When academic societies keep their journals in the big publishing houses, what do they get in return?
-
@lschiff
@jonny @roaldarboel I ️ LPC!! -
@UlrikeHahn @roaldarboel @jonny Thanks for the bump, Ulrike. Long story on that piece, but the short version is that we lavished a lot of care and thought into it.
-
@dstephenlindsay @roaldarboel @jonny yes, interesting to speculate on the extent to which key parameters have (or have not) changed in the time since and how that situation would play out now
-
jonny (good kind)replied to Steve Lindsay last edited by
@dstephenlindsay
@UlrikeHahn @roaldarboel
Thanks for writing this, hadn't run across it before and very curious -
@j_feral @lschiff @[email protected] @roaldarboel
Yes, lot's of libraries run their own journals (our's does, too), so that's a good stop-gap.
However, I think the biggest problem isn't technical, but conceptual. Many societies are simply not "societies" any more, in the original meaning of the word:
Remedy this and all else will follow.
See, e.g., hcommons that @[email protected] also referenced. With a scholarly mindset, even today's societies can again become "societies". -
Björn Brembsreplied to jonny (good kind) last edited by
@jonny @dstephenlindsay @UlrikeHahn @roaldarboel
tl;dr but I stumbled upon the last paragraph. I'd be so bold and generalize this to a large number of societies who have "partnered" with one of the parasites - at least this is what is often mentioned prominently: the parasites enable societies to reach into the pockets of non-members to finance their member services. I have rarely encountered any awareness of the ethical implications of this shift, on the contrary.
-
Mikkel Roald-Arbølreplied to Björn Brembs last edited by
@brembs @j_feral @lschiff @jonny @[email protected] It's crazy coming at this, still, a bit blue-eyed. When I think of societies, I'm thinking small-ish congregations of nerds (in the best possible sense of the word, proud nerd). So these mega-societies are a really strange size to me. SfN, AAAS, ACS, they all seem to operate much more like businesses (e.g. with large exec salaries).
Regarding their publications, they all have high-prestige journals. Do you think that the journals derive their prestige from being under the umbrella of a large, esteemed society; or is that mostly a marketing gimmick (unfolded over many years)? If e.g. SfN were to take Journal of Neuroscience to a PKP platform, would the authors follow? (in this hypothetical scenario we don't care about the vast amount of money they surely lose from such a deal).
-
jonny (good kind)replied to Mikkel Roald-Arbøl last edited by
@roaldarboel @brembs @j_feral @lschiff @[email protected]
prestige is a mutually beneficial relationship for all who abide by the terms of the game. "we gain exposure for our authors and induce more submissions as a function of being plugged into {the big journal recommendation system}."there is no incentive in self-hosting for a large society, it's bad for the bottom line, bad for operational stability, bad for the prestige of their top authors. there is little appeal to the upper end of the hierarchy to do things ethically that i'm aware of
-
@brembs @jonny @dstephenlindsay @roaldarboel but the journal was already “reaching into the pockets of non-members” because libraries subscribed to it (in order to make it available to the thousands of non-member authors and readers)
-
@brembs @jonny @dstephenlindsay @roaldarboel I would ask that you read the piece: prior to the move the society was operating *at a loss* because it couldn’t cover the costs of production.
(I think your comment misses the mark and is also unfair to the extensive thought and care people at Psychonomics like Steve put into the decision and transition at the time -I say that as someone who was not a member nor in any way involved in that move)
-
@UlrikeHahn @jonny @dstephenlindsay @roaldarboel
I agree that it is possible that by looking merely at the end product, I do not do the people and their efforts sufficient justice. I tried to make that cleaar right away. I also tried to take this to a more general level, by saying that this seems to happen very often, i.e., similar efforts seem to tend to lead to similar outcomes also in other (but not all) societies.
-
@UlrikeHahn @jonny @dstephenlindsay @roaldarboel
So I'm not blaming anybody in particular, but am trying to point out that there are common pitfalls, that some societies tend to fall into. I think it is worth looking at other efforts that did not have the same outcome.
After all, the end-product is what it is regardless of the efforts that went into it. There is a reason why the saying has been coined: "the road to hell is paved with good intentions".
-
@brembs @jonny @dstephenlindsay @roaldarboel Bjoern, that “the road is paved with good intentions” was exactly the thought that motivated me to dig into the PB&R history in the first place. That history, I feel, is better served by Steve’s piece than your reductive explanation. I’d love to have more examples, but maybe we could actually look at this one? Were there plausible alternative routes for the society at the time? What would the options be now? I’d love to hear people’s thoughts on that
-
@UlrikeHahn @jonny @dstephenlindsay @roaldarboel
OK, I've read it. By and large, it sounded pretty much like other stories I've heard form other societies. Didn't change anything in my assessment. From my personal perspective, this is a very standard story witrh analogous thoughts and concerns in many societies.
-
@UlrikeHahn @jonny @dstephenlindsay @roaldarboel
There are a few aspects that strike me as common themes (no particular order):
There always seems to be more "how can we continue doing what we have been doing without changing too much?" rather than "is this an opportunity to improve the things we are doing by doing them diffeerently?"
Another is that "communication" or "dissemination" is snyonymous with selling journals.
-
@UlrikeHahn @jonny @dstephenlindsay @roaldarboel
A third and major common theme is that everyone seems more than happy, eager I would say, to charge members relatively less and instead take more from non-members to finance member benefits. I have rarely seen anybody even raising this as an issue, instead this is seen as a feature, not a bug.
-
@UlrikeHahn @jonny @dstephenlindsay @roaldarboel
A fourth, related common theme seems to be that the people running the society seem to see it as a company, rather than a society: the money is the prime consideration and society function comes second. They ask: how can we get money for the society and then come up with things they can finance: satellite meetings, Family Care Grants, Awards, etc.
-
@UlrikeHahn @jonny @dstephenlindsay @roaldarboel
This strikes me as odd: I'd imagine they would be asking: what is the core mission of our society and what could members contribute to this mission? After all, one would tend to think that a scholarly society is formed by like-minded individuals with overlapping goals and interests.
-
@UlrikeHahn @jonny @dstephenlindsay @roaldarboel
In short, it seems a lot of these societies look like they're caught up between historical baggage and corporate group think. I say that in the most general terms and with no individuals in mind, of course. I'm just an outside oberserver.
-
@UlrikeHahn @jonny @dstephenlindsay @roaldarboel
Whenever I hear stories like these, it strikes me how diverse the scholarly landscape really is and how some societies (it seems to me a minority, but I have no data) have found completely different solutions. Perhaps, they have asked themselves some of the following questions during their comittee meetings: