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 amazon.com 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.