Chas Clifton writes:
"Which journals charge authors to submit? I have not encountered such a thing in the field of religious studies."
I'm not sure of the exact pricing structure, but I think that either paying to submit or paying to print is more common among the hard sciences.
"Yes, because I as editor and (sometimes) designer and production editor do expect to be paid! And the printer expects to be paid. And so on."
I see nothing wrong with making a profit, but the claims some publishers make are unnecessary. I'd say copyright is a major one - publishers of most books give the authors copyright and negotiate out rights of reproduction and the like, so I'm not sure why some journals insist they require the copyright.
Sincerely,
Dan Harms
Coordinator of Instruction Librarian
State University of New York - Cortland
Memorial Library B-110
(607) - 753-4042
________________________________
From: Society for The Academic Study of Magic on behalf of Chas S. Clifton
Sent: Fri 11/7/2008 6:21 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] FYI--Why Academics Should Blog
On Nov 6, 2008, at 4:14 AM, Morgan Leigh wrote:
Regarding the profit motive of journals, I honestly feel they are taking
two bites of the cherry. Yes it costs to make a journal, but they charge
authors to submit and they charge subscribers for access.
Which journals charge authors to submit? I have not encountered
such a thing in the field of religious studies.
And they want
the copyright so they can try to make more money later. The process of
ranking journals as a means to assess academics for employment is thus
flawed. The journals are not in it for the good of the academy. They are
in it to make profit.
Yes, because I as editor and (sometimes) designer and production
editor do expect to be paid! And the printer expects to be paid.
And so on.
Therefore it is in their interests to allow free
dissemination of ideas and it is in their interests to only accept
papers that many peers will agree with.
That sentence makes no sense to me. We allow the
dissemination of ideas -- but only ones that pass peer review --
is that what you are saying?
\
As far as I am concerned this is a feature. One great advance of the
web, and of things like wikipedia in particular, is that people are
aware from the get go that information is contested.\
Yes, and all it takes is one person to "squat" on an entry
and engage in endless "revert wars" to pollute the entry for everyone.
See, for example, this comment from a writer who lives adjacent
to the Blackfeet Reservation in Montana:
http://prairiemary.blogspot.com/2008/11/trust-wikipedia-hahahaha.html
Waiting for enlightenment,
Chas S. Clifton, editor
The Pomegranate: The International Journal of Pagan Studies
http://www.equinoxjournals.com/ojs/index.php/POM
alternate email: [log in to unmask]
|