When the dam breaks...

Publication of research is one of the most important facets of academic life. I can't stress enough how important it is for good research to be as widely and swiftly disseminated as possible. Without it, our practice is less likely to be informed, and more prone to repeated errors. As a researcher myself, I take this challenge very seriously. Along with other educational researchers, I attempt to identify key issues for investigation and then spend considerable time and energy examining as much of the terrain that surrounds my research question as I can. Once I have analysed the data, I am usually able to arrive at some conclusions and write some form of report, which is likely to include a set of recommendations that I hope will benefit my community of practice. Such findings should be published widely to inform the entire community. This is the way it should be. And yet often, sadly, it just doesn't happen.

Recently, several writers have bemoaned the fact that a) there is often a significant time delay between the submission of papers to academic journals, and the papers actually reaching the reader, and b) many of the top, elite journals we are expected to publish in are in fact read by a very small percentage of the community the research is intended to reach. Open access journals (and there are several alternative funding models that support these) are the best way to address these problems. They open content up to be read by a much larger audience, and in my personal experience, they turn around reviews and publish sugnifcantly quicker than the standard traditional closed journals. Much of this argument is elaborated on in Sarah Thornycroft's excellent post Redefining Academic Publishing in Digital Spaces, in which she calls for a reform of the current archaic system.  


Way back in 2008, in one of the most erudite arguments ever made for open access publishing, danah boyd called for a boycott on writing for closed academic journals. Several notable scholars joined this boycott - refusing to publish again in pay-to-subscribe academic journals - but at present this movement is a trickle rather than a deluge. The truth is, not many academics can afford to turn their backs on closed journal publishing. Those that do take a public stand against closed publishing do so for a very good reason. As it stands, the current publication system has academics over a barrel. Many cannot secure tenure or gain promotion without publishing their work in the top notch journals, almost all of which are currently locked down. Moreover, many governments apportion research money to institutions who have the best track record of publications in the said journals. This strangle hold rewards the publishers with huge profits at the expense of the hard working academics, who are forced to provide their labour for free. I believe the prices many publishing houses charge for access to their journals is obscene and unjustifiable, and the costs prevent many students and scholars from reading important research they would otherwise benefit from.

Last month I took a similar personal stance to danah boyd, vowing that I would never again publish my research in closed journals. Because I feel very strongly about this, I have decided I must take this even further. From now on, I am no longer reviewing for closed journals. I have also resigned from my post as co-editor of the journal Interactive Learning Environments, after 3 years at the helm. I have nothing against the good people who run the journal, many of whom are friends of mine. I resigned because the role of editor of a closed journal is incompatible with my personal stance on open access. It would have been hypocritical of me if I had stayed. I'm now putting my full support behind the open access movement, because it is the right thing to do. Education should be accessible for all, and we can no longer sit back and do nothing as the edubusinesses charge people more than they can afford for learning they need.

I don't have the hubris to believe that this will change the world. It won't. Nor am I deluded enough to consider that what I am doing will challenge the might of the dozen or so big publishers who hold the monopoly. It will not. It may not make any difference whatsoever. But if by taking this stance I can raise awareness of the problems locked down journals cause, and signal that there are alternatives, then it will be worth it. If others feel the same, we can begin to make a difference. The cracks are already showing and the dam wall is beginning to leak. Some publishers are already seriously considering how they will survive when the open access movement gains enough traction to pose a significant threat. I'm hoping that one day soon the trickle will become a deluge, and that when the dam breaks, the publishers will have to sit up and take notice.      


Cost of Knowledge Petition to boycott Elsevier Journals


Image source


When the dam breaks... by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.