Blog Demonstrates Alternative To Closed Academic Journals

from the open-knowledge dept

Academic journals have never been particularly big moneymakers, but they can offer successful contributors a certain amount of prestige. Still, it’s never made much sense that these journals are so reluctant to open up their content to the public, potentially exposing contributing authors to a much wider audience. As it is, many interesting academic articles are locked behind prohibitively expensive paywalls. Any follow-on conversation is locked up as well, further reducing the value of the paper. The world of academic blogs isn’t exactly a substitute for academic journals, although it does help bring some of these conversations out into the open, as well as offer professors an avenue to promote their research. Over at the popular law blog The Conglomerate, they’re doing an interesting experiment, whereby several academics are discussing a paper that’s been made open to the public. While you might not be interested in the subject itself — Privatization and the Law and Economics of Political Advocacy — the experiment offers a good opportunity to glimpse the kind of discussion that would occur among academics, usually behind closed doors. It would seem to behoove the world of academia to encourage more of these open discussions. Not only would it raise the profile of more professors, but it would continue to level the playing field, by eroding the dominance of a handful of elite universities and journals.

Filed Under:

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Blog Demonstrates Alternative To Closed Academic Journals”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Greg J. Smith (user link) says:

not peer reviewed

Ha! I love this.. I run a digital arts quarterly called Vague Terrain and a lot of our contributors are PhD students, they love the ability to talk a little more informally and expose their work to a wider audience. The whole project is a double edged sword though in that a lot of academics don’t take us seriously (because we don’t peer review) and then we have also received feedback that we are far too formal for web 2.0 culture. Also, we release our publication quarterly which is in lines with an academic journal, but today’s RSS readers seem hungry for 5 updates a week. In many ways the slow, steady pace of the academic journal.. unaffected by the news of the moment is just what the world needs right now.

The debate is quite similar to citizen journalism vs. more traditional models.

Please take a loot at our project!

Greg J. Smith

Overcast says:

It’s more like ‘corporate knowledge’ than ‘academia’ now.

I think the days of true ‘Universities’ are gone – it’s just a corporation that specializes in political agendas and revenue.

Nothing wrong with a business being a business – but the need is once again here – for public places where knowledge can truly be shared.

Anonymous Coward says:

I am not passing judgement on Vague Terrain’s peer review (or not) decision because I know nothing about digital arts.

That said, for scientific and medical purposes, peer review is needed to protect – as much as possible – against poorly done research.

Once a peer reviewed scientific/medical paper is published, greater benefit is achieved by granting wide access, than restricting it. That would change the business model of the journals.

They can adjust – maybe by selling very low cost access via the web. Lots of cheap subscriptions vs. a few expensive ones.

Greg J. Smith (user link) says:

Re: loot at me

loot? Geez. Sorry.

Well, I guess there is a sliding scale as per the necessity of peer review. In arts writing, if an author wants to engage in bad scholarship their piece may be rejected by us, and they may be exposed as fools for propagating shoddy work. There aren’t repercussions, I guess in more science or practice leaning periodicals I can understand the need for peer review. I don’t necessarily think it is needed in arts and ideas writing. 2/3 or our content is music/audio art and visual art so there isn’t even a precedent of peer review for them (aside from critique).. it is just the written content we are “lax” about compared to academic journals.


Leave a Reply to Anonymous Coward Cancel reply

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

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...