When academic societies keep their journals in the big publishing houses, what do they get in return?
-
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:
-
@UlrikeHahn @jonny @dstephenlindsay @roaldarboel
1. What is the core mission of our society and how can all members contribute to it?
2. There are more than 50k peer-reviewed journals. Is the continuation of our journal really necessary? If we need marketing and advertising to sell our journals, maybe the world doesn't really need them?
3. Do we increase revenue to pay for journals or do we decrease the costs of the journal or both? -
@UlrikeHahn @jonny @dstephenlindsay @roaldarboel
4. How about the sunk cost fallacy?
5. How are other societies doing it? Some run diamond OA journals at nearly no cost.
6. Who needs paper journals?
7. Why not run a tender/bidding procedure to have corporations compete and lower prices? -
Koen Hufkens, PhDreplied to Björn Brembs last edited by
@brembs @UlrikeHahn @jonny @dstephenlindsay @roaldarboel Opening the can of worms which is the needs vs wants basis of society.
-
@brembs @jonny @dstephenlindsay @roaldarboel It seems obvious to me from Steve’s write up that the Psychonomic Society asked itself all of those questions and more. So a more useful question to me is how would the answers be different now, 15 years later, and why.
-
@koen_hufkens @brembs @jonny @dstephenlindsay @roaldarboel
and relatedly, Bjoern's point "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"
PB&R was, and is, a good journal. It has always had more readers than the Psychonomic Society has members.
I don't get the implied logic here at all: a journal like PB&R isn't some kind of club lounge that's there for the use of members.
-
another question worth unpacking from Bjoern's list, I think, is "do we need paper journals?". I would have said "yes" 15 years ago, "no" 5 years ago, and now find myself hurtling back toward "yes" as the web crumbles, entire journals have gone offline, and the conservation problems (and costs) have really started to hit home. Thoughts everyone?