For those who don’t know who Schekman is, use the search feature, for those of you who are somewhat familiar with Schekman, here’s a link to his response to the feedback he has gotten so far: [Ars Technica coverage][at] — which appears to be taken from _The Conversation_.
For those who don’t want to RTFA, the four points below seem to be central to his program:
1. Academics who serve a role in research assessment could shun all use of journal names and impact factors as a surrogate measure of quality. New practices and processes must be devised and shared so that we can rapidly move forward. My Berkeley colleague Michael Eisen has added an important point: we must speak up in appointment and funding committees when we hear others use journal names this way. Here we need peer pressure as much as we need peer review.
2. Researchers applying for positions, funding, and tenure should avoid any mention of impact factors in their applications or CVs. Article metrics might have a role to play, but narrative explanations of research significance and accomplishments would be more helpful.
3. Funders, universities, and other institutions should make it clear to their review committees that journal brand cannot be used as a proxy for scientific quality. If reviewers object, they should find different reviewers.
4. Many of us serve as editors or editorial board members of journals—and we could insist that the publishers of these journals stop promoting impact factors. Instead, the journals could emphasise the other valuable services they provide to authors and readers to promote their worth to the community.
> Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I fear no evil. (Psalm 23:4)
Some are calling it “the copyright hole”, but I think the copyright valley describes the graph’s appearance, especially when you mash it up with Psalm 23 (above):
The Copyright Valley
_The Atlantic_ has [the report], with a link to [the study].
[the report]: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/07/the-hole-in-our-collective-memory-how-copyright-made-mid-century-books-vanish/278209/
[the study]: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2290181
Jennifer Howard of the CHE attended the annual meeting of the American Association of University Presses and [reported] on some of the more provocative things being said and discussed at the meeting. Apparently there was a lot of talk around some points made by Ian Bogost — check out the links in the article for more — but I was mostly struck by the fact that I’ve heard many similar things by smart publishers already. I’ll even go so far as to say that I think someone like Craig Gill at University Press of Mississippi is already trying to think about much of what’s mentioned in Howard’s report. I have no idea if he was at the meeting, but I hope the two eventually compare notes. (Note to Howard: I bet I’m not alone in wanting more dispatches from the meeting.)
Inside Higher Ed has [coverage] of Edwin Mellen Press filing suit against an academic librarian for a blog post from two years ago. One wonders if the good folks at Mellen Press have heard of the [Streisand effect]?
[Streisand effect]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
When next I embark upon a journal with any entity whatsoever, I want to model it upon the [Journal of Machine Learning Research](http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/pamphlet/2012/03/06/an-efficient-journal/).
Speaking of publishing, [Microtome Publishing](http://mtome.com/) bills itself as “publishing services in support of open access to the scholarly literature.” From the about page:
> Microtome Publishing was founded in 2002 by Stuart M. Shieber on the premise that scholarly publishing should have different goals from traditional publishing; works that have been written without consideration for monetary gain by the authors should be disseminated to the greatest number for the lowest cost to the greater good of all. To that end, Microtome publishes monographs using nonstandard distribution methods such as making its books available at no cost in digital form. Microtome publishes print versions of open access journals to provide for efficient and cost-effective archiving of freely available journal materials.
A list of free and open-source journal management software from the [Open Access Directory](http://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/Free_and_open-source_journal_management_software).
* Ambra. Formerly part of Topaz (below), but forked.
* CLEO Various tools related to revues.org and Lodel (see Lodel below) can be found in this site. In French.
* DiVA. From the the Electronic Publishing Centre at Uppsala University Library.
* DPubS. From Cornell University Library and Pennsylvania State University Libraries and Press.
* E-Journal. From Drupal.
* ePublishing Toolkit. From the Max Planck Gesellschaft.
* GAPworks. From German Academic Publishers (GAP).
* HyperJournal. From the University of Pisa.
* Lodel is the publishing software behind Revues.org.
* Open Journal Systems. From the Public Knowledge Project.
* SOPS. From SciX.
* Topaz. From the Public Library of Science. Also see Ambra, above.
The Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition also maintains a list of [Journal Management Systems](http://www.arl.org/sparc/publisher/journal_management.shtml).
[James Wharris has a thoughtful post](http://jameswharris.wordpress.com/2012/03/24/what-is-the-kindle-doing-to-the-science-fiction-genre/) on how the Kindle is changing what science fiction gets read. There’s been a lot of discussion lately — Google it — on the rise of self-published authors, the bundling of public domain works, and how established authors and established publishers are responding to the dynamic publishing landscape. Wharris’ focus on one genre allows him to be a lot less shrill about the whole matter.
[Open Book Publishers](http://www.openbookpublishers.com/). Someone from the Open Access publishing Zotero group sent me an invite and then sent me a link to this site. Interesting. I have to assume that Jason Jackson knows about this, but I’ll drop him a note anyway.
Carr’s argument is, in part, that the music industry is already doing this: buy the atoms (the physical copy) get the bits (the digital copy). It is also, in part, the sense that many of us have: why do I have to pay twice for the same content?
I am a big fan of both [Pragmatic Programmers][pp] and [O’Reilly][op] because both will bundle bits with atoms, or atoms with bits, for a discount that varies by title. In fact, O’Reilly deserves an especial tip of the hat for their recent move to make buying eBook versions of some of my shelf favorites so easy and so affordable. ($5 for a number of my favorite titles.)
Sometimes I want paper, sometimes I want my phone or my Kindle or my computer. The publishers that give me that choice will quickly become my favorites. (And so I am buying more books from [O’Reilly][op] in particular.)
No, Amazon, I don’t want to have to pay to subscribe to only those blogs you have approved and priced yourself so that I can read those blogs on *my* Kindle. (Remember, I bought the device *from* you. The prepositional operation is important there.) I am thus thankful for Dan Choi and his [KindleFeeder][kf] service. KF is not perfect — it doesn’t recognize quite a number of blogs which I like to read on occasion — but it does gather up a good assortment of blogs that I would like to have pushed to me.
O’Reilly is someone I admire deeply. He is an amazing thinker and perhaps one of the few folks out there who really deserve the label “visionary.” I especially appreciate remarks like this:
> At O’Reilly the way we think about our business is that we’re not a publisher; we’re not a conference producer; we’re a company that helps change the world by spreading the knowledge of innovators.
Fellow folklorist Lisa Gabbert has an essay in Glimpse. A free, full-screen preview of the journal is available, but that does not include all of her essay. The journal appears to be a good size and is full-color. It looks great. I like that her essay explores onomastics with a non-scholarly audience. (I am not, to be clear, exactly sure who the audience for Glimpse is, but I like that they are trying something like this.)
Synchronicity seems to be on my mind a bit lately, for a variety of reasons. As very few people know, I have begun to play with writing what my colleagues might call a “commercial novel.” The protagonist is a retired university researcher who once published an article in a scientific journal that now, for reasons that surprise everyone, suddenly has a great deal of currency, among some very wrong people. The backstory I am playing with is that the nation’s security services are constantly monitoring a variety of data streams, which we know they are. One of those streams is, of course (at least in this version of reality), scholarly/scientific publishing. They are on the lookout for “coincidences” between things appearing in the pages of journals and events in the world. (If you are thinking “shades of _Three Days of the Condor_” I am sure that film played some role in this scenario.)
And so it was with amazement that I read in the _Chronicle of Higher Education_ about [the traffic in illegal access to scholarly and scientific journals][che]. From the article:
> Now on sale in some online marketplaces: cheap, illegal access to SciFinder, an extensive database of scholarly articles and information about chemical compounds run by a division of the American Chemical Society. The sellers are pirates, hawking stolen or leaked SciFinder account information from college students and professors.
> “There are reseller Web sites in China where we’ve purchased access to our own products for pennies on the dollar,” says Michael Dennis, vice president for legal administration and applied research at the Chemical Abstracts Service, the division that publishes SciFinder. “We’re shutting down hundreds of these every couple of months,” he says, though in some cases the publisher has trouble taking effective action against sites in other countries.
> He says sellers use Taobao, a Chinese service similar to eBay, and other online marketplaces to sell SciFinder access, giving buyers hacked user names and passwords and instructions on how to remotely log in to a college Web site so that they appear to be on the campus. The database is popular with companies as well as with academics, though exactly who is buying the access is not clear.