What a timely piece following Monday’s talk about open access and scholarly publishing. From Berkman Center fellow David Weinberger:
“Locking research up in for-pay journals slows the pace of knowledge. The peer review system — one important way ideas are vetted — does not require the existing print publication system. Harvard’s move will not only make more information more widely available, it may help nudge the system itself into a form that better serves our species’ interests: As more schools adopt open access programs, researchers will have an increasing disincentive not to lock their work up.”
Read his post here.
Today at the Michigan Union, copyright specialists Jessica Litman and Jack Bernard gave a talk entitled “Risks, Rights, and Responsibilities: Current Copyright Issues for Academics.” The talk was very interesting, and demonstrated the university and library commitment towards working to educate faculty about copyright. While university-level educators continue to sign restrictive licensing agreements with publishers, it’s important to support faculty in their aims to retain important intellectual rights.
At large research universities, tenure-track faculty are continually under the gun to publish, publish, publish. While there are increasingly more open access platforms to communicate research and scholarly articles, we still have a long way to go to in reducing the lock-in that traditional publishing gatekeepers have over the process. We want to continue to encourage faculty to publish, and it’s in the best interest of faculty and the university to support this. At the same time, we want to support the ever-growing community of scholars and teachers who see the benefits of opening up their work with the world–not keeping it locked within a publishing framework where content is resold to universities at extraordinary cost.
Perhaps department heads, tenure review boards, and the administration as a whole needs to review this peculiar incentive structure and begin to embrace new, more open modes of evaluation that can jump out of this deep, harmful publishing rut. Perhaps universities, especially public universities, need to leverage their political power with taxpayers in re-analyzing the logic behind paying once for research and then paying again for access to that same research.
