Honorable Forum:
Perhaps scientists could rely on the relevance/merit test rather than
the publicity test for assessing the quality of "publication models?"
(I presume the inept will go the way of the standard survivorship curve?)
Issue for further consideration:
What about "peer reviewed" journals that function, shall we say, "in
part," to prevent perishing, pump publications lists, filter Pharisees,
and advance careers as a primary rather than an incidental purpose? Or
is this presumptuous statement entirely without merit and the wagons
should be circled to keep the unwashed, the unanointed, at bay, in their
place, and away from "free" access to scholarly work? Should the
firewalls at university and other institutional websites be burned down,
or should the heathen be burned ($4.95, $49.95, or ?) at the gate?
Except for institutions which live on taxpayer funds (directly or
indirectly), I figure it's their choice whether or not to bar access to
just any Tomas, Dickie, or Sally who wants to invade their towers. But
that is beside the question of which alternative serves the broader or
narrower interests, eh?
"Traditionally," scientific research has been held closely to a
tight clique of guilders, lest the aura of mystery (and the gold) be
undermined. But that tradition stems from the days when only the
wealthy could afford to ponder--and pander, unencumbered by the rabble.
The high priests wrote in the code of dead languages in cloistered,
secret societies to ensure an unchallenged monopoly. Then along came
the Internet of the time, the printing press, and the rabble--and all
hell--broke loose. Reformation ran amok.
Ironically, but not surprisingly, the guild model came to
characterize the "reformers" as well. And the torturous inquisitions,
the burning at the stake, was reborn in new forms. Priestly professors
"grade" their subjects on how well they have taken "instruction," and
should some miscreant receive the modern Mark of Cain, he or she will be
required to do penance to even smudge it over--forget removal.
Yet, the intellectual impulse being what it is, scholars who are not
heading for the beach in their BMW's manage to run the gauntlet anyway,
and despite such distractions from the professed mission of ensuring the
ability to actually PERFORM (smell that garlic--sniff, sniff?), actually
do manage to perform. And the absent, despite their tracking sand o'er
the backs of the others, are rarely denied their certificates. The
Internet serves fakers and workers alike. Plagiarism? Like, that's SO
last century!
Much as in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, there will be wars
of a sort over whether or not The Authorities are bestowing gifts or
curses, and pamphleteering/blogging will continue to be a pain to them,
for good or for ill. But mark ye this--no elite in history has ever
given up Power easily. Even then, it is merely a token.
For Heaven's sake--will the Internet permit just ANYBODY to search
the entirety of the knowledge base--or will it be merely a refuge of
scoundrels? Or will only the creme de la creme of research continue to
be largely walled off from all but the institutionalized? Should (the)
Gutenberg (project) and all other thieves have been toasted before they
caused REAL trouble? I know not what course others may prefer, but as
for me, let me raise my glass in their honor! Shhhhh!
WT
PS: To what extent is peer reviewing a way of taking care "what you are
walling out and what you are walling in[?]" At least Ecolog-l is free
and open--or at least pruned very little. In the Renaissance, the
rabble used to leave scribbled critiques (or piles of feces if they
couldn't write) of public art (and science?) in the dark of night . . .
Now, that may not be PEER review, but it is review, eh?
[NOTE: My inestimable ISP has hosed Eudora, and I am in the midst of
probing the mysteries of Thunderbird--so I apologize in advance for
failing to make replies to anyone in the past. I may or may not be able
to in the future, and will be refusing to take electronic encumbrances
with me when I depart to stand far out in as many fields as
possible--dilettantely, of course, come mid-April, from Mexico to the
Columbia.]
Andrew Rypel wrote:
Dear Ecologers,
I'd like to probe the forum on people's opinion of the publication models
available to scientists today. I (and probably most of us) have seen a
massive rise in the number of open access publications over just the last
2-3 years. And yet this seems to be happening alongside an explosion in the
number of traditional-style publications as well. What does this all mean
for us ecologists trying to get our studies read by as many people as
possible and by those that can take your information and make a difference
with it – either through further research or policy?
I'll be honest that I'm leery of many of the new open access journals. I do
see value in them, especially for those who are at underfunded research
centers that don't have access to many of the mainstream publications. On
the other hand, what are they? Do they ultimately reach as many people? And
do they reach the "right" people – the ones that control aspects of policy
or have top-tier research programs. Are these new journals to be indexed in
Web of Science or the other academic search engines? So many questions
surround this new format and I just wonder what the rest of the community
thinks.
Andrew
A
