Re: [jox] research threads instead of special issues
- From: Toni Prug <tony irational.org>
- Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2010 23:39:21 +0000
I think special issues are a form which is necessary for paper
publications. They are less necessary for digital publications.
With research threads, we don't loose printed issues, but we get them in
in the different rhythm: one more suitable to academic production of
articles, and one in which production of quality worthy of chopping
trees occurs. Why print forcefully after 9-12 month, if we can get much
better material by giving all those who would like to submit the time
scales which make those extra submissions possible? I did a small survey
of this yesterday, asking three more academic colleagues how they feel
about CallForPapers current form - they are as unhappy and as bitter as
every single academic i spoke so far.
+1 - though I don't see a contradiction here really. A special issue
could be the starting point for a research thread which then
continues.
The argument goes like this: most special issues, and most journals
indeed, are not good enough i.e. not as closely as good as they could be
if we tweaked the processes of production. This is my starting position
- i buy huge amounts of books that i enjoy reading, and very few
journals that i rarely find useful or enjoy; although i tried, with many
subscription over the years (i still keep bunch of subscriptions
although in reality i only currently enjoy and find useful reading a
single journal out of it all). Hence, in my assessment, journals, and
special issues, are worthy of buying as printed products only in
extremely rare cases. This lack of uniform quality (an odd exceptional
piece can be found often, but why publish and buy a printed item for
this) is because journals do not fit the rhythm and the time-logic of
research today.
The proposal i'm doing for another academic publishing platform project
is that when a research thread produces enough texts of good quality,
a special issue will be compiled and published as a book collection.
This way, both the authors and the potential readers get a much better
deal out of it: authors more time to produce, and readers higher quality
printed publication.
Of course, those who think there are many academic journals with
consistently high quality of publishing to the extent that they like
buying them as printed products will obviously disagree.
I spoke on this issue with well over a dozen colleagues in academia
during past year/two, many of them with many years of editorial or
advisory board work in various journals, and so far only a single
colleague staunchly defended the quality of any journal [1].
Paradoxically, that person is Juan Grigera, who ended up joining me in
my quest to change the way articles are produced, reviewed and published
through journals, using web tools and organizational techniques - we now
work together on the Journal Commons project that i already mentioned.
best,
toni
[1] In short, editorial board members of various journals i spoke to
have low opinion of the pieces published in own journals - confirming my
dissatisfaction with journals in general. It's unlikely they would say
so publicly, and i wouldn't blame them for it either. But private
discussions tell a depressing story of journals. Still, editors keep
doing it, blind to structural problems, institutionalized into the
existing journal-mindset. I don't blame them for that either, it's much
easier to propose changes being a newcomer to the field, i feel.
______________________________
http://www.oekonux.org/journal