tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16745091.post9114109637172294802..comments2023-05-11T13:09:49.760-04:00Comments on Differences & Repetitions: Ownership rightsTed Striphashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09277064012517739981noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16745091.post-69585516094453910042008-07-24T13:51:00.000-04:002008-07-24T13:51:00.000-04:00SPARC, and its allied efforts around the world, ar...<A HREF="http://www.arl.org/sparc/" REL="nofollow">SPARC</A>, and its allied efforts around the world, are trying to effect such change in the world of scholarly publishing. SPARC is very good at creating business models that allow the content to be available for free (open access) and allow authors to retain more rights to their content than allowed by traditional publishers. There is a wide range of such publishing efforts already underway, from "start-ups" like bepress and Hindawi to library-based publishers, like the <A HREF="http://www.lib.umich.edu/spo/" REL="nofollow">Scholarly Publishing Office</A> at the University of Michigan (where I work) to efforts coming directly from scholarly societies (none come to mind at the moment). For more, see <A HREF="http://www.createchange.org/" REL="nofollow">Create Change</A>.Kevin Hawkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07725552620057595725noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16745091.post-7699577753889636002008-07-23T08:23:00.000-04:002008-07-23T08:23:00.000-04:00Ted,An additional constraint that I've run across ...Ted,<BR/><BR/>An additional constraint that I've run across in my explorations of this issue: some journals function to provide economic support for scholarly societies. For instance, <I>Cinema Journal</I> provides income to SCMS through institutional subscriptions and Project Muse - if it went to open access (which many members would prefer), SCMS would lose much-needed revenue.<BR/><BR/>This doesn't preclude DIY efforts, but the institutional benefits of some journals to the infrastructure of scholarly societies will prevent a wholesale shift to open access.Jason Mittellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05375428916312710022noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16745091.post-31287200129638188922008-07-21T10:41:00.000-04:002008-07-21T10:41:00.000-04:00Hey Josh,Thank for the comment--and especially for...Hey Josh,<BR/><BR/>Thank for the comment--and especially for all the information on indie journals. You're absolutely right on in saying how the realities of tenure and promotion complicate indie journal production. You're also on the mark in pointing out how academics--especially those in the humanities--continue to fetishize print.<BR/><BR/>Maybe it's naive of me, but those seem to me like "constraints" in the good 'ole rhetorical sense of the word. That is, they're both limitations and creative opportunities.<BR/><BR/>It seems to me like change would have to be twofold (at minimum). First, the humanities needs its Todd McFarlane, someone with sufficient star power to attract people to an Indie journal (and preferably someone who left the editorship of a major corporate journal to do so). Second, any journal would need to be produced both in print and online--which is viable given on-demand printing services such as Lulu and others. Of course, distribution still remains an issue.<BR/><BR/>No easy solutions, but I'm still optimistic that change can and will come. Explicitly or not, most everyone in the humanities seems to recognize the system is broken. Now if only we could get enough folks together to fix the darn thing.Ted Striphashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09277064012517739981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16745091.post-62331945065072044702008-07-20T16:30:00.000-04:002008-07-20T16:30:00.000-04:00It's a good question, Ted, but we have to deal wit...It's a good question, Ted, but we have to deal with who owns the means of production. One can start an online journal, I suppose, as performance studies folk did with <A HREF="http://liminalities.net/" REL="nofollow">+liminalities+ </A> . . . and so far that journal has been fairly successful. But, of course, not with the kind of influence that McFarlane had. <BR/><BR/>It seems to me the coin of the realm here is <EM>print</EM>, and glossy print at that. Victor Vitanza tried a similar thing with <EM>PRE/Text</EM>, which he insists isn't dead yet but which has been on hiatus for many years. So how does one create a print journal that can have staying power as an indie? <BR/><BR/>I can think of only one example: <EM>Telos</EM>. It has also seemed to be on the decline since Piccone's death.<BR/><BR/>Ultimately, though, one would battle the Wall of Sheer Exhaustion (WOSE) trying to get such a thing started. Without the security of tenure, trying to break off into a self-owned venture while publishing in sanctioned, peer review journals would destroy most of us, and most assuredly those of us with burgeoning families.<BR/><BR/>Meanwhile: Taylor & Francis out to be named Paylor & Fascist. I have oh so many stories about how NCA's Faustian bargain has sucked our collective souls into the anus of bullshittery . . . .Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com