Alternative forms of academic publishing
by Anna Gopenko
The foundation of scholarly knowledge and the basis of scholarly values is objectivity, or in old terms, the scientific truth. Karl Popper, a 20th century Austrian-British philosopher and professor wrote in his Thirteenth Thesis of The Logic of the Social Sciences that “objectivity rests solely upon pertinent mutual criticism”. For Popper, the truth is unattainable for an individual regardless of how smart, knowledgeable or open-minded s/he is, but is possible for a community of scholars in the process of, what we now call, peer-review. According to Popper, objectivity is only possible as competition (both of separately taken scientists and of groups or schools); tradition (the critical tradition is implied); social institution (for instance, publications or conferences) and the power of the state (liberty of speech in the society).
As we know, academic publishing relies heavily on the peer-review process. An article is submitted to a journal and then distributed to two experts in the field. They submit their recommendations to the editor and based on their comments the article is either accepted for a publication, or accepted with modifications, or not accepted. This process has been and continues to be considered a trusted and reliable way to insure quality of the research and published material. It is also a guarantor of scholarly integrity, as the peer-review process enforces certain criteria onto the researchers and promotes in a way scholarly knowledge, its quality and objectivity.
At the same time, the process of peer-review has come under a fire of criticism as of last decades, because of a few major drawbacks: it is time consuming, costly, but most importantly, in spite of its tedious and lengthy method, it is still far from perfection when quality or originality are concerned. Lack of creativity and restricted formats of publication are yet other concerns (Tappeiner 2013; Wagner 2011).
Parallel to this dissatisfaction with the traditional methods of publication in the academic world, there is a growing tendency to use the new technologies offered by the internet and the mass media - social media, blogs, wikis, and video lectures, to name a few – that are increasingly becoming the tools of researchers and professors, albeit not yet for mainstream academic work. Researchers may wish to express themselves in more creative formats or do part of their research using social media technology, or, for reasons of speeding up the publication process and closer communication with a wider audience. Sometimes professors choose to recur to the alternative forms of publishing as they are no longer satisfied with the traditional ones. As Dr. Constance Crompton from the University of Ottawa has said, “We were frustrated by how slowly the academic publishing cycle was and wanted to get our ideas out in the world before going on the job market”. Dr. Crompton is one such researcher that has developed an online presence for her research to share her work more broadly. Her web-site is a repository of essays on the issue of gender minorities, which includes a repository of searchable event records of the Lesbian and Gay liberation in Canada movement.
Alternative forms of publishing, however, remain stigmatized among the scholars. Although some accomplished tenured scholars can allow themselves alternative forms of self-marketing, young professors are still dependant on the traditional model of publishing. It is possible that with time these new models will be readily accepted alongside traditional forms of publishing, but before this happens, the new forms of publishing need to find a reliable and trusted method of incorporating peer-review into their format.
References
Popper, Karl (2009). Thirteenth Thesis. Retrieved on March 24, 2018.
Tappeiner, Elizabeth and Kate Lyons (2013). Technology innovations in publishing: New directions in academic and cultural communication. In International Journal of Technology, Knowledge and Society, Vol.9 (2), pp.205-214. Retrieved on February 14, 2018:
Wagner, Elizabeth and Tom Jefferson (2006). Shortcomings of Peer Review in Biomedical Journals. Learned Publishing 14, pp. 257-63.