commercial enterprise whose very survival depends on readers  
perceptions of the worth of its content, not only provides readers  
with their editors' judgments about the items they review, but also  
aggregates the opinions of their readers about those items and even  
lets them right long form reviews, many of which I have found more  
informative than those provided by the editors. How can more eyeballs  
focused on an item, and the free ability to debate an items merit,  
LOWER standards. That doesn't make any sense.

Your argument that those presently possessing editorial power are the  
only one's capable of keeping up standards is the same argument that  
old school, short-sighted, MSM journalists say when they reject  
blogers' claims to being journalists as well. The old school folks  
support their argument by pointing to the inaccuracies that can be  
found in the blogosphere, But this is short-sighted because it not  
only ignores examples like Jason Blair or the failure of nearly the  
entire MSM journalism community to accurately report on Iraq's  
(completely lack of) WMDs and relations with Al Qaeda, but also  
ignores the fact that the blogosphere is self-correcting while MSM  
journalism is decidedly not. This is also the argument that  all  
those old-school, short-sighted academics make about Wikipedia. They  
disallow their students from citing Wikipedia, and promulgate the  
claim that it is untrustworthy, because of the few instances where  
someone has manipulated a Wikipedia entry, without recognizing that  
Wikipedia is self-correcting, and fraud is easily detected by simply  
clicking on the "History" tab of each entry, while editorially locked- 
down encyclopedia's are not self-correcting and provide no such  
history file.

> Yes, it is a gatekeeper role, and I'm proud to be part of it as  
> should be all others who strive for quality in their work and  
> *their* journals.

Wow. That says it all right there. I thought scientific discourse was  
supposed to be about the open exchange of ideas. How does gate- 
keeping square with that?

Sure, my suggested reforms of the system change would increase the  
number of articles published and number of editorial voices hear. But  
there are plenty of successful models already in place on the  
Internet for filtering through the flood of information on the Internet.

C'mon, doesn't anyone on this list believe in the open exchange of  
ideas and the ability of Internet tools and models like Wikipedia to  
help people find the truth. Not even the founder of Wikipedia. Gee Whiz.

Christian Nelson