Of Publishers and Plumbers

[Glenn Hampson]

Joe Esposito has a nice article in today’s Scholarly Kitchen: https://bit.ly/2LfvAJF. In it, Joe argues that the reason universities and scholarly societies haven’t taken control of publishing is that they’ve never really had total control---there are lots of moving parts and “ceding control” to commercial publishers allows the academy to focus on academics. Some in our group argue that today’s technology makes it more possible than ever for universities and societies to organize and create change in publishing; others argue that the optimal outcome for research is a continued partnership between academics and the industry of publishing. What isn’t discussed in Joe’s article, of course (there is a word limit) is the why and how: what aspects of the current system (other than price, which will always be open to criticism) need to be reformed and would be served better by an ecosystem devoid of commercial publishers, and how (and how else) can these improvements be made, realistically and sustainably. Are we aiming for solution, revolution, devolution, evolution, or some other outcome? And before we start defunding and flipping and boycotting and unbundling and building mega-repositories and pursuing any other number of unrelated strategies, do we really have a good idea of where we’re heading, what we’re fighting for (and against), where our interests align, and what the future should look like (and why)?

 

Happy Monday,

 

Glenn

 

 

Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)

2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133
(206) 417-3607 | gham...@nationalscience.org | nationalscience.org