Slashdot Mirror


Library Journal Board Resigns On "Crisis of Conscience" After Swartz Death

c0lo writes "The editor-in-chief and entire editorial board of the Journal of Library Administration announced their resignation last week, citing 'a crisis of conscience about publishing in a journal that was not open access' in the days after the death of Aaron Swartz. The board had worked with publisher Taylor & Francis on an open-access compromise in the months since, which would allow the journal to release articles without paywall, but Taylor & Francis' final terms asked contributors to pay $2,995 for each open-access article. As more and more contributors began to object, the board ultimately found the terms unworkable. The journal's editor-in-chief said 'After much discussion, the only alternative presented by Taylor & Francis tied a less restrictive license to a $2995 per article fee to be paid by the author. As you know, this is not a viable licensing option for authors from the LIS community who are generally not conducting research under large grants.'"

6 of 128 comments (clear)

  1. Ethics? Not on my watch by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Thank you for standing up for what you believe in, guys! Commencing replacement with yes-men who will heed the siren call of their corporate profiteering overlords in 5...4...3...

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:Ethics? Not on my watch by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Funny

      What have you done to stand up for what you believe in today? Post a one liner on slashdot is as good as piss in a boot.

      I signed into the website first. More than you did, man. More than you did...

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
  2. Time for a new journal, the OJLA? by thesupraman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Lets hope the same editorial board is sool working at a 'new' journal, the Open Journal of Library Administration, available only online/free.
    Wouldnt that be a somewhat simple solution?

    Publishers want to protect 'their' cash cow, but its not theirs to protect. not much of a surprise really.

  3. Re:Information wants to be free by godrik · · Score: 5, Informative

    The things is that there is mostly nothing to be paid. the editor-in-chief and the editorial board is not generally paid. The reviewers are not paid. Most readers access electronic versions and the paper version are almost never opened. So the actual cost is extremely low for the publisher. The only thing the publisher provide now a days is grammar check and spell check and text layouting. Anybody that worked in the field would tell you that mostly that part of the job is not properly done, especially text layouting. I often need multiple rounds with the publisher before I agree on their text layout.

    So in brief they do not produce anything of value on the documentitself. They do print it but nobody cares. They do provide web access. But that could be done as the physicists do by publishing everything in arxiv first.

  4. Re:How Hard? by WillAdams · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The hard part when anyone can publish anything is finding something worth reading.

    --
    Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
  5. Re:Information wants to be free by interkin3tic · · Score: 5, Interesting

    You forgot "Go to conferences and trade shows and spend a lot to promote the brand."

    At a recent huge research conference, I went to a bar. Didn't know it until I walked in, I was meeting some colleagues there, but it was open bar, paid for by a major journal for researchers to try to woo them into publishing there. I enjoyed the booze, which was paid for by the journal, which got paid from universities and researchers buying back research that they had done, which in turn was paid for (both parts) by grants, which was paid by the taxpayer.

    I was a little sick the next day at that realization. Also the whiskey. And a cold, you'd think thousands of biologists would be better at keeping germs from spreading between themselves.