Komputer & Telekomunikasi    
   
Daftar Isi ☛
(Sebelumnya) Academic conferenceAcademy ratio (Berikutnya)

Academic journal publishing reform

Academic journal publishing reform refers to changes to the institutions associated with the publishing of academic journals since the advent of the Internet and electronic publishing. Previously to the advent of the Internet there were no serious calls for major changes in the roles of publishers as the coordinators of the editing, collection, and distribution of scholarly works. At various times after the advent of the Internet some people have organized broad campaigns for changing the relationship between the authors of articles, distributors of articles, and readers of articles. Most of the discussion has been about making changes to the system of distribution of articles to reflect the benefits of electronic distribution of reading materials.

Contents

History

Before the advent of the Internet it was difficult for scholars to distribute articles giving their research results.[1] Historically publishers performed services including proofreading, typesetting, copyediting, printing, and worldwide distribution.[1] In modern times all researchers became expected to give the publishers digital copies of their work which needed no further processing.[1] For digital distribution printing was unnecessary, copying was free, and worldwide distribution happens online instantly.[1] In science journal publishing, Internet technology enabled the four major scientific publishers - Elsevier, Springer, Wiley, and Informa - to cut their expenditures such that they could consistently generate profits which exceed a third of their revenue.[1]

The Internet made it easier for researchers to do work which had previously been done by publishers, and some people began to feel that they did not need to pay for the services of publishers. This perception was a problem for publishers, who stated that their services were still necessary at the rates they asked.[1] Critics began to describe publishers' practices with terms such as racketeering.[2]

Motivations for reform

The motivations for academic journal publishing reform include the ability of computers to store large amounts of information, the advantages of giving more researchers access to preprints, and the potential for interactivity between researchers.[3]

Various studies showed that the demand for open access research was such that freely available articles consistently had impact factors which were higher than articles published under restricted access.[4][5]

Some universities reported that modern "package deal" subscriptions were too costly for them to maintain, and that they would prefer to subscribe to journals individually to save money.[6]

Motivations against reform

Publishers state that if profit was not a consideration in the pricing of journals then the cost of accessing those journals would not substantially change.[7] Publishers also state that they add value to publications in many ways, and without academic publishing as an institution these services the readership would miss these services and fewer people would have access to articles.[7]

Reform initiatives

Public Library of Science

Main article: Public Library of Science

The Public Library of Science is a nonprofit open-access scientific publishing project aimed at creating a library of open access journals and other scientific literature under an open content license. The founding of the organization had its origins in a 2001 online petition calling for all scientists to pledge that from September 2001 they would discontinue submission of papers to journals which did not make the full-text of their papers available to all, free and unfettered, either immediately or after a delay of several months.[8] The petition collected 34,000 signatures but the publishers took no strong response to the demands. Shortly thereafter, the Public Library of Science was founded as an alternative to traditional publishing.[8]

HINARI

Main article: HINARI

HINARI is a 2002 project of the World Health Organization and major publishers to enable developing countries to access collections of biomedical and health literature online at reduced subscription costs.[9]

Academic Spring

Main article: Academic Spring

The Academic Spring is trend which began in 2012 wherein academics and researchers began to oppose restrictive copyright in traditional academic journals and to promote free online access to scholarly articles.

Research Works Act

Main article: Research Works Act

The Research Works Act was a bill of the United States Congress which would have prohibited all laws which would require an open access mandate when US-government-funded researchers published their work. The proposers of the law stated that it would "ensure the continued publication and integrity of peer-reviewed research works by the private sector".[10] Critics of the law stated that it was the moment that "academic publishers gave up all pretence of being on the side of scientists."[11] In February 2012, Elsevier withdrew its support for the bill. Following this statement, the sponsors of the bill announced they will also withdraw their support.[12]

The Cost of Knowledge

Main article: The Cost of Knowledge

The Cost of Knowledge is a campaign begun in 2012 specifically targeting the scientific publishing company Elsevier.[13] It was begun by a group of prominent mathematicians who each made a commitment to not participate in publishing in Elsevier's journals.[13]

Access2Research

Main article: Access2Research

Access2Research is a 2012 United States-based campaign in which open access advocates appealed to the United States government to require that taxpayer-funded research be made available to the public under open licensing.

PeerJ

Main article: PeerJ

PeerJ is an open-access journal launched in 2012 that charges publication fees per researcher, not per article, resulting in what has been called "a flat fee for 'all you can publish'".[14]

References

  1. ^ a b c d e f Taylor, Mike (21 February 2012). "It’s Not Academic: How Publishers Are Squelching Science Communication". Discover. Retrieved 22 February 2012. 
  2. ^ Monbiot, George (29 August 2012). "Academic publishers make Murdoch look like a socialist". The Guardian (London: GMG). ISSN 0261-3077. OCLC 60623878. Retrieved 26 February 2012. 
  3. ^ Odlyzko, Andrew M. (January 1995). "Tragic Loss or Good Riddance? The Impending Demise of Traditional Scholarly Journals". Notices of the American Mathematical Society: 49–53. Retrieved 27 February 2012. 
  4. ^ Antelman, Kristin (September 2004). "Do Open-Access Articles Have a Greater Research Impact?". College & Research Libraries 65 (5): 372–382. Retrieved 27 February 2012. 
  5. ^ Lawrence, Steve (31 May 2001). "Free online availability substantially increases a paper's impact". Nature (Nature Publishing Group). Retrieved 27 February 2012. 
  6. ^ Mayor, S. (2004). "US universities review subscriptions to journal "package deals" as costs rise". BMJ 328 (7431): 68. doi:10.1136/bmj.328.7431.68.  edit
  7. ^ a b Beschler, Edwin F. (November 1998). "Pricing of Scientific Publications: A Commercial Publisher’s Point of View". Notices of the American Mathematical Society: 1333–1343. Retrieved 27 February 2012. 
  8. ^ a b "Early History of PLoS". plos.org. 2012 [last update]. Retrieved 26 February 2012. 
  9. ^ Long, Maurice (December 2003). "Bridging the knowledge gap The HINARI programme". The Biochemist (Biochemical Society): 27–29. Retrieved 27 February 2012. 
  10. ^ 112th Congress (2011) (Dec 16, 2011). "H.R. 3699". Legislation. GovTrack.us. Retrieved February 26, 2012. "Research Works Act" 
  11. ^ Taylor, Mike (16 January 2012). "Academic publishers have become the enemies of science". The Guardian (London: GMG). ISSN 0261-3077. OCLC 60623878. Retrieved 26 February 2012. 
  12. ^ Howard, Jennifer. "Legislation to Bar Public-Access Requirement on Federal Research Is Dead". The Chronicle. 
  13. ^ a b Flood, Alison (2 February 2012). "Scientists sign petition to boycott academic publisher Elsevier". The Guardian (London: GMG). ISSN 0261-3077. OCLC 60623878. Archived from the original on 16 February 2012. 
  14. ^ Van Noorden, R. (2012). "Journal offers flat fee for 'all you can publish'". Nature 486 (7402): 166. doi:10.1038/486166a.  edit

External links

(Sebelumnya) Academic conferenceAcademy ratio (Berikutnya)