The publishing revolution
| 8 September, 2011 | Richard P. Grant |
2
|
|
Morgan, in her latest post here at Naturally Selected, makes the point that indirect action is more effective than confrontation at getting your ideas accepted. The thought occurred to me that the real staring-eyed prophets–you know the ones I mean, we’ve all had those emails–probably wouldn’t be convinced by such an argument, and as they’re the ones with the really stupid/unworkable ideas we have ourselves a ready-made filter: perhaps if someone is overly confrontational then they can be ignored (provided they’ve actually read Morgan’s post–or at least the key idea–of course!)
A shining example of what Morgan’s on about came from George Monbiot last week. Now, that’s frothing at the mouth. According to my thesis (above), then, we can safely ignore Monbiot (as well as other people, perhaps?).
But wait a minute. Look at me, being all confrontational.
There is no doubt that there are flaws in the current model of science publishing. But some of the more vocal proponents of change are doing themselves no favours at all. Indeed, they are probably turning off some who might otherwise be sympathetic. Make your own comments about single-issue politics too, if you like.
A more measured discussion is taking place over on Stephen Curry’s blog post, recognizing the complexity of the issue, Is Massively Collaborative Scientific Publishing Possible?
Have a read, and tell me. Is it?
[poll id=”13″]
|
|
previous post
Hi Richard, very interesting take on things.
I do think that the yellers and screamers are having little effect. I think the only way to have an effect is by showing that an alternative works (i.e. the sideways route I point out in my post). I won’t name names, but there is at least one nonprofit/open publishing outlet that has shown it can work, using exactly this approach.
Does this mean traditional publishing is dead? By no means. In any “ecosystem” there’s room for both non-profit and for-profit activities. But if it all became not for profit, then where would be the motivation to innovate and push forward? A big motivator for innovation is the perceived financial and/or recognition payoff at the end. That’s more difficult to do inside a nonprofit.
Yet nonprofits can play the role of keeping things in check – if the for profit outfits play their hands too much (i.e. gaining monopolistic control as the linked article implies), then the not for profits can step in and show that there’s a viable alternative, stealing “customers” away.
All ecosystems need balance if they are to avoid collapse. However, screaming about an ecosystem that is out of balance does little to bring it back into balance!
Morgan
I think you’re right, although we have to be careful not to confuse ‘open access’ with ‘non-profit’. And I think, capitalist society and whatnot, that for-profits are likely to succeed more than non-profits in this, simply because they run as a business.
The most successful open access publisher is also for profit (BMC). The biggest not-for-profit OA publisher is not in rude financial health. I suspect that we will indeed continue to see a shift to OA, and the publishers will still be making money.