Self-publishing and Electronic Journals: The Effects of ...



Self-publishing and Electronic Journals: The Effects of New Publishing Media in Academic Tenure Process

A literature review

Spring 2008

Jour 749

INTRODUCTION

Publish or perish. It’s the adage so many of us have heard. In order to garner tenure at a major university, and continue moving up the academic career ladder, you must have your work published and in the eye of the scholarly community.

Traditionally, publishing in academia meant submitting to a referred journal, contributing a chapter to a text book or, perhaps, writing an academic book for one of a handful of presses that specialized in that genre. In the 1990s, options expanded. The advent of print-on-demand publishing and electronic publishing gave way to “self-publishing for the common man,” and that no longer involves a long conversation about how Thomas Jefferson self-published. No, this refers to how a writer controls the entire process with only the feedback and referee system the writer deems necessary. The material is then printed and distributed, all by the author. By the late 1990s, this included a new type of academic journal – the e-journal or electronic journal. While many of these new publications are run similar to the traditional journals, there were more options and, in some cases, less gatekeepers. By this I mean there were: 1) no referee process or a relaxed process; 2) a shorter time between acceptance and publication; and 3) a higher acceptance rate. Also, around 1996, there was an increase in journals that accepted payment from the author to print academic pieces.

As it has now been a little more than a decade since the peak of these technological advances, my interest is in the improvements, changes and effects of self-publishing and e-journals, in addition to the effects these works are still having on the tenure process.

IMPORTANCE OF STUDY

This started as a review of the literature concerning self-publishing in academia and e-journals, taking special notice of any relationships between these types of publishing models and the academic tenure process. However, it was quickly discovered that there is not enough literature for an effective review. Instead, it has become an outline of the literature available, and a map of the gaps in research and literature.

With the advent of electronic media, there appeared to be a greater interest in using the media, rather than using media’s traditional gatekeepers. The literary community is adjusting to a plethora of self-published novels – for example has revised its policy numerous times on the terms and conditions of accepting self-published and “print on demand” works. The academic publishing community will need to make changes to refine what is accepted as credible, scholarly research.

My intent was to identify literature relating to e-journals and self-publishing in academia. Composing a review of literature on this topic was not an easy endeavor, as none of these works were meant to be related. In fact, I contacted several of the authors and while some were aware of other works on my desired topic, the motivation for writing the cited work was not to expand the area of research. For example, in an e-mail from Dr. Aldrin Sweeney, he explained he “conducted my small scale study and submitted it to the Journal of Electronic Publishing specifically to make a point to my department/college administrators who were extremely ambivalent about the issue of electronic publications vis-a-vis ‘scholarly productivity’ and promotion & tenure decisions.” Dr. Sweeney went on to say he hasn’t done any further research in the area.

For this reason, this is not a traditional literature review, as it was impossible to find comprehensive literature concerning e-journals, self-publishing and academic pursuits. Instead, this article is the first to review previous material concerning both electronic journals and self-publishing, with respect to the effects on the tenure process. Much of the previous articles, including many referenced in this research, dealt with impact these techniques have on the economy of publishing or the archiving of academic work. The articles in this literature review were included because each addresses an angle of this subject.

Though this isn’t an ideal literature review, it is needed to identify the literature that exists, identify gaps in the literature and propose expansion of literature.

With this review of the previous literature complete, future research may move forward to fill the gaps, specifically those concerning the referee process and the question of subsidy publishing for credit toward tenure.

SCOPE OF LITERATURE REVIEW

For the purpose of this research, an electronic journal is one with material exclusively distributed via the Internet. Printed journals, also known as traditional journals, were defined during early research as ones exclusively distributed in paper form.[1] However, with many academic journals now adding their publication offerings online, a printed journal is generally agreed to be one primary distributed in paper form, with duplicated information on its Web site.

To find academic literature on this subject, I searched for the terms self-publishing, academic self-publishing, academic vanity publishing and academic subsidy publishing, as well as electronic journal, online academic publishing and e-journal. I also used the Library of Congress Subject Headings for any cross-referenced topics. Finally, I followed citations from articles discovered through my Google Scholar searches for the above topics.

Many traditional books appeared during my searches. However, I refrained from including these publications in my literature review. The only book included in this review is not a traditional book. Rather, it is a compilation of research articles specifically concerning the effects of electronic publishing in the scholarly arena. The book, Scholarly Publishing: The Electronic Frontier, is as close to a published bibliography on electronic journals as I discovered. I could not find any type of bibliography on self-publishing, academic or commercial, after an exhaustive search of the Library of Congress Subject Headings and assistance from three librarians.

Before declaring my preliminary search complete, I also employed the several theses and dissertations databases and did not find any relevant research.

Based on the results of my search, my experience in the book publishing industry as an editor, publisher and consultant, and my understanding of the history of electronic publishing and self-publishing, I developed the following criteria. When evaluating the literature, an article must have been written after 1990, the beginning of the electronic journal and academic self-publishing era, included in a refereed or edited publication (in other words, it could not be from a self-published or subsidy publishing outlet), and it must specifically address the issue of credibility and reliability of these types of publications.

In addition, the discovered literature was then split into two sub-categories, that which addresses refereed publishing and that which does not. It was further organized by publication date, as some questions raised by older research might have been answered by later endeavors. Unfortunately, it appears this was not the case.

THESIS STATEMENT

Because of the increasing accessibility and dependence of scholars on the Internet, e-journals will become more vital to the academic tenure-related publishing process. However, without a gatekeeping process, there is a need for scholars, professors, and university administrators to develop their own criteria to evaluate each publication. Self-publishing, while having the potential to be jaded by the subsidy, can be protected if a standard is set for all works, no matter the publication venue. The financial backing of such works would be of less importance than the contents, if there were a standard evaluation process, be it one developed by a gatekeeping third party or documented, individual standards created by those referencing the works – be it scholars, professors or administrators.

With all of this in mind, my table was rather simplistic. There are three categories I found to relate my literature, which already had to meet the categories established in my scope of literature review: models of e-journals with review processes, self-publishing in academia and e-journals’ impact on academia. These categories are mutually exclusive.

A more comprehensive table for evaluating literature would include the criteria of electronic journal or self-publishing, peer review of material or no peer review, using the principle of the five proposed models for e-journals, and a universal system for evaluating works for tenure process.

BIAS THROUGH NEGLECT OF SELF-PUBLISHING

The least amount of research concerns self-publishing. The majority of the research concerning academic self-publishing addressed reasons why self-publishing isn’t addressed in the academic community.

There is a “deep-seated prejudice against scholars who subsidize their own scholarship,” in part because of the idea that the work should be judged on its merits, rather than simply because it was published.[2] During an address to the Association of American University Presses, Fred Kameny asked how academic publishing, which he argues is the most reputable form of publishing, could resemble the least reputable form of publishing – self-publishing. Kameny contends that because both markets are small – self-publishing and academic publishing – the markets are bound to be affected by similar forces and the business models will resemble each other. The problem for the publishing audience, he resolves, is self-publishing in academia appears suspect because the subsidy is indirect and because we ultimately want art (and Kameny considers the written word an art) to be judged on its quality.[3] Kameny suggested editors and scholars “play it by ear most of the time,” in reference to judging the significance or respectability of self-published scholarly work.[4] Kameny does not address criteria for judging self-publishing at the time of publication and leaves it as a subjective assessment. While this provides insight into the problems, there is no clear way to test or gauge the success of playing it by ear.

Other research contends that self-publishing supersedes certain biases found in traditional journal publications.[5] At least one researcher argues that while self-publishing lacks gatekeepers, this can be to the benefit of research and the reading audience. It not only avoids the biases of judges, but also blind spots concerning the need for specific areas of scholarship. In addition, the lack of judges decreases demanding revision and a slow review process.[6]

At the same time, a lack of gatekeepers increases opportunities for plagiarism.[7] And it isn’t just plagiarism of other works included in self-published work. Without a gatekeeper protecting the integrity of all work, including those self-published, there is a greater chance readers, and other writers, will “borrow” from the self-published work because it is not reviewed and recognized as a published work. Rather, in some respects, without a gatekeeper self-published work is nothing more than documented research. It is the responsibility of the creator, rather than the publisher, to file a copy of the work with the U.S. Copyright Office. In addition, the Library of Congress does not even catalog self-published works in its Cataloging in Publication system. It cites limited resources and lack of necessity and need on the parts of United States libraries as the reasons for not cataloging these works.[8]

MODELS FOR ELECTRONIC JOURNALS

As is the case with traditionally-published works, standards need to be set and tested. In 1996, there were five significant potential models for academic e-journals being studied.[9] Those models were: the Birkhauser Boston publication Journal of Mathematical Systems Estimation and Control (it moved to a partially electronic format in 1994); the Duke University Press publication International Mathematics Research Notices, which in 1994 was an e-mail file split from Duke Mathematical Journal; the Oxford University Press free electronic journal Postmodern Culture; the MIT Press peer-reviewed electronic journal Chicago Journal of Theoretical Computer Science; and the model used by Online Journal of Current Clinical Trials. The majority of these models were in scientific or mathematical areas. Only Postmodern Culture and Online Journal of Current Clinical Trials cross into social science studies. Each model differs in either a mode of delivery, amount of information or fee system. The Birkhauser Boston publication is an expanded version of its print edition. The Duke University Press journal is mainly an e-mail file sent to update subscribers of Duke Mathematical Journal. In the case of Postmodern Culture, Oxford University Press coordinated with that publication to distribute floppy disks and paper versions of the journal, which was already available electronically for free. The MIT Press publication differed from other electronic models by being peer reviewed and sold for a subscription fee to libraries. Finally, the Online Journal of Current Clinical Trials is unique in the respect that Online Computer Library Center used its delivery platform as a template for several other existing printed journals.[10]

Nonetheless, there hasn’t been an article providing an update on these models. Before creating new models, these should be evaluated and reported on. However, if too much time has lapsed without documentation, it might be necessary to start over with new models.

After outlining the cost and timing benefits of electronic publishing, one author offered a model for electronic publication, involving a two-to-three-member editorial board and a ratings system that would be publicly posted, though the editors would remain anonymous.[11]

A newer model, currently in the theory form and not yet adopted by a journal, involves a “deconstructed journal.” This model completely eliminates the publisher and is based on subject focal points, or subject areas.[12] A 2004 review of this proposal calls for a philosophical shift. The author contends users of new media (e-journals) cannot compare the product to that of old media (traditional print journals). Rather, e-journals must be evaluated based on the information and product that is unique, not how well it can replicate the print journal model.[13] For example, Galvin would have e-journals evaluated on links to cited works, ease of using the electronic forums for a journal and the maintenance of its information.

Before his death, Kling proposed a new model, the hybrid. The Hybrid Publishing Model, which is used by NCSTRL, the U.S. Department of Energy “Preprint Network” and Working Papers in Economics, involves creating software that develops a “uniform front end with a search engine that links all of the research e-journal articles in a specific field.”[14] Kling contended that with research departments creating their own technical reports series the visibility of individual articles was lowered. The success or failure of this model, as experimented with by NCSTRL, the U.S. Department of Energy “Preprint Network” and Working Papers in Economics, hasn’t been reported.

BIAS AGAINST ELECTRONIC JOURNALS

Research on e-journals is well under way. It was the strongest area of study in reference to this literature review. It also had the most reference to setting protocol for peer review or gatekeeping in academic publications.

Journal editors are the gatekeepers for academic publications and, some argue, are vital to the acceptance and development of e-journals. In the earliest electronic journal research, Rob Kling, one of the foremost authorities on technology-based publishing (until his death in 2003), emphasized the role of journal editors as gatekeepers. “We believe that the ways that e-journal editors design these aspects (review of papers, format articles for distribution and actual distribution) of their journals influence their likely acceptability by productive scholars, and thus their overall legitimacy.”[15]

He went onto describe e-journals as something that puzzles librarians and scholars, causing the publications to “exist in a kind of ghostly netherworld of academic publishing.”[16]

With bias already against e-journals with editorial boards and refereed submissions, the disdain toward non-refereed e-journals is hardly disguised. In January 1997, at the Faxon Institute, Colloquim was the first acknowledgement of electronic journals that were without gatekeepers. This time also marked a significant point in discussing the effects of electronic publishing, both refereed and not, on tenure and promotion. Surprisingly, while it was admitted that “non-peer reviewed electronic journals in which anyone can be published are now appearing on the Web,” and that “Unfortunately, many articles are published only so the authors can get tenure or promotion,” it was also revealed that “Unless there are accepted alternatives for faculty that will allow them to disseminate information, enhance their reputations, and earn them rewards, they will have no incentive to change the present model of publishing.”[17]

Odlyzko offers that p-journals will end soon – the end is inevitable.[18] In fact, in 1996 he predicted p-journals would be gone within 10 to 20 years (which means we’re a little behind schedule). He based this theory on the fact that e-journals, and all things electronic in research, would be more effective and efficient than traditional publications.

At the same time, Harnad argues academics should immediately abandon print journals and publish electronic journals.[19] He argues electronic journals will reach more researchers and have a larger impact on the academic community, because universities will be able to subscribe to more e-journals and the authors will then be cited more.

But getting to that point requires common ground and acceptance. The greatest debate against e-journals concerns peer review. While many agree that review is necessary, some call for a freer flow of ideas, eliminating the peer referee process. A less radical option involves peer opinion or peer commentary (making public comment after a raw work is published). At least one researcher contends blind peer review remains the least flawed and safest method of gatekeeping, reasoning that if we begin peer commentary scholars must balance what they truly think of a work against the chance that the peer they review might someday have influence in their career. The researcher likened it to publicly announcing who you vote for in political races, rather than maintaining the anonymity of a secret ballot.[20]

Another model for e-journal is based on the theory that if an article has publicity, trustworthiness and accessibility, then it can be considered effective scholarly communication.[21] This method is helpful from a social perspective but barely addresses the reliability of the information presented.

There is a school of thought that categorizes electronic journals as either a utopian environment or an anti-utopian one. The anti-utopian controversies involve eight factors: scholarship, intellectual property rights, education, knowledge, work life, social equity, employment and gender bias.[22] In the area of scholarship, the concern is that the development of e-journals will change the criteria for academic career advancement and the ties scholars have to paper-based journals. In other words, there’s a concern the drive for tenure and the urgency of publishing will force paper-based publications into oblivion. Intellectual property refers to the risk of e-publishing leading to unpaid usages and the litigious ramifications. Educational concerns are based in the drawbacks on students have unregulated access to online information that has not been academically pre-reviewed. The fourth aspect of concern is that e-journals will alter the nature of knowledge and create new limitations based on electronic search capabilities.

Work life is an unusual consideration for the anti-utopian environment. The argument is the growth of e-journals will degrade the quality of jobs for those in the academic community. Which leads to the social equity concerns that the more usable electronic libraries of information will lead to an enhanced tendency to foster a sub-class of illiterate citizens. Which is closely related to the suggestion that electronic publishing would alter labor markets – eliminating jobs for librarians and educators, even creating a greater barrier for the lower class.

Most of these factors seemed to have logical arguments, though the gender bias was a bit surprising. The concern is that the jobs held by academic librarians, who are mostly women, could potentially be taken by computer science practitioners, who are mainly men.

The motivation for e-journals, specifically for “Author Pay,” “Open Access” journals, was for the author to control where his article was placed. In 2004, it was reported that Open Access journal articles were cited more than the traditional articles. In addition, it was suggested that doubling the number of citations increased the author’s salary at his university by 7 percent to 14 percent.[23] This information is a bit surprising, as no other research available supported the finding of higher citations.

Attitudes toward electronic journals have improved. While an early 1990s survey indicated that most contributors to e-journals felt the work carried less weight than print publication, by 1999 Rutgers had revised its guidelines for tenure and promotion, to include guidelines for citing electronic publications. However, many researchers argue the presentation of e-journals is not conducive with the methods scholars use journals. [24]

It has been argued the key to the acceptance of e-journals is in the design. Like a traditional journal, the way the editors design the review process will influence the acceptability and legitimacy in the eyes of producing scholars and those in command of tenure and promotions.[25]

Some bias is simply preference. In a 2004 survey one respondent summed this sentiment up best, “Despite being highly computer literate, I am strongly averse to publishing in journals that do not have print versions, and this will not change. The day I have no option but to publish in electronic format alone is the day I consider a change of career.”[26]

CONCLUSION

A great portion of the information concerning electronic journals pertains to the problems with archiving in libraries and banishing the idea that electronic publishing is experimental. Other research delved into cost-factor comparisons between print and electronic publications.[27]

As noted by Kameny, part of the problem with researching vanity publications is the lack of historical information, even a concrete definition.[28]

The definition and research provided here should bring us closer to finding solutions to the archiving and evaluation concerns. There is too little information available at this time to know if there is a need for additional categories for evaluation of literature for tenure purposes.

FUTURE RESEARCH

First and foremost, there is a need for updates. After Kling’s death in 2003, research has lagged a great deal. After contacting several of the authors cited here, the consensus appears that future surveys should be a bit more focused on field of studies and the different demands negated by scientific journals versus social science publications. It will be possible to provide useful data for several fields, so long as the scope of a survey concerns developing standardized protocol, such as those in place for traditional academic publications.

Second, there is a desperate need for a published bibliography for electronic journals. The book I used as reference, and as the closest thing I found to a bibliography, was published in 1996. In this same vein, there is a need for both a bibliography of self-publishing (which could include academic and commercial works) and a bibliography on academic publishing.

Finally, a survey of tenure committees would be fruitful for this research. This survey should include finding out university protocols for evaluating the worth of publications and what impact the format has on such an evaluation. But such a survey must be carefully and specifically written. In 2000, a survey of The Florida State University System intended to find out the impact electronic publishing had on tenure and review. Unfortunately, the questions did not yield any significant discoveries. In part, this was because there were too many options (strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree and neither) without any one response gaining the majority of votes. Another flaw was in the questions. As one respondent explained, “Your survey does not differentiate among electronic journals, but all e-journals are not equivalent in many ways.” It was argued that without knowing what type of journal the question referred to (peer reviewed, editor reviewed or unrefereed or even electronic versions of print publications) respondents are free to make assumptions. It’s doubtful they will all make the assumptions.[29]

References

Bergstrom, Theodore C., & Bergstrom, Carl T. (2004). Can “author pay” journals compete with “reader pays?” . Retrieved March 28, 2008, from .

Burbules, Nicholas C. (1997). Web publishing and educational scholarship: Where issues of form and contents meet. Cambridge Journal of Education, 27, 273-283.

Fisher, Janet (1996). Traditional publishers and electronic journals. In Robin P. Peek, & Gregory B. Newby (Eds.), Scholarly Publishing: The Electronic Frontier, (pp. 231-241). Cambridge: MIT Press.

Galvin, Jeanne (2004). The next step in scholarly communication: Is the traditional journal dead? Electronic Journal of Academic and Special Librarianship, 5, retrieved April 2, 2008, from .

Harnad, Stevan (2000). The invisible hand of peer review. Exploit Interactive, 1, retrieved March 28, 2008, from .

Harnad, Stevan (2004). For whom the gate tolls? How and why to free the refereed research literature online through author/institution self-archiving, now. Historical Social Research, 29, 76-113.

Kameny, Fred (1998). Authors with deep pockets: The ethics of subsidies. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 29, 65-71.

Kling, Rob (2003). The internet and unrefereed scholarly publishing. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 591-631.

Kling, Rob, & Covi, Lisa (1995). Electronic journals and legitimate media in the systems of scholarly communication. The Information Society, 11, 261-271 .

Kling, Rob, and Lamb, Roberta (1996). Analyzing alternate visions of electronic publishing and digital libraries. In Robin P. Peek, & Gregory B. Newby (Eds.), Scholarly Publishing: The Electronic Frontier, (pp. 17-54). Cambridge: MIT Press.

Kling, Rob, and McKim, Geoffrey (1999). Scholarly communication and the continuum of electronic publishing. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50, 890-907.

Odlyzko, Andrew (1996). Tragic loss or good riddance? The impending demise of traditional scholarly journals. In Robin P. Peek, & Gregory B. Newby (Eds.), Scholarly Publishing: The Electronic Frontier, (pp. 91-101). Cambridge: MIT Press.

Rohe, T.A. (1998). How does electronic publishing affect the scholarly communication process? Journal of Electronic Publishing, 3, retrieved March 1, 2008, from .

Rowland, Ian, Nicholas, Dave, & Huntington, Paul (2004). Scholarly communication in the digital environment: What do authors want? Learned Publishing, 17, 261-273.

Smith, John W.T. (1999). The deconstructed journal – a new model for academic publishing. Learned Publishing, 12, 79-91.

Sweeney, Aldrin E. (2000). Should you publish in electronic journals? The Journal of Electronic Publishing, 6, retrieved March 28, 2008, from .

Varian, H.R. (1997). The future of electronic journals: Some speculations about the evolution of academic electronic publishing. Paper presented at the Scholarly Communication and Technology conference, Emory University, retrieved March 1, 2008, from .

-----------------------

[1] Rob Kling, and Roberta Lamb (1996). Analyzing alternate visions of electronic publishing and digital libraries. In Robin P. Peek, & Gregory B. Newby (Eds.), Scholarly Publishing: The Electronic Frontier. Cambridge: MIT Press.

[2] Fred Kameny (1998). Authors with deep pockets: The ethics of subsidies. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 29.

[3] Kameny, 1998.

[4] Kameny, 1998.

[5] Nicholas C. Burbules (1997). Web publishing and educational scholarship: Where issues of form and contents meet. Cambridge Journal of Education, 27.

[6] Burbles, 1997.

[7] Burbles, 1997.

[8] The Library of Congress Web site for Cataloging in Publication, .

[9] Janet Fisher (1996). Traditional publishers and electronic journals. In Robin P. Peek, & Gregory B. Newby (Eds.), Scholarly Publishing: The Electronic Frontier. Cambridge: MIT Press.

[10] Fisher, 1996.

[11] H.R. Varian (1997). The future of electronic journals: Some speculations about the evolution of academic electronic publishing.

[12] John W.T. Smith (1999). The deconstructed journal – a new model for academic publishing. Learned Publishing, 12.

[13] Jeanne Galvin (2004). The next step in scholarly communication: Is the traditional journal dead? Electronic Journal of Academic and Special Librarianship, 5.

[14] Rob Kling (2003). The internet and unrefereed scholarly publishing. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology.

[15] Kling and Lamb, 1996

[16] Kling and Lamb, 1996.

[17] T.A. Rohe (1998). How does electronic publishing affect the scholarly communication process? Journal of Electronic Publishing, 3.

[18] Andrew Odlyzko (1996). Tragic loss or good riddance? The impending demise of traditional scholarly journals. In Robin P. Peek, & Gregory B. Newby (Eds.), Scholarly Publishing: The Electronic Frontier. Cambridge: MIT Press.

[19] Stevan Harnad (2004). For whom the gate tolls? How and why to free the refereed research literature online through author/institution self-archiving, now. Historical Social Research, 29.

[20] Harnad, Stevan (2000). The invisible hand of peer review. Exploit Interactive, 1.

[21] Rob Kling and Geoffrey McKim (1999). Scholarly communication and the continuum of electronic publishing. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50.

[22] Kling and Lamb, 1996.

[23] Bergstrom, Theodore C., & Bergstrom, Carl T. (2004). Can “author pay” journals compete with “reader pays?” .

[24] Galvin, 2004.

[25] Rob Kling & Lisa Covi (1995). Electronic journals and legitimate media in the systems of scholarly communication. The Information Society, 11.

[26] Rowland, Ian, Nicholas, Dave, & Huntington, Paul (2004). Scholarly communication in the digital environment: What do authors want? Learned Publishing.

[27] Varian, 1997.

[28] Kameny, 1998.

[29] Sweeney, Aldrin E. (2000). Should you publish in electronic journals? The Journal of Electronic Publishing, 6.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download