[Vwoolf] R: Open Access

Tue Nov 25 13:14:55 EST 2014

I was about to ask the question that James apparently answers here, which is, does licensing content to a database such as one owned by EBSCO or Gale-Cengage or ProQuest, count as open access?  These are subscribed to by university libraries, and so are “open” to those institutions’ staff and students, but I had not thought the UK REF counted that as OA.

(now to read the rest of James’s post)

From: Vwoolf [mailto:vwoolf-bounces at lists.osu.edu] On Behalf Of James Gifford
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 12:58 PM
To: vwoolf at lists.osu.edu
Subject: Re: [Vwoolf] R: Open Access

Hello all,

I think there are some misconceptions in this discussion, which is surely broader than Woolf topics, though the dual Woolf societies may suggest a case.  The risk, I think, is not that of dividing scholars based on nationality but on class.  I read, review for, and contribute to periodicals in a number of nations -- the more pressing questions is what kinds of scholars can and cannot access the greatest breadth of the best scholarship.  I suspect that my excellent colleagues at comparatively poor institutions have the least access to current research.

Many journals in North America are already open access *and* rigorously peer reviewed with distribution through the typical JSTOR, Project Muse, Sage, EBSCO, and such systems.  They simply release contents after an embargo period, typically a year.  My understanding is that this is accepted under the incoming British requirements.  I don't think that reflects on the quality of the work in any way.

As for "pay," there are surely misnomers here as well.  Many American scholars have university budgets that subvent publication, and while publishers will hastily assure everyone that this does not affect peer review, we all know it does.  While we all know the limitations and biases of peer review, we also must realize that more easily sold books or those more likely to win financial aid are also more likely to be published.

To this mix, the concepts of "private" and "public" are also deeply muddled.  I mean the word in its libatious context, not Forster...  Private (not for profit) universities in the USA receive extensive aid from the public purse and tax revenues, but like the scenario for publishing in Italy, it has a middleman: the student.  Public student aid funds private (we often prefer "independent") institutions, and if you doubt it, ask if your institution would make any curricular changes that could jeopardize its qualifying for student aid...  I suspect the Italian context for publication means the peer review process occurs with the grant application, not at the publication stage, which is *different* but not necessarily worse.  Frankly, I don't care where work by the scholars whom I admire most is published -- I'll read it because I know they do good work.

Release time and direct funding for research both support scholarly publication, which is evaluated in job performance measures for North American and British academics.  Scholars, hence, give their scholarly labour away for "free" for the most part.  This is both for authors and editors as well as readers in the peer review process.  When we preferentially send our work to private, for profit publishers, we're sending the profit from publicly funded labour to a private enterprise that will not permit the public to access the content produced from its taxes.  While it's important to keep scholarly publishers and university presses afloat, we might questions if the existing model is effective and efficient in its current approach.  I suspect if you drop by your local university press, they'll tell you the current funding model isn't working well at all...

While there are a great many scams in academic publishing by disreputable sorts, such as the library sales market for cheaply made books, I don't see this neatly divided into an open access vs. pay wall access division.  I do, however, see commercial presses as more willing to accept work for publication that would not be viable in more rigorous review scenarios.  For instance, I did not publish my dissertation as a book, but I can think of half a dozen reasonably reputable presses to which I could send it with full confidence it would be accepted -- I'm sure most of you can too.

For various reasons, I've reviewed more than a couple hundred books for print reviews or as a reader for presses and several dozen articles for journals over the past 10 years.  I think that permits me to generalize a bit.  I don't see the private/public distinction as really mattering to scholarly quality, but I do see profit/non-profit aligning fairly clearly.  That doesn't mean commercial presses pump out terrible books, but they do produce a volume of work with a particular aim.

The inclination toward open access reclaims scholarship from some of these pressures, particularly publication in peer reviewed periodicals.  Since we, academics, generally write, edit, review, and consume these materials, the introduction of a profit agenda doesn't help the process (and we actively subvert that agenda by sending our work to colleagues any time they ask).  Strangely, the idea of accessing research for free seems to make many people think the work couldn't be very good, even though we collective tend to keep our personal purses shut...  While we know deep down that our peer review system and various intuitive rankings of publications are suspect and mired in a host of biases and quiet conflicts, we're equally unwilling to look to a publication and value it based on its editorial team, contributors, and quality based on our personal judgment.

There's also the problem of affordability.  By introducing pay walls with often ridiculously expensive terms, we condone the creation of scholarship silos.  Those at universities with sufficient budgets can do research, and those with shallow pockets cannot.  Or more often than not, we just restrict ourselves to what is most convenient rather than what is best, or we circumvent the restrictions anyway.

As a closing note, turn to the back interior cover of your latest Oxford UP, U California P, Rowman & Littlefield, or Routledge book and check the interior bar code.  You're probably holding a print-on-demand copy of a scholarly book from your favourite press...  The cost of printing was likely less than the cost of postage.

All best,
James

On 25 November 2014 at 08:55, June Cummins <jcummins at mail.sdsu.edu> wrote:

I think rulings like this one drive countries further apart and put the lie to the idea that we're "all connected" through the internet.  Having to pay to be published is very contrary to the expectations and experiences of US scholars--they will no longer publish in British and other European journals if they are forced to pay.  We do not receive funding to cover fees like that.  According to Maggie, British scholars will not want to publish in American journals because ours are not in open access.  Consequently, Americans will publish in American journals, and Europeans will publish in European journals, and the academic communities will drift further apart. It's not a simple matter to tell the US to switch to the open access model because ours is so radically different and the switch would involve coming up financial resources we do not have.

June

On 11/25/14, 10:23 AM, Sarah M. Hall wrote:

Thanks, Maggie, I think this answers my question to Mark.

Sarah

  _____  

From: Maggie Humm  <mailto:M.Humm at uel.ac.uk> <M.Humm at uel.ac.uk>
To: Mark Hussey  <mailto:mhussey at verizon.net> <mhussey at verizon.net>;  <mailto:t.prudente at talk21.com> "t.prudente at talk21.com"  <mailto:t.prudente at talk21.com> <t.prudente at talk21.com>;  <mailto:Vwoolf at lists.osu.edu> "Vwoolf at lists.osu.edu"  <mailto:Vwoolf at lists.osu.edu> <Vwoolf at lists.osu.edu> 
Sent: Tuesday, 25 November 2014, 16:14
Subject: Re: [Vwoolf] R: Open Access

The UK issue, as everyone knows, is that for the next REF (formally RAE) Research Excellence Framework the UK Research Councils and HEFCE are insisting on articles being submitted from open access journals. See useful summary:

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/softening-of-line-on-open-access-only-ref/2012340.article

there is much opposition not least from the prestigious British Academy:

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/british-academy-fears-for-humanities-in-open-access-world/2012729.article

But the REF rules all UK academics' writing and career prospects as did the RAE (not least because REF results are available on -line employers can check at a glance a candidate's standing and 'grades'). See the last exercise's grades (still known as the RAE) and reports:

http://www.rae.ac.uk/

My guess is that younger academics will be less willing to publish in US journals which are not open access (although the revised policy allows some non open access publishing Schools/Departments are going to be very wary and unfortunately the UK REF panels and sub-panels encompass so many disciplinary areas that members cannot possibly know of the status of journals outside their immediate fields).

The REF 2014 results will be known this December. I'm included in my School's Media and Cultural Studies submission but I'm so glad that I finally retired from all this in November 2013 (and no longer need to use words like 'stake-holder')!

Hope this is helpful.

Maggie

PS UK journal editors also work for free and those in the post-92 universities get no teaching/admin relief.

________________________________

From: Vwoolf [vwoolf-bounces+m.humm=uel.ac.uk at lists.osu.edu] on behalf of Mark Hussey [mhussey at verizon.net]
Sent: 25 November 2014 15:07
To: t.prudente at talk21.com; Vwoolf at lists.osu.edu
Subject: Re: [Vwoolf] R: Open Access

Thank you for all these responses. I know my “give away for nothing” phrase was provocative!
Just to be clear, I am particularly interested in how academics in the UK feel about their government’s requirement as I believe it will affect their willingness to publish in US-based journals. The examples given are interesting, but do not fit the case of a very small academic press; many scholarly journal editors in the US, for example, perform their work for nothing or for perhaps a course release. This issue has, naturally, been of great interest on the Council of Editors of Learned Journals (CELJ) listserv too as people begin to try to fathom what is going on in UK scholarly publishing.

I look forward to more points of view!

From: Vwoolf [mailto:vwoolf-bounces at lists.osu.edu] On Behalf Of t.prudente at talk21.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 3:47 AM
To: Vwoolf at lists.osu.edu
Subject: Re: [Vwoolf] R: Open Access

Dear all,

as an Italian researcher, I feel that some more detailed explanation on the "peculiar" situation of Academic publishing in Italy is here needed, so as make - perhaps - Francesca's view more understandable.

Academic publishing in Italy is mainly - if not entirely - based on a "pay to publish" system. Individual researchers sign a contract with a publisher in which they accept to pay a certain amount of money (depending on the publisher, the book's length, the number of copies arranged for, etc...) and they usually pay by using the research money that the Ministry of Research provides them with for their research projects. Thus, when Francesca talks about public financing to academic publishing she actually refers to this system, which does not entail public money to be given directly to publishers (they are private), but money that is given to researchers and that they usually employ for this kind of publishing. Now, a system of this kind presents of course a set of problems that, in my opinion, deeply affect research in Italy: in the majority of cases, no proper peer-reviewing is performed on manuscripts or articles (as long as you pay, you will be published), books and journals have not a proper circulation (the publisher is not very committed to do any effort to selling them, as it has not, in the end, invested any money on it, on the contrary, it has already had its profits from the researcher's payment), and public research money that could and should be used differently (organization of conferences, research travel etc...) goes instead almost entirely in this system. I don't know if this "pay to publish" system is also equally pervasive in other countries. Personally, I have chosen, from the very beginning of my career, to publish exclusively abroad in order to "escape" this system, to which I deeply object, and a few colleagues of mine are doing the same. And, publishing abroad, I was never required to pay money and I went through genuine peer-reviewing processes.

Within the context that I have described, open access has indubitably represented a positive change, at least in Italy, as, as Francesca remarks, open access journals are obliged to perform peer-reviewing and - as long as I understand, not being an expert in OA - publishing costs have sensibly decreased. I suspect, then, that the impact and consequences of OA are probably different for each country, depending on their publishing system, and even the macro-division between "public" and "private" systems presents further ramifications amplifying possible differences.

I hope this helps, and, especially, that I have not misinterpreted what Francesca, as an expert in OA, intended to highlight.

best,

Teresa

________________________________
From: Caroline Webb <caroline.webb at newcastle.edu.au <mailto:caroline.webb at newcastle.edu.au> <mailto:caroline.webb at newcastle.edu.au>>
To: "Vwoolf at lists.osu.edu <mailto:Vwoolf at lists.osu.edu> <mailto:Vwoolf at lists.osu.edu>" <Vwoolf at lists.osu.edu <mailto:Vwoolf at lists.osu.edu> <mailto:Vwoolf at lists.osu.edu>>
Sent: Tuesday, 25 November 2014, 3:58
Subject: Re: [Vwoolf] R: Open Access

I think what’s meant by “research outputs should not be financed more than once by public money” is not that the journals/presses are public but the academic research is. European universities, like nearly all in Australia and like many but very much *not* all in the US, are public institutions funded in whole or in part by the government (in Germany it’s just become whole, in Australia it’s a rapidly decreasing part), and most of the grants available to individual researchers are also government-funded. Hence the public is paying, in the form of taxes, for the academics at those publicly-funded institutions to perform research. The theory then is that that research should be openly available to the people who paid for it.

Caroline Webb
The University of Newcastle, Australia

From: Vwoolf [mailto:vwoolf-bounces+caroline.webb=newcastle.edu.au at lists.osu.edu] On Behalf Of June Cummins
Sent: Tuesday, 25 November 2014 9:48 AM
To: vwoolf at lists.osu.edu <mailto:vwoolf at lists.osu.edu> <mailto:vwoolf at lists.osu.edu>
Subject: Re: [Vwoolf] R: Open Access

In the United States, academic publishing is not financed by public money except in cases where the press hosting the journal is in a public university and even then, very little of the press's finances are coming from "the public." Academic publishing is paid for through subscriptions, which are owned either by individuals or more often by universities. Perhaps this basic difference in academic publishing is the reason U.S. scholars don't understand European methods of making scholarship available.

June Cummins
On 11/24/14, 4:39 PM, Francesca wrote:
Dear professor Hussey,

I dare answer your question even though I do not belong to the academic world; I just have a degree (I wrote a dissertation about The Voyage Out) and a PhD (again about travel literature) but I am a librarian who works in Italy, at the Library System of the University of Trento.

One of my professional tasks is related to Open Access. I will not bother you all advocating for OA (there are a lot of reliable websites you can read in order to get the information you may be interested in) but I will just add some words about your remark:

>> journals that give their content away for nothing

OA journals are peer-reviewed journals which do not give away *their* content for nothing (I am highlighting “their” because the content’s rights should not be considered as “the publisher’s”, but should be retained by the author…).
These journals are just based on a different economic model.

Research outputs (articles) should not be financed more than once by public money. There is no reason whatsoever for publicly financing a research project at the begining, then selling the output to a commercial publisher, which must be re-paid again by libraries (subscriptions) to enable researchers and students access the article.

In OA, Universities and researchers pay just once (with research grants) for a paper to be published. After that, nothing more is due to the publisher; the paper goes through the journal's normal peer review process and the article is then freely and openly available because it has already been paid.

It is so sad that after eleven years from the Berlin Declaration there should be still so many misunderstandings and biases about Open Access. I do not ask you to adhere to OA movement of course, but I would consider myself professionally satisfied if an unbiased knowledge of OA principles were slowly achieved.

Sincecerly yours (and apologizing for my English),
Francesca Valentini

________________________________
Da: Vwoolf [mailto:vwoolf-bounces+frvln=hotmail.com at lists.osu.edu] Per conto di Mark Hussey
Inviato: lunedì 24 novembre 2014 22.53
A: VWOOLF at lists.acs.ohio-state.edu <mailto:VWOOLF at lists.acs.ohio-state.edu> <mailto:VWOOLF at lists.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Oggetto: [Vwoolf] Open Access

Do those of you likely to publish in US-based journals (such as, for example, Woolf Studies Annual!) have any concerns about the UK government’s forthcoming requirement that to be counted you may only publish in journals that give their content away for nothing?

_______________________________________________

Vwoolf mailing list

Vwoolf at lists.osu.edu <mailto:Vwoolf at lists.osu.edu> <mailto:Vwoolf at lists.osu.edu>

https://lists.osu.edu/mailman/listinfo/vwoolf

--

________________________________________
June Cummins, Associate Professor
Director, Graduate Program
Department of English and Comparative Literature
San Diego State University
jcummins at mail.sdsu.edu <mailto:jcummins at mail.sdsu.edu> <mailto:jcummins at mail.sdsu.edu>
SDSU Children’s Literature Program
childlit.sdsu.edu <http://childlit.sdsu.edu/> <http://childlit.sdsu.edu/>

_______________________________________________
Vwoolf mailing list
Vwoolf at lists.osu.edu <mailto:Vwoolf at lists.osu.edu> <mailto:Vwoolf at lists.osu.edu> 

https://lists.osu.edu/mailman/listinfo/vwoolf

  _____  

This email has been scanned for email related threats and delivered safely by Mimecast.
For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.com <http://www.mimecast.com/>  

  _____  

_______________________________________________
Vwoolf mailing list
Vwoolf at lists.osu.edu
https://lists.osu.edu/mailman/listinfo/vwoolf

_______________________________________________
Vwoolf mailing list
Vwoolf at lists.osu.edu
https://lists.osu.edu/mailman/listinfo/vwoolf

-- 

________________________________________
June Cummins, Associate Professor
Director, Graduate Program
Department of English and Comparative Literature
San Diego State University
jcummins at mail.sdsu.edu
SDSU Children’s Literature Program
childlit.sdsu.edu

_______________________________________________
Vwoolf mailing list
Vwoolf at lists.osu.edu
https://lists.osu.edu/mailman/listinfo/vwoolf

-- 

---------------------------------------
James Gifford, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of English and University Core Director
School of English, Philosophy and Humanities
University College: Arts, Sciences, Professional Studies
Fairleigh Dickinson University, Vancouver Campus
Voice: 604-648-4476
Fax: 604-648-4489
E-mail: gifford at fdu.edu
http://alpha.fdu.edu/~jgifford

842 Cambie Street
Vancouver, BC
V6B 2P6 Canada

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osu.edu/pipermail/vwoolf/attachments/20141125/f934634d/attachment.html>