Skip to content

Posts from the ‘OA Journals’ Category

Modelling Gold Open Access as a Disruptive Technology

David W. Lewis, the Dean of the IUPUI University Library and IU Assistant Vice President for Digital Scholarly Communication has just authored a paper on “The Inevitability of Open Access” in which he models the future of gold open access as a disruptive technology. The paper, forthcoming in College and Research Libraries, is available now as a pre-print from C&RL’s own pre-print/post-print server. (A direct link to the PDF is here.) Anyone invested in the future of scholarship should find Lewis’ predictions useful. After developing a set of predictions for the future of scholarly journal publishing, Lewis offers specific assessments of relevance to a number of actors, including scholarly societies with publishing programs.

BTW: Congratulations to C&RL for moving to gold OA. Librarians leading by example!

Folklore Studies and Anthropology Journals included in JSTOR Early Journal Content Program

Among the folklore and anthropology journals included in the JSTOR Early Journal Content Program are the following key titles. Journal of American Folklore (1888-1922), American Anthropologist (1879-1922),  The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute (1848-1869) and the International Journal of American Linguistics (1917-1922),  Today JSTOR released an announcement indicating that the release of content was complete and providing an announcement that included lists by discipline and title.

Numerous other titles of relevance in archaeology, history, geography, etc. are also included, of course.

Where There Is No Vision, We Publish and Perish – Inside Higher Ed

Barbara Fister thoughtfully reflects on the limits of the recent JSTOR announcement and imagines the better world that so many are working to lay the foundations for.

Where There Is No Vision, We Publish and Perish – Inside Higher Ed.

On Museum Anthropology Review

I am very happy to report that the final material for Museum Anthropology Review 5(1-2) was published today, bringing the 2011 volume/issues to a close.

This was the first time that an issue was published with an initial bundle of content and then added to as the year progressed. This represents a kind of transitional strategy bridging older journal publishing norms, in which an issue is prepared and then released into the world as a fully prepared bundle, and the newer pattern in which content is prepared and released into the world as soon as it is ready, item by item. The older pattern has certain hallmarks that many are still fond of, including sequentially paginated pages (in paper-like PDF format) and a table of contents in which articles appear at the top and reviews appear at the bottom. For authors, this format makes for objects that look familiar (to custom-minded observers) on such things as C.V. and annual reports. The cost, of course, is delay in publication, as works pile up in preparation for being bundled up as issues.

The newer approaches leverages the advantages of digital publication platforms and get information in circulation as quickly as possible, something that helps the research community in many ways.

MAR is moving from the older to the newer framework and will probably use the approach adopted for volume 5 again at least for volume 6 next year. This means that volume 6(1) will appear as soon as possible and will initially contain a group of materials from the “top” of the table of contents. Additional reviews will be added to the issue’s table of contents up until the point that additional articles or other content from the top of the table of contents are ready. At that point the effort will switch over to issue 6(2).

Publishing a combined “1-2” issue for 2011 was a valuable step for me personally–beyond these considerations. It allowed me a bit more time this summer to work on other projects, something that I have sorely needed to do. While I had the help of a wonderful graduate student/editorial assistant through the middle of 2010, last academic year (2010-2011) was the first in which I handled the day to day editorial tasks on my own. This was fun and informative, of course, but there is only so much time in the day and it was nice to be able to focus this past summer on other obligations. The combined issue helped make that possible.

From a substantive point of view, 5(1-2) is full of interesting stuff and I am very thankful to the many authors, peer-reviewers, librarians, editorial board members, publishers, and other friends of MAR who have made it possible.

At 154 pages volume 5 is only #4 of 5 in terms of page length, but with 42 discrete contributions it covers a lot of interesting territory, from Captain Cook to the alternative globalization movement; from the history of shoes to the material realities of the current economic crisis. As has been true throughout the MAR experiment, contributions cover a wide diversity of world regions and theoretical, topical, and disciplinary concerns. I am especially proud of the ways that the journal continues to showcase work by the most distinguished senior scholars–generous colleagues such as Richard Bauman, Keith Hart, Marsha MacDowell, Edward T. Linenthal, and Aldona Jonaitis–alongside leading younger scholars, including folks like Karin Zitzewitz, Beth A. Buggenhagen, Elizabeth Hutchinson and so many others. I am also happy that the journal brings together, in what I think is a healthy way, the twinned and entwined concerns that are its focus—museum studies and material culture studies. Rooted in anthropology and folklore studies, MAR has been an effective meeting ground for scholars working in a great many fields. Alongside its folklorists and anthropologists, 5(1-2) features scholars representing the fields of comparative literature, history, art history, fashion studies, architecture, design, communications studies, and religious studies. This diversity is a great strength.

Also speaking to the journal’s diversity aspirations, 5(1-2) was the second issue to feature content in a language other than English. MAR 4(1) had included both French and English versions of Christian Bromberger’s commentrary on the Musée du Quai Branly and now, with 5(1-2) MAR has published a book review concurrently in Portuguese and English. Thanks go to author Lori Hall-Araujo and translator Roberta Crelier for the work on Lori’s review of Mestre Vitalino e artistas pernambucanos.

In conclusion, I wish to especially thank the authors of the issue’s peer-reviewed articles. Richard Bauman’s “Better than any monument”: Envisioning Museums of the Spoken Word is a great contribution to the history of the field, exploring the intersections of linguistic anthropology and museum anthropology. The paper continues his vital research work on the social history of early recording technologies and their intellectual and cultural ramifications. Thanks go to Carrie Hertz’ for her Costuming Potential: Accommodating Unworn Clothes. The article is a rich contribution to contemporary material culture studies, particularly relating to questions of consumption, circulation, reuse, and disposal.

The submission mailbox is always open. Please consider Museum Anthropology Review as a robust not-for-profit, gold open access publishing option for your work in museum and material culture studies.

Page Proofs ≠ Post-Prints; Websites ≠ Repositories

As Alex Golub’s Star Wars themed translation of two of my recent posts demonstrates, I am not the best communicator on scholarly communications issues, but I will keep trying. A note on the form that articles can take when circulated in green OA fashion, as well as the places where such materials can be “put” follows below. Read more

On Hacking the Academy #hackacad

I am very pleased to note that the edited book version of Hacking the Academy appeared online today. The online version lives on a site built by the volume’s publisher Digital Culture Books, an imprint of the University of Michigan Press. The volume has been edited by Dan Cohen and Tom Scheinfeldt, both of the Center for History and New Media. It is based on contributions submitted during one week–May 21-28, 2010.

I am very pleased to have been included in this volume and I want to thank the editors, the publisher, and all those who supported the project, including the many readers and cheerleaders who offered encouragement to the effort.

My chapter in the volume is based on an essay that originally appeared on this site (where the longer, older version can still be found). In the book, it is the first chapter of the “Hacking Scholarship” section. As with the earlier version, it is titled “Getting Yourself Out of the Business in Five Easy Steps” and it offers an argument for withdrawing, where possible, from entanglements with commercial academic publishing in favor of lending energy, support, and resources to the strengthening of the existing public-sector scholarly communications system and to the building of a more democratic, ethical, sustainable, and open one for the future. It thus relates directly to my more recent post on the enclosure of scholarly journals in anthropology (and to other things that I do, including working on the Open Folklore project and editing Museum Anthropology Review.

I am so thankful to everyone who has engaged not only with the essay but with me in the larger work of understanding and reshaping the ways scholars share their work with the world. The biggest shout out of all, in this regards, goes to my colleagues at the Indiana University Libraries and the IUScholarWorks program. They have been my teachers and tremendous partners in the work. They are awesome!

The old-fashioned version of Hacking the Academy will be published next year. Find the online version here: http://www.digitalculture.org/hacking-the-academy/

Dan Cohen’s reflections on the project can be found online here: http://www.dancohen.org/2011/09/08/some-thoughts-on-the-hacking-the-academy-process-and-model/

“Early Journal Content on JSTOR, Free to Anyone in World”

For those who have not seen it yet, here is a link to the announcement from JSTOR about their opening up their versions of pre-1923 (U.S.)/pre-1870 (elsewhere) journal content. Publishers have been in the loop about this for some time, but it is nice that the community as a whole is able to learn about it now that it is here. Putting aside personal any quibbles on other fronts, this is meaningful and valuable step that will be useful to many people.  See:  http://about.jstor.org/participate-jstor/individuals/early-journal-content

PS: Soon (after the celebrating) it will be important to study the financial arrangements here closely, as I have the impression that this will come to be understood as a gift to the world that college and university libraries will wind up picking up the tab for. That is not 100% good even if OA is.

The AAA/Wiley is already a Green OA Publisher

What green open access means and how it is supposed to work will be the focus of my remarks at the AAA event that Tom Boellstorff mentioned here and in his comment at Savage Minds. As the conversation continues there and elsewhere, I just want to stress one point tonight. Unlike my previous post, this one is very much about open access. It is completely understandable that many people (including some who speak officially about these things on behalf of AAA) have the perception that the AAA is not an open access publisher, but it is. Unless something has changed that I am unaware of, the AAA author agreement is fully compatible with green OA. Separate from my concerns about corporate enclosure and media consolidation in the anthropological journal ecology (see my previous post), if a person is publishing in a AAA journal (or in most, if not all, other Wiley journals), then there is nothing standing in the way of making this work available according to the norms of green OA. (That some AAA/Wiley authors are circulating their AAA/Wiley published work in ways that deviate from the norms of green OA and from their signed author agreements is a story for another day.)

In the early AnthroSource era, AAA members involved at the time worked hard to make the AAA a green OA publisher and they succeeded remarkably. (Putting this work to use has been a tremendous un-success for which the membership is largely responsible.) If you care about publishing in AAA journals and you care about OA, then it is worth taking the time to learn what all of this actually entails. One can start by looking at the American Anthropological Association database entry at SHERPA/RoMEO, where the relevant terms of art are also defined in accessible language (ex: “green,” “pre-print” etc.). The new and improved SHERPA/RoMEO database even provides access to the AAA/Wiley author agreement, which potential authors can study!

Separate from my feelings about corporate scholarly publishing, particularly about society-corporate co-publishing, it is fair to note what Stevan Harnad recently observed.

it’s also important to name and laud those publishers that have endorsed immediate, un-embargoed green open-access self-archiving. On the side of the angels in this respect are most of the major commercial publishers: Elsevier, Springer and, yes, Wiley.

At AAA I will report on my findings regarding the deep confusion about green OA among anthropologists. For everyone wondering and asking what can be done, I’ll just note that there are amazing resources available by which one can begin to gain control of the facts of the matter. An excellent gateway is Peter Suber’s Open Access Overview, which provides links to many of the most crucial additional resources in English.

A Note on Predatory Open Access Publishing

One of the worst developments in the emergence of open access as a set of practices and goals for the progressive reform of scholarly communication is the emergence of new commercial firms that are combining the worst traits of open access strategy, vanity publishing, automation of editorial and production tasks, and a predatory approach to meeting the publishing “needs” of foolish and/or desperate-to-be-published scholars and would-be scholars. Typical is the email that I received recently from a firm that included a section where I could click a link through which I could become not just an author with this publisher but could become a reviewer, an editorial board member, and even the Editor-in-Chief of a new journal. Such firms are, or hope to become, cash cows via author fees. One sign of such a firm is the announcement of a large number of not-yet-extant journal titles spanning a wide range of fields almost randomly. These vaporware journals are often announced before the identity of an associated journal editor is established. Another simple sign is the frequency of typos in communications and on websites. Lots of typos. Open access is too important for the scholarly community to become distracted by these marginal cases. Beware.

For discussions of predatory open access, see here and here.

On HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory

I have been meaning for several weeks to highlight the announced/upcoming launch of HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory on ambitious OJS-based open access journal project. One can read all about it here: http://www.haujournal.org/index.php/hau/index. I look forward to the first issue and to hopefully working with the organizers on common projects in the service of open access scholarship in anthropology and neighboring fields.  Hau’s editorial board and announced initial papers are quite impressive.  Check them out.