AOIR 8.3.1

This morning’s keynote speaker was one of my favorite people, John Willinsky, head of the Public Knowledge Project, which has produced both the Open Journal Systems and the Open Conference Systems, among other projects. Again, problems in the notes below the fold should be attributable to me and my conference headache, not to John.

— let’s get a mitt, and get in the game — the conference is about play, but the association needs to get in the game
— very concerned about civic participation and access to knowledge, both as an educator and within the university at large
— need to reduce the fragmentation of conferences; going to try to pull together themes of conference
— henry jenkins “was kind enough not to focus on” academic role in participatory culture
— “You make all the content; they keep all the wealth” — even more applicable to academic publishing
— what’s the moral economy of what we do? what’s the role of the public intellectual?
— “gift economy meets commodity fetish” — power of fans to rewrite the world, interest in going public, resonates with kind of work we should be doing, too
— not about technology, about culture — the internet makes this kind of academic participatory culture possible, but it can’t make it happen; there is no system that can make it work, until the participants see its importance
— talk exists between infomercial and advocacy campaign
— AOIR has no official journal as a society — wants to set up a whole range of possibilities for organization — wants to make a case for making work public — impact both professional, scholarly, public
— the game is about openness — genome project, open science notebook project, creative commons, gutenberg project, open content alliance
— if the public sphere is changing, where is the academy in that?
— quality of knowledge produced through peer-review needs to be seen as part of public sphere
— focused on journals rather than books — have moved online to an extent that people are not keeping print versions anymore — suggests possibility of making work more available online
— open access movement — “stupendously successful in a minor way”
— 2600 open access journals listed at university of ???; most charge no author fees, working on subsidies and volunteer labor — gift economy of authors and editors
— delayed open-access — many journals open all content six months after publication — see new england journal of medicine (phenomenal profits, so no risk in making online version free)
— canadian government now supporting open-access journals via SSRC
— question of status closed — many open-access journals now have equal status — now moving into inversion of traditional status
— public knowledge project trying to address question of how you make journals available for free — built open-source software — now over 1000 journals using open journal systems for free
— ojs one of a number of open-source solutions — improves quality by improving record-keeping, analysis, allowing for inclusion of datasets, etc.
— affiliation of society with information, communication, and society (ics), published by taylor & francis; you can make material you publish in this journal open-access
— journal costs libraries $698 for print & online ($100 per issue!); if you cancel print version, drops price $35 — but have an open-access clause: all grant permission to post your articles on websites
— claim to want to promote “the widest possible access,” to wanting to “manage authors’ intellectual property rights” — by having you sign them over — but will allow you to post a pre-print (subject to certain conditions; how can they impose conditions on something they haven’t accepted?)
— post pre-prints! use institutional repositories! will hit google scholar quickly; will begin generating interest much, much sooner
— if published, taylor & francis says you can post a “post-print” online — but, there’s an embargo of 12 months for science, technology, and medicine; in social sciences, 18 months (!)
— also works retroactively — we could make lots of material available
— wants to do all of this legally, righteously, to make a moral argument, to insist that we have the legal right
— two roads to open access: open access journals; public archiving of non-open access journals
— in uk, 5 of 7 public granting councils now require public archiving of articles within 6 to 12 months
— professional reasons for making material available: increases citations by 2 to 3 times, if not more — but limited time offer: once everyone has to make material publicly available, there will be a leveling effect
— open access has turned corner for developing countries
— educational responsibilities — need to prepare students for ability to find material online
— academic freedom — editors of canadian medical journal fired for criticizing public officials; went on to found open access journal (open medicine) with no pharma advertising
— to start a journal today, it must be open access, as libraries can’t afford more subscriptions, and as academic freedom demands freedom from publisher control
— possibilities and responsibilities for organization — no-cost option: make archiving rights known to membership; become politically aware of public mandates for public access; think about potential journal in terms of academic freedom issues; negotiate with publishers around access
— when commercial publishers take over society journals, price goes up an average of 5 times


4 thoughts on “AOIR 8.3.1

  1. So what type of publishers would you rather have? Forgive me for being ignorant, but if it is not commercialized then I’m thinking that it is government-run?? If so, that would explain why it may be cheaper…..WE the taxpayers are paying for it!!

  2. Good grief. First off, there exists a range of possibilities between commercial and government operations; surely your church falls into neither of those categories? (An assumption I make based on the URL that I edited out of your signature, which convinces me that you’re likely a church-going kinda guy.)

    Second, this post is all about academic publishing, which is meant to be a public good, focused on the collective advancement of knowledge, and not on commercial gain. Academic publishing is a necessary component of educational institutions, and yes, those institutions are funded in part by tax dollars. But in increasingly small part. And higher education in this country is suffering because of it.

    I’m pretty sure I’m just being trolled — and would have spammed the message if it hadn’t appeared from my logs that you actually read (which is not to say understood)¬†the post — so I’m going to stop there.

    But sheesh.

  3. Why do you think that my comment is spam just because I don’t agree with the fact that tax payers are paying for these publishings?

  4. Oh, you’re back. See, here’s what you’re not getting: one way or another, taxpayers are already paying for these publications. Twice, in fact: first, through the grants and institutions that support the scholarly research that results in the publications, and second, through the libraries that pay for the published versions of the results. What open access publishing is trying to do is to ensure that the public gets what it has already paid for — that scholarly work is published in open-access venues so that the public has access to the results of the research that it has already funded. So understanding open access publishing as a means of getting the taxpayers to fund publishing is utterly misguided: you’re already funding it; you might as well get access to what you’re paying for.

    And by the by, what made me think your comment was spam was not your disagreement, but the combination of your missing the point of the post and the URL you keep trying to get linked here…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.