![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
academic publishing puzzles me
Wednesday, 11 August 2010 02:17 am
Not been up to much really, mainly thesis writing, meeting my supervisor and watching trashy Channel 4 "documentaries" of dubious value. Do I really need to gawp at plastic surgery gone terribly wrong? When the alternative is trying to pin down critical discourse analysis it seems that yes, yes I do. Even if it's uneasily exploitive and rather like the C21st equivalent of a freak show.
Also went to a science centre and made a solar oven with the Competitive Physicists out of a cardboard box, black crepe paper and tinfoil. It was a very interdisciplinary team (one MBChB, two MPhys, one BA, one MA and two PhD students in our team of four) and we were basically competing with 6 year olds. We have no shame. We did, however, end up with melted chocolate buttons and a passing grasshopper who seemed to appreciate the warmth. Suggestions for chocolate-dipped insects didn't go down particularly well.
I also got interviewed for a research project into resources use in humanities which was rather exciting. I find it interesting that generally, I like new ways of disseminating information and interesting ways of visualising data like Information Is Beautiful and Strange Maps. I like blogs and twitter and IM and in many ways, these things are work as well as play. They've given me a connectedness with other researchers and are brilliant for fighting isolation and engaging with others.
What I find frustrating is how academia uses technology. I loathe ebrary reader with a fierce and bitter passion, logging into electronic journals is a task that makes me yearn for the simplicity of Athens and I still kind of fail to see how academic journals work beyond "you create all the content, they keep all the money". Academic technology does not do things intuitively or elegantly, it all seems to be clumsy and slow and inflexible and will leave you swearing, weeping or beating your head against the keyboard. I don't think I'm a luddite, but I'd rather cycle to the library to find a dead tree book than deal with ebrary reader. There's something a bit wrong when it's easier to read a printed pdf or photocopy or book than an electronic book.
I find myself wondering what academic publishing is so very scared of; why is it so awkward to access to electronic resources? why is it so hard to print a chapter of a book (as opposed to the ten pages at a time I've been limited by)? And I think the real reason is fear. Academics love information. I'm pretty sure every researcher has at least one box or filing cabinet (depending on level of organisation) of printouts and photocopies. I've seen photocopies of entire books, and that involves rather a lot of time standing at the photocopier and a rather serious hit to your photocopying allowance. But financially worth it for an expensive key text that otherwise, you'd have to buy.
If it was too easy to circulate electronic copies - the mp3s of this analogy - no one will buy the books. It's not in their interests to make this information too freely, in both senses of the world, available. Instead, the system seems built on a few purchases - I'd guess by libraries more than individuals - of very expensive books/journal subscriptions[1]. At its heart there's a tension between making resources available and losing control of them.
I am still intrigued as to where the money gained from selling books goes. Paying the editorial staff, office space and supplies, sponsoring events. Does anyone get paid for peer-reviewing or article-writing or editing? The academics involved seems to get paid in a currency of prestige, which, fingers very much crossed, is reflected in their salary paid by their university, rather than cold, hard cash.
It strikes me that if academics could disseminate their own work, in a peer-reviewed, credible way, without the need of academic publishers, the whole industry could be shaken, if not tumble down completely.
[1] It puzzles me, because the more expensive the book the more I feel it's financially out-of-reach for me and am therefore justified in using my photocopying allowance. What I've seen working is publishing things in paperback rather than hardback - people are more likely to buy a book for £20 rather than £90.
Also went to a science centre and made a solar oven with the Competitive Physicists out of a cardboard box, black crepe paper and tinfoil. It was a very interdisciplinary team (one MBChB, two MPhys, one BA, one MA and two PhD students in our team of four) and we were basically competing with 6 year olds. We have no shame. We did, however, end up with melted chocolate buttons and a passing grasshopper who seemed to appreciate the warmth. Suggestions for chocolate-dipped insects didn't go down particularly well.
I also got interviewed for a research project into resources use in humanities which was rather exciting. I find it interesting that generally, I like new ways of disseminating information and interesting ways of visualising data like Information Is Beautiful and Strange Maps. I like blogs and twitter and IM and in many ways, these things are work as well as play. They've given me a connectedness with other researchers and are brilliant for fighting isolation and engaging with others.
What I find frustrating is how academia uses technology. I loathe ebrary reader with a fierce and bitter passion, logging into electronic journals is a task that makes me yearn for the simplicity of Athens and I still kind of fail to see how academic journals work beyond "you create all the content, they keep all the money". Academic technology does not do things intuitively or elegantly, it all seems to be clumsy and slow and inflexible and will leave you swearing, weeping or beating your head against the keyboard. I don't think I'm a luddite, but I'd rather cycle to the library to find a dead tree book than deal with ebrary reader. There's something a bit wrong when it's easier to read a printed pdf or photocopy or book than an electronic book.
I find myself wondering what academic publishing is so very scared of; why is it so awkward to access to electronic resources? why is it so hard to print a chapter of a book (as opposed to the ten pages at a time I've been limited by)? And I think the real reason is fear. Academics love information. I'm pretty sure every researcher has at least one box or filing cabinet (depending on level of organisation) of printouts and photocopies. I've seen photocopies of entire books, and that involves rather a lot of time standing at the photocopier and a rather serious hit to your photocopying allowance. But financially worth it for an expensive key text that otherwise, you'd have to buy.
If it was too easy to circulate electronic copies - the mp3s of this analogy - no one will buy the books. It's not in their interests to make this information too freely, in both senses of the world, available. Instead, the system seems built on a few purchases - I'd guess by libraries more than individuals - of very expensive books/journal subscriptions[1]. At its heart there's a tension between making resources available and losing control of them.
I am still intrigued as to where the money gained from selling books goes. Paying the editorial staff, office space and supplies, sponsoring events. Does anyone get paid for peer-reviewing or article-writing or editing? The academics involved seems to get paid in a currency of prestige, which, fingers very much crossed, is reflected in their salary paid by their university, rather than cold, hard cash.
It strikes me that if academics could disseminate their own work, in a peer-reviewed, credible way, without the need of academic publishers, the whole industry could be shaken, if not tumble down completely.
[1] It puzzles me, because the more expensive the book the more I feel it's financially out-of-reach for me and am therefore justified in using my photocopying allowance. What I've seen working is publishing things in paperback rather than hardback - people are more likely to buy a book for £20 rather than £90.
