The Responsible Metrics Movement: Don’t Judge Research by the Package it Comes In! | DeDe Dawso | Brain-Work: The C-EBLIP Blog
ab1630's bookmarks 2018-08-01
"I often rail against the unsustainability and inequity of the current subscription journal publishing system. We have the technology, the money (if we disinvest from the current system), and the ingenuity to completely re-imagine this system (see Jon Tennant’s recent article – it is short and worth your time!). A new system could be entirely open, inclusive, and democratic: enabling anyone in the world to read and build upon the research. This has the potential to dramatically increase the speed of progress in research as well as its uptake and real-world impact. The return on investment for universities and research funders would be considerable (this is exactly why many funders are adopting open access policies). So, why is it so hard to get to this ScholComm paradise? It is a complex system, with many moving parts and vested interests. And getting to my idealistic future is also a huge collective action problem. But I think there’s more going on that holds us back…...
I’ve used The 5 Whys numerous times when I’m stewing over this dilemma of inertia in transitioning to a new model of scholarly publishing. I always arrive at the same conclusion. (Before reading on, why don’t you try this and see if you arrive where I always do?)
1st Why: Why is it so hard to transition to a new, more sustainable model of publishing? Answer: Because the traditional subscription publishers are so powerful; they control so much!
2nd Why: Why are they so powerful? Answer: Because many researchers insist on publishing in their journals.
3rd Why: Why do they insist on publishing in those journals? Answer: Because they are addicted to the prestige titles and impact factors of those journals...."