Since virtually all the contributions so far prompted by this thread have
been entirely critical of the existing structure of the academic
publishing world, and since some have specifically mentioned Elsevier and
Political Geography, let me respond by offering a case for the defence.
The first essential point to make is that publishers do make a
contribution to the process, including but not limited to: funding the
editorial offices that manage the review process, providing publishing
services such as copyediting, and supplying and improving technological
infrastructure and functionality that has revolutionised the academic
world - ensuring the widespread dissemination and longstanding
preservation of the scientific record.
Given that publishers are making that contribution as a commercial
undertaking, it is reasonable that they should expect some financial
reward. The question of whether the financial reward Elsevier gets is
reasonable is addressed in an article I published last year in
Geoforum, "Price and value: A publisher's perspective". (You can find it
by following the link at the end of this email.) I believe Elsevier gives
excellent value for money.
These days it is indeed easy to create an online journal and disseminate
it publicly, with very little direct cost initially, albeit with limited
functionality and haphazard discovery. Anyone who wants to spend the time
and effort to edit one without either the financial support of a publisher
or the sustained indulgence of their institution is welcome to do so (and
many people do); once the initial enthusiasm wears off, either because of
simple passage of time and the changing interests and obligations of the
editors, or because success makes the task grow to inconveniently large
proportions and turns a hobby into a chore, or they can't keep up with
technological innovations, many will find themselves in the same situation
as the editors of Antipode did, and discover that a publisher can indeed
bring something useful to the party.
As a publisher, I am confident that I do provide a valuable service to the
fields I work in, that the publications I have created and managed perform
important roles, and that most or all of them would not have existed and
could not be sustained to their present high standard without the support
and financial investment of Elsevier. Perhaps the most valuable function
the various open access initiatives will serve is to provide competition
to ensure that commercial publishers such as Elsevier have to keep on our
mettle and continue to innovate and to provide ever better value for money.
Having made my main point, I would like to address related issues raised
by others on this thread: ownership of journals and abuse of copyright.
Justus Uitermark wonders "what would happen if, say, the editorial board
of Political Geography collectively decided to take its journal
elsewhere". (In fact Political Geography, like most journals, is owned by
its publisher, not by the board.) The answer is that there have been
instances of editorial boards leaving en masse to start new journals; and
that in those cases, the existing journals have carried on, without major
harm, as far as I know, and certainly without being supplanted by the new
rival.
Justus and Deb both appear to advocate ignoring copyright restrictions,
deliberately posting articles in breach of copyright, and 'liberating'
back issues. I am curious as to whether their approval of breaching
contractual agreements freely entered into, and thereby possibly depriving
the target of the transgression of some income, would extend to other
types of contract they might enter into, and in which case they might be
on the receiving end?
Sorry that this has ended up longer than I intended. I don't expect to
sway many people on crit-geog-forum from an anti- to a pro-commercial-
publisher position, and I certainly don't intend to get involved in
protracted debate here. I just want you to understand that the issues here
are possibly more complex and less black-and-white than they might seem,
and that there is plenty that can be said in favour of the existing
structure.
Oh, and if you want a third party's view of my "Price and value" article,
try here:
http://www.econ.ucsb.edu/%7Etedb/Journals/weasel.html
Chris
Chris Pringle, MCILT
Publisher - Geography, Planning, Development & Transport
Elsevier
Langford Lane
Kidlington OX5 1GB
United Kingdom
Tel.: +44 (0)1865 843712
Mobile: +44 (0)791 7781738
Fax: +44 (0)1865 843951
Email: [log in to unmask]
www.elsevier.com/geography
www.elsevier.com/transportation
www.elsevier.com/safety
|