Open Access and Journal-less Publishing - Daily Nous 2014-10-23


" ... There are many open access (OA) philosophy journals. Here’s one list, though it is unclear how complete or up-to-date it is (I noticed it was missing Ergo, JESP, and Symposion, for example). There are scams, but these don’t seem to be hard to avoid. Apart from OA journals, there is journal-less OA publishing. I recently learned (via Matt Burstein) of F1000 Research, an open, peer-reviewing, publishing platform for science. Rebecca Lawrence, its managing director, says: Journals provide an outdated way for publishers to justify their role by enabling them to more easily compete for papers. In the digital world, science should be rapidly and openly shared, and the broader research community should openly discuss and debate the merits of the work (through thorough and invited – but open – peer review, as well as commenting). As most researchers search PubMed/Google Scholar etc to discover new published findings, the artificial boundaries created by journals should be meaningless, except to the publisher. They are propagated by (and in themselves, propagate) the Impact Factor, and provide inappropriate and misleading metadata that is projected onto the published article, which is then used to judge a researcher’s overall output, and ultimately their career.  Substitute 'PhilPapers' for 'PubMed' and these remarks could apply just as much to philosophy as to the sciences. So what do philosophers think about this? Are there advantages to traditional journal publishing that are overlooked by the advocates of OA? What are the objections to moving to something like the F1000 model? Should senior philosophers refuse to cooperate with publishers hostile to OA? ..."


From feeds:

Open Access Tracking Project (OATP) »
Open Access Tracking Project (OATP) » peter.suber's bookmarks

Tags: oa.comment oa.philosophy oa.peer_review oa.f1000research oa.humanities oa.ssh oa.journals

Date tagged:

10/23/2014, 10:26

Date published:

10/23/2014, 11:55