The journal is dead, long live the journal

Author:

Kingsley Danny

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to argue that the traditional scholarly journal system is outdated and in need of revamp, and new internet technologies provide opportunities for change unavailable until now.Design/methodology/approachThe four functions of the scholarly journal: registration; awareness; certification; and archiving are discussed in turn and alternative ways of undertaking those functions are explored. Barriers to change and ways to overcome these barriers are addressed.FindingsThe functions of registration and certification are already met with an open peer review system in place for some high profile journals. Recently developed searching and browsing facilities give academics access to a greater proportion of scholarly literature, providing a more efficient awareness function than traditional journals. The function of archiving is not being adequately addressed by commercial publishers, and the steps being taken by institutional repositories to that end are more sustainable. The fundamental tenet of science as part of the public domain is being eroded by commercial gain, and a move away from the traditional scholarly system can reverse that trend. Barriers to change are: the publisher's commercial imperative to maintain the status quo; the academy's reluctance to change; and the reward system. However, recently both publishers and academics have demonstrated a willingness to try new systems. The barrier of institutional reliance on metrics poses the greatest threat to change.Originality/valueThis paper builds on an historical background of arguments dating back to 1926, but uses up‐to‐date examples of ways publishers are moving towards change. The paper will inspire debate in the scholarly community.

Publisher

Emerald

Subject

Education

Reference38 articles.

1. Allen, W.E. (1922), “Repositories for scientific publications”, Science, Vol. 56, pp. 197‐8.

2. Barnes, I. (2006), “Preservation of word‐processing documents”, Australian Partnership for Sustainable Repositories, available at: www.apsr.edu.au/publications/preservation_of_word_processing_documents.html (accessed September 30, 2006).

3. Bergstrom, T.C. (2001), “Free labor for costly journals?”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 183‐98.

4. Brent, D. (1995), “Stevan Harnad's ‘Subversive Proposal’ kick‐starting electronic scholarship, a summary and analysis”, EJournal, Vol. 5 No. 1, available at: www.ucalgary.ca/ejournal/archive/rachel/v5n1/article.html (accessed September 30, 2006).

5. Buchhorn, M. and McNamara, P. (2006), “Australian eResearch sustainability survey”, Australian Partnership for Sustainable Repositories and Australian Partnership for Advanced Computing, Canberra, available at: www.apsr.edu.au.

Cited by 15 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3