[Air-L] Open-What?

[Andres Guadamuz]

I get rather frustrated with the false dichotomy rhetoric in open access 
debates. Life rarely functions in predictable binary ways (I know this 
is an over-simplification in itself, but I digress).

Open access, whichever way you define it, has proven to be a viable 
publishing model, particularly in the "hard" sciences. I believe this to 
be a factual statement. Similarly, open access publishing does not do 
away with some traditional functions of scientific publication, such as 
gate-keeping and peer-reviewing. Similarly, I do not think that open 
access heralds the end of traditional publishing. It may prompt a change 
in some antiquated business models, but that is another topic entirely.

(Shameless plug alert) If you want to have a look at an open access 
journal that operates a strict peer-review policy, let me introduce you 
to SCRIPT-ed. We operate thanks to the kind support of the UK's Arts and 
Humanities Research Council:
http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/ahrc/script-ed/

Let me address some of your points:

Barry Wellman wrote:

> 2. Printing and mailing costs are not the only costs of journals. A
> journal that I helped start pays the equivalent of a Research Assistant's
> salary to the Managing Editor; it has to arrange for reduced teaching load
> for the editor; and there are some computer and office costs. In short,
> this is $30-$40K per year, and it is damn hard to find universities to
> cough up that money. Subscription fees might, though. I do know we are
> working hard to find a few qualified editors in another journal who are
> willing -- and whose universities will help. Unpaid volunteers work as
> referees and advisory editors -- I do a lot of that -- but would rarely
> last at the daily grind of constant submission, referee-finding, and
> editing. Treasure such people, and reward them, either with released time
> or with some salary.
>   
I agree, editing a journal is hard work, and can be expensive. We have 
been reducing costs by allowing talented PhD students to take over 
editorship for one or two years (early in their degree). They have been 
doing a sterling job so far, and they also get paid to do it. This is an 
experience that has worked for us, but your mileage may vary. I believe 
that there is funding out there for a determined journal that wants to 
go the open access route.

> 3. The real problem is readers need filtering. Not eveyone wants to read
> everything. Journals serve as a filtering mechanism. Sometimes they make
> mistakes, but as a frequent editor, I am usually gladdened by the rough
> consensus among reviewers. As someone who has solicited pieces from
> all-comers and then filtered for publication, I know how much is not ready
> for prime time. Do you, as a reader, want to wade through this? I am not
> talking about genre, theory, qual vs quant, or stuff like that. I am
> talking about quality level.
>   
As I mentioned already, peer-review and filtering are not incompatible 
with open access. On the contrary, some of the OA definitions include 
peer-review as a requisite.
> 4. Refereeing also serves a mentoring function. Not everyone was lucky
> enough to be mentored at a good university by a caring advisor or three.
> Moreover, I've had the experience of turning down a paper written by
> someone at a great university. "How dare you?" they basically asked. We
> explained why, and with luck, they learned something. One of the unsung
> benefits of refereeing is having some folks take a careful look at what
> you wrote and give you feedback
>   
In SCRIPT-ed our articles are refereed anonymously, which guarantees 
fairness.

> 5. I was at a conference last week at which a frequent blogger was often
> quoted as the authority, although I think this blogger has had at most one
> refereed article published. "Have you checked on the validity of [this
> blogger's] assertions?" I asked. "Well now, we just assumed," was the
> answer. Is this any way to build a discipline?
>   
Excuse me if I misunderstand this statement, but what does blogging have 
to do with open access? You seem to be conflating OA with other forms of 
web publication, the internet is a big place, in case you had not 
noticed. By the way, I agree that using a blogger as an authority is bad 
scholarly practice, regardless of the blogger's reputation. As a keen 
blogger, I have to admit that I find it a lot of fun, but I do not 
believe my posts should be cited in scholarly publications.

> 6. So the real question is Open What? JCMC avoids printing and mailing,
> but is still a refereed journal -- of high quality. That is quite
> different than the anything goes model. Of course, there are variations in
> that. I tend to put on my web page serious conference papers and even
> recently, developed ppts. One of my mentors, by contrast, will only put up
> articles a decent interval after they have been published. "I like to know
> that I am right when I go public with something."
>   
I'm curious as why you think that OA equates "anything goes".

Regards,

Andres

-- 
Andres Guadamuz
AHRC Research Centre for Studies in
Intellectual Property and Technology Law 
Old College, South Bridge
Edinburgh, EH8 9YL

Tel: 44 (0)131 6509699
Fax: 44 (0)131 6506317
a.guadamuz at ed.ac.uk
http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/ahrc/

SCRIPT-ed Journal of Law, Technology and Society
http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/ahrc/script-ed

IP/IT/Medical Law LLM by Distance Learning
http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/distancelearning/