The item beside this text is an advertisement

QUILLBLOG

Filed under: Industry news, Publishing,

Related posts

No related posts.

Harvard delivers blow to academic journals

Harvard University has adopted a new policy that may jeopardize the future of academic publishing. According to a piece on Bloomberg.com, the school’s professors have now been afforded much more leeway to publish their research for free online.

Harvard’s decision lends support to the growing open-access movement in academia, an approach opposed by journal-industry representatives who say bypassing journals and their peer-review process may harm the quality of published research.

“This is a large and very important step for scholars throughout the country,” Stuart Shieber, a computer science professor who sponsored the motion to adopt the new policy, said in a statement released after the vote. “It should be a very powerful message to the academic community that we want and should have more control over how our work is used and disseminated.”

The article gets at the other side of the argument by quoting Ian Russell, chief executive officer of the Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers in the U.K.:

Russell, who represents both nonprofit and commercial publishers, said journals enhance scholarly work through the peer review process, the prestige they carry and links to previous work.

“Why should that be free? That’s value-added material that publishers are adding over and above the raw material,” Russell said. “It’s like saying you can dig silver out of the ground, and therefore silver knives and forks should be free.”

  • angel guerra

    The image of an academic digging for silver is hilarious. I also thought scholars were prohibited the use of knives and forks for safety reasons.

  • Juan Dumont

    It’s also like saying you can dig ants out of the ground, and therefore ants should be free. Oh wait a second, if you dig them out yourself, they are free. hmmm, maybe that is even dumber than the dumb original image. Let us try: Kumbajah, journals are good, people make money, making money is good, journals should stay. hmmm, yah… good.

  • David Koch

    From what I have seen, peer review in journals, can be like having republicans peer review George Bush or democrats peer review Hillary Clinton at times. If an acedemic article is on shakey grounds it may take years and a different competing journal before those shakey grounds are admitted and the original journal will tend to be hush hush.

The item directly under this text is an advertisement
Books of the year
Click to see Books of the Year 2011 package Click to see Books of the Year 2010 package Click to see Books of the Year 2009 package
Most shared stories this week
Book Pictures

Do you have great photos from a recent book event in Canada that you'd like to share with us? Submit them to the Quill & Quire Flickr pool and they'll show up here.

a congrats to all

Rage

Jenna Tenn-Yuk

breaktime interviewing

interviewing

Danielle K.L. Gregoire

Sepideh

Elle P

sound poetry

Anita

Frances

winning

Recent comments