But it gets worse. It is not uncommon for researchers not to have access to their own published texts — as I mentioned earlier - and even to be threatened by big publishing companies if they decide to make the content they have produced - for free - available. I am not saying that academic publishing houses are worthless. But the current model is broken and we do need to think of more sustainable models for academic publishing that do not involve paying hundreds of dollars for a page article or getting threats for allowing a colleague to read a paper you wrote, but the journal decided it should go behind a paywall.
Universities often do not have the bandwidth to publish journals and books — dealing with all the bureaucracy, the staff needed, the contacts with peer reviewers, the editing process, etc — so academic publishing houses are important, they fill a gap and do provide a vital service to academia.
The problem here is how - and how much — they charge for it. It is not. But it does allow us to have access to overly expensive content that we have produced, and we have the right to access.
Not a few academics have signed petitions and vowed to never publish, edit or peer-review for publishing houses like Elsevier or Springer which, they believe, exploit the volunteer work of academics for profit. They are demanding a reform of how journals are published. Some of the issues that are frequently pointed out are the high prices charged, the bundle or combination of journals that are forced upon universities, the refusal to allow authors to decide to keep their articles open or to share them, and ultimately the fact that knowledge cannot be held hostage by one or several publishing houses.
Sci-Hub, then, comes as a way — sometimes the only way — for academics to effectively do their research, particularly those from developing countries or a low-income background. An Overview of the Scholarly Publishing Process Here is the typical linear flow of the scholarly publishing process: Author submits manuscript to academic journal editor Editor determines whether manuscript has sufficient merit to be reviewed by editorial board or selected external reviewers Manuscript sent back to the author with a rejection letter or sent on to reviewers Reviewers return the manuscript to the editor with comments and recommendations depending on peer review model Editor sends manuscript back to the author with either a rejection letter or a request for revisions Author revises manuscript and resubmits to editor Editor sometimes sends revised manuscript back to external reviewers Editor accepts or rejects manuscript Author provides editing or proofing of final copy before publication Paper is eventually published in journal This model relies on many individuals playing distinct roles within the overall process of publishing scholarly journals.
Roles in Scholarly Publishing Four main parties participate in publishing scholarly journals: scholars, editors and peer reviewers, publishers, and subscribers. Scholars Scholars create the work that is published. What is most important to scholars is the prestige of the journal, the efficiency and fairness of the review process, the timeliness of publication, and their out-of-pocket publication costs.
Editors and Peer Reviewers Editors and peer reviewers provide quality control for the content, including screening submissions, reviewing manuscripts, suggesting revisions, corresponding with authors, and overseeing the final copy. Their main concern is advancing knowledge in their field, creating a prestigious journal, increasing the potential impact of the journal, and obtaining the support of the publisher.
Publishers Publishers usually commercial publishers or professional societies are responsible for getting the journal into the marketplace. What drives publishers is making a profit or for professional societies, at least breaking even on the publication. They are concerned about holding costs down and raising subscription rates to create a healthy profit margin. Subscribers Subscribers, mostly institutions and libraries, purchase the journals and provide access to the scholars in their community.
They are concerned about their budgets and are deeply affected by increases in the price of journal subscriptions. They also want to provide access to the most prestigious journals for their faculty and students. Conflicts Among the Players In recent decades tensions have increased among the different groups involved in scholarly publishing owing to several factors: I ncreasing Volume of Scientific Research. This has led to an increase in the number of pages per journal, more new scholarly journal titles, and increased pressure on the existing peer review system.
As subscription-based journals face threats such as Plan S to their financial models, developing these types of content and workshops offer an incentive to authors to publish with these venues.
Moreover, in times of cost cutting at university presses, the increase in this type of guidance from publishers suggests a trend, and an expectation, that academic authors have a role to play in promoting their own research instead of relying on publishers to do all of the promotional work. Libraries such as Georgetown University and Binghamton University in New York also offer workshops to academics in how to promote published scholarship. These types of examples indicate that universities are seeking to maximize academic reputation.
Offering to help academics publicize their research is a way to do this type of promotion cost effectively and spread the workload. Second, because rank matters less after the top tier for many academics, newer journals and open access journals can attract new writers and readers.
This trend also suggests that some academics might be willing to look at digital-only journals or multimedia journals as a publishing outlet.
The offer of early release of accepted research is particularly attractive for US-based faculty on a tenure track who must publish as much as possible within the first years of hire. For larger scholarly publishing venues, an openness on the part of researchers to a variety of types of publishing offers opportunities for publishers to add journals that do not currently exist on the roster or to explore more cost-efficient models of publishing.
Ultimately, all affected parties researcher, reader, library, university, scholarly publisher, individual journal editors and reviewers have altered roles to play in the emerging lifecycle of academic publishing. Submission spaces have, more or less, retained the traditional model of inviting an author to submit a manuscript, and waiting for a review to return.
Few guidelines exist for published authors promoting research prior to publication beyond rules about previous publication.
Thanks for this very interesting post! Share Pin 3. Buffer Shift 2: After the Top Journals, Rank Matters Less Because researchers are thinking rhetorically, new research indicates they are more willing to take chances on newer journals, mid-tier journals, and open access journals that more directly address their particular interests.
Support In the previous publication lifecycle model, academics might have called on librarians to help find a difficult to locate source or to order additional books for the stacks. Shift 4: Academics Increasingly Work with Publishers to Promote Content In the previous model of monograph publication, a researcher submitted a manuscript to a press and it was up to the press to promote the work for sales.
View All Posts by Christine Tulley.
0コメント