Print

Print


To take this back to where we began; open access to academic journals and
how this relates to vested interests in academe and publishing. Whilst I
noted that a stated policy aspiration in the UK is that all publicly funded
research will be published online and made freely accessable there is
another side to this Œlogicı. The UK is currently reviewing its methods for
evaluating academic research and thus how it is funded. It is looking very
seriously at adopting certain aspects of the US system. Specifically, it
would seem we will move, to a great or lesser degree, to a citation metric
to determine quality (how many citations a paper receives will determine its
value). Currently the proposal is that the system will be based upon
(perhaps partly run by) Thompson/Reuters Web of Science database. This just
about assures that vested interests (the publishers) will keep the whip
hand.

An example of joined up thinking...

I do not think electronic publishing need have any effect on peer review.
Thatıs not what this is about. This is about business.

Regards

Simon

Simon Biggs

Research Professor
edinburgh college of art
[log in to unmask]
www.eca.ac.uk

[log in to unmask]
www.littlepig.org.uk
AIM/Skype: simonbiggsuk



From: Timothy Murray <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: Timothy Murray <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sat, 10 May 2008 11:09:56 -0400
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: [NEW-MEDIA-CURATING] New Models of Academic Publishing

>I've just returned from the American Academy of Learned Societies
>(ACLS) where the entire afternoon session focused on electronic
>publishing.  I received the impression that the strongest American
>anxiety over electronic publishing is centered, ironically, in the
>learned societies themselves (such as Modern Lanugage Association,
>College Art Association, American History Association, etc.) who are
>concerned about the impact on their memberships if they can't return
>peer-reviewed journals as part of the membership dues.

I also heard numerous remarks that assumed that electronic publishing
would necessarily be counter to the notion of "peer review" itself,
something on which academic institutions rely for promotion, etct.
Although the sciences seem to have figured out how to balance open
source archives with later peer reviewed publication, the humanities
haven't yet gotten there.  This could be related as well to a wide
anxiety over the possibility of the disappearance of the published
book.

What rarely seems to figure in these discussions is the potential of
the kinds of multimedia texts and experimental forms of writing that
have fueled Simon's practice for years.

Cheers,

Tim

>There are 2 messages totalling 199 lines in this issue.
>
>Topics of the day:
>
>   1. New Models of Academic Publishing (2)
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Date:    Fri, 9 May 2008 05:58:02 +0100
>From:    Ken Friedman <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: New Models of Academic Publishing
>
>Friends,
>
>Sean's got it exactly right. Half a decade back, the debate seemed to be
>whether we could accept these other models. Today, the debate seems to be=
>
>whether the for-pay publishers will survive in the new era of open access=
>
>publishing. The emergence of serious OA journals and publishers is
>accelerating, and for-pay publishers must accomodate them by adding value=
>
>and allowing for different kinds of exchange that were unthinkable only a=
>
>few years back.
>
>It's been a while since I studied the figures, but the worldwide academic=
>
>publishing industry is a multi-billion dollar indutry. What is astonishin=
>g
>is that universities and research organizations pay us to do the research=
>
>and writing. Then they pay us to do the reviewing and editing. After this=
>
>investment, we transfer our copyright to publishers who sell back to us a=
>t
>high cost the content we pay for, create, and give them.
>
>Most institutions are thinking this through carefully. These economics ma=
>de
>sense in the era of lead type, print on paper, and mailed subscriptions. =
>We
>paid for the services that publishers provided when printing presses were=
>
>dear and publishing was a costly process followed by the difficulties of
>distribution. For any number of reasons, nearly everyone is thinking twic=
>e.
>
>There have been rich discussions among librarians, university heads,
>university presses, and others on these topics -- along with discussions =
>by
>scholars in every field. The change is nearly upon us. I'd suspect that
>everyone is ready for it. It's more a matter of ironing out details than
>principles.
>
>In my faculty, what counts is the quality of the journal, not whether it
>appears on paper. The publisher matters to some degree, but good new OA
>publishers are far better respected than low-quality paper mills.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Ken
>
>
>
>On Wed, 7 May 2008 08:54:52 +1000, Sean Cubitt <[log in to unmask]> w=
>rote:
>
>>I'm just writing part of a faculty briefing for our university's informa=
>tion
>>futures policy and tracking some of the developments here. OHP is a
>>tremendous leap - and with both vectors and Fibreculture squarely in the=
>
>>CRUMB field. The idea of a double layer of quality assurance shd mean we=
>  can
>>persuade both colleagues and research councils etc to recognise online
>>journals as major sites equivalent to the hardcopy journals. A/c an EC
>>report, Science technology medecine publishing is worth between 7 and 11=
>  bn
>>USD and prices have been rising at between 200 and 300 per cent of infla=
>tion
>
>
>Ken Friedman
>Professor, Ph.D., Dr.Sci. (hc), FDRS
>
>Dean, Swinburne Design
>Swinburne University of Technology
>Melbourne, Australia
>
>+61 3 92.14.64.49 Telephone Swinburne
>+61 404 830 462=09Mobile
>
>email: [log in to unmask]
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date:    Fri, 9 May 2008 08:27:57 +0100
>From:    Simon Biggs <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: New Models of Academic Publishing
>
>Social and economic change rarely occurs uncontested. The publishers started
>their fightback quite some time ago. There is intense lobbying at national
>and supranational levels of governance. Even in those countries where
>governments have stated policy on this (in the UK the stated policy
>objective is that all publicly funded research outputs should be freely
>available to the public via the internet) the inertia of the system is
>playing into the hands of the publishers and other elements of the status
>quo. Who knows when the objective of freely available research will
>eventuate?
>
>Regards
>
>Simon
>
>
>Simon Biggs
>
>Research Professor
>edinburgh college of art
>[log in to unmask]
>www.eca.ac.uk
>
>[log in to unmask]
>www.littlepig.org.uk
>AIM/Skype: simonbiggsuk
>
>
>
>From: Ken Friedman <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: Ken Friedman <[log in to unmask]>
>Date: Fri, 9 May 2008 05:58:02 +0100
>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: [NEW-MEDIA-CURATING] New Models of Academic Publishing
>
>Friends,
>
>Sean's got it exactly right. Half a decade back, the debate seemed to be
>whether we could accept these other models. Today, the debate seems to be
>whether the for-pay publishers will survive in the new era of open access
>publishing. The emergence of serious OA journals and publishers is
>accelerating, and for-pay publishers must accomodate them by adding value
>and allowing for different kinds of exchange that were unthinkable only a
>few years back.
>
>It's been a while since I studied the figures, but the worldwide academic
>publishing industry is a multi-billion dollar indutry. What is astonishing
>is that universities and research organizations pay us to do the research
>and writing. Then they pay us to do the reviewing and editing. After this
>investment, we transfer our copyright to publishers who sell back to us at
>high cost the content we pay for, create, and give them.
>
>Most institutions are thinking this through carefully. These economics made
>sense in the era of lead type, print on paper, and mailed subscriptions. We
>paid for the services that publishers provided when printing presses were
>dear and publishing was a costly process followed by the difficulties of
>distribution. For any number of reasons, nearly everyone is thinking twice.
>
>There have been rich discussions among librarians, university heads,
>university presses, and others on these topics -- along with discussions by
>scholars in every field. The change is nearly upon us. I'd suspect that
>everyone is ready for it. It's more a matter of ironing out details than
>principles.
>
>In my faculty, what counts is the quality of the journal, not whether it
>appears on paper. The publisher matters to some degree, but good new OA
>publishers are far better respected than low-quality paper mills.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Ken
>
>
>
>On Wed, 7 May 2008 08:54:52 +1000, Sean Cubitt <[log in to unmask]>
>wrote:
>
>>I'm just writing part of a faculty briefing for our university's information
>>futures policy and tracking some of the developments here. OHP is a
>>tremendous leap - and with both vectors and Fibreculture squarely in the
>>CRUMB field. The idea of a double layer of quality assurance shd mean we can
>>persuade both colleagues and research councils etc to recognise online
>>journals as major sites equivalent to the hardcopy journals. A/c an EC
>>report, Science technology medecine publishing is worth between 7 and 11 bn
>>USD and prices have been rising at between 200 and 300 per cent of inflation
>
>
>Ken Friedman
>Professor, Ph.D., Dr.Sci. (hc), FDRS
>
>Dean, Swinburne Design
>Swinburne University of Technology
>Melbourne, Australia
>
>+61 3 92.14.64.49 Telephone Swinburne
>+61 404 830 462 Mobile
>
>email: [log in to unmask]
>
>------------------------------
>
>End of NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Digest - 8 May 2008 to 9 May 2008 (#2008-73)
>**********************************************************************


-- 
Timothy Murray
Professor of Comparative Literature and English
Curator, The Rose Goldsen Archive of New Media Art, Cornell Library
http://goldsen.library.cornell.edu
Director of Graduate Studies in Comparative Literature
Director of Graduate Studies in Film and Video
285 Goldwin Smith Hall
Cornell University
Ithaca, New York 14853