Thoughts on the future of academic journals
When I think about the changing nature of media and technology I am taken aback at how quickly things have changed. When I was completing my undergraduate degree I would spend countless hours in the university library browsing the shelves for resources and skimming through the carefully bound journals. This is a sharp contrast to my current experience: I very rarely enter the physical library, rather most of my research and collaborative work is done with the aid of the internet.
According to Willinsky (2002) the future of scholarly reviewed journals is the internet. Journal subscriptions are expensive, thus, the research and knowledge that academic journals contain is available to a select few: those with university connections or those with the means and the desire to pay the monetary price for access. Some scholarly journals have stopped relying on subscriptions as their primary source of funding and have begun publishing peer reviewed content for free via the internet.
Newspapers are facing similar challenges. Many newspapers are becoming less dependent on subscriptions to maintain financial viability. Successful news providers are relying on a variety of income sources such as web hosting, online advertising and financial backers. The pressure to provide content for less money also forces news providers to rely on low-paid or even-unpaid journalists. This can lead to the demise of high quality investigative journalism (Franklin, 2014).
The comparison between newspapers and peer reviewed scholarly journals begs the question: Will academic research suffer the questions of quality as professional journalism? I believe that the answer lies in the importance of peer review as it necessitates academic rigor. Unlike journalism, academic research is questioned more thoroughly and held to a higher standard by fellow academics.
Willinsky (2002) also suggests that unlike corporate news providers, academic research is largely funded through public money and thus it should be freely accessible by members of the public. Free access to academic research would provide the public with information that would allow for more agency and informed decisions. Willinsky also argues that this openness would be an impetus for greater public support for academic inquiry. People will appreciate and advocate for academic research is they are able to benefit from the work themselves.
Harshaw et al, (2014) argue that the popular crowd sourced website Wikipedia is an acceptable medium with which to pass on scholarly information about phychobiology to the general public. It is easily accessible and is usually one of the top few search results in any google search. They further that this platform could inform public much more effectively that the quick soundbites that are common in traditional media.
It is surprising to think of how quickly media technology has changed yet how slow humans can be to react to that change. Willinsky wrote his article about democracy and education while I was in my undergraduate degree, yet the issues that he is discussing and advocating are very similar to those we are grappling with today.
Franklin, B. (2014). The Future of journalism. Journalism practice.8, 469-487. Doi:10.1080/17512786.2014.942090
Harshaw, C., Marcinowski, E. & Campbell, J. (2014). Communicating developmental psychology to the masses: Why psychobiologists should contribute to Wikipedia. Developmental psychology. 56, 1439-1441.
Willinsky, J. (2002). Democracy and education: The missing link may be ours. Harvard educational review. 72, 367-392.
Your post touched on public access to education and democratization which I also found very interesting. In the readings, Willinsky points out that by making academic resources readily available people will have more access to “more accurate” knowledge so to speak.
At the moment, whenever we want to find out anything, our first port of call is google. As Willinsky mentions, patients print out information on serious things like their health and then take it to see their Doctor questioning the doctor’s diagnosis over google’s diagnosis.
On the one hand, google at least gives information to people that they would previously not have had access to. However, on the other hand, the accuracy of the information can be somewhat suspect.
This reminds me of a parent interview years ago, where unhappy parents of a delinquent child demanded to see my degree(s )on the premise that they had read an article in the Toronto Sun that there were teachers in the system who didn’t have teaching degrees. Although the information was somewhat true, it was actually speaking of people who had started teaching in the 1960’s (and were predominantly white based on the ethnic population at the time). However, lack of information lead these parents to assume the worst based on their own racial prejudices and baggage.
Public access to academic, peer reviewed materials would allow people to consult pertinent, reliable information that has been critically evaluated beforehand and thus relieve teachers and doctors- to name a few- from having to defend their professional decisions based on information that has been authored by anyone.
oops my sources
Sources
Willinsky, J. (2002). Democracy and education: The missing link may be ours. Harvard educational review. 72, 367-392.
Great question James: “Will academic research suffer the questions of quality as professional journalism?”
We do have very interesting phenomena in academia, the entire notion of predatory journals is a very good example. We have the whole “publish or perish” thing that forces us to stay not only relevant, but somehow “popular”. But the way academia operates as gatekeeper of knowledge is changing for good I think. Anyways, let me share with you the Public Knowledge Project webpage, If you go to People, you’ll find a familiar name.
That is a very interesting project Ernesto and I did see a familiar face. It is interesting when you see a picture after you read the person’s work. They never seem to look the way that I expect. I also noticed that there is a place where users can donate to the project. Crowdfunding could be a very interesting way for publishers to maintain financial viability.
As I was reading Revathy’s comment I was reminded of a heated staff room conversation around prerequisites for public school courses. Some teachers were upset that students could take grade 11 and 12 level elective courses without taking the prerequisite levels of the course. Since education is a publicly funded system students have the right to take any class that they choose. As some of my colleagues said, they might not have the skills and background knowledge to be successful; however, it is their right to try. I think that academic writing and research is similar. The public might not have the skills to consume this knowledge but it should be a public right to try.
Thanks, James, for the observations about the future of academic journals. I think public access to scholarly research goes hand-in-hand with other open educational resources such as BC Campus textbooks and the many MOOCs that are available.
Willinksi (2002) presents public access to academic journals as a method of encouraging democratic participation in society. He hope that direct access to this information will help balance the news available through regular, corporate-controlled outlets. I would argue that the current proliferation of news sites on the internet allows people to consume news in any non-corporate flavour they like, but none of them present the non-partisan approach that (hopefully) to which academic research adheres. While, observed above, people should have the right to access the information even if they don’t have the skills yet to thoroughly comprehend it, I wonder how people will be able to weed out the “bad stuff.” Scholarly research might not meet the same fate as corporate news, but as we know “there is nothing to be done about the rapid dissemination of trash”(O’Donnell and Engell, 1999).
Wikipedia, while a great public resource, is often the victim of hoaxes and spurious edits. I suspect that academic articles will not be immune. Predatory journals, which I have just learned about, are one major problem. How is the average person going to differentiate between a journal that publishes for a fee or lacks peer review, and one that is a legitimate? Willinski points out that there is a great deal of work to do to “in the design and development of systems that address both public and scholarly qualities of our research activities,”(2002, 17) and this is but one of the tasks to accomplish.
Engell J. and O’Donnell J. (1999). From Papyrus to Cyberspace. [Audio File]. Cambridge Forums.
Willinski, J. (2002) Democracy and Education: the Missing Link May be Ours. Harvard Educational Review. 72(3) 367-392
Thanks for your provocative post, James.
I, too, enjoyed the Willinsky article and was encouraged by his stance on academic work. I have to admit that I truly take more enjoyment of the research experience being able to do it in the comfort of home rather than skimming the shelves of a library – usually to find that the item I was searching for wasn’t available!
As the internet and access to knowledge are becoming more and more ubiquitous, it makes ultimate sense that academia be urged to open the gates and permit those with interest to make use of the products of research. I agree that journalism, in its current state, is under much scrutiny and certainly with cause. But to address your question as to whether academic research will suffer the same fate, I am not so sure it will. As you mentioned, the significance of peer review and the fact that research is largely conducted with public money (as opposed to private money in the journalistic field) perhaps offers some safeguards to removing certain biases and potential for errors.
As a consumer and a citizen, I myself appreciate having the access to knowledge, should I want to examine it. Although I might be subject to misinterpretations or misconceptions (given that I am not an expert), I am apt to use such ignorance in discussion to better myself and to overcome naivety. For instance, I like the opportunity to engage my doctor in discussion about different options for treatment – without my access to such information, I would have to take her word for it without knowing what else I might do. I certainly recognize the value of having, as you put it, “the right to try”.
The plus side of open access for academic research is, as you stated, greater support. It could also lend itself to more informed decision-making/policies, more civic involvement, and more connection between research and practice. Those that use this information out of context or misinterpret the information will hopefully take the opportunity to pursue their questions to a professional who can advise them appropriately.
J@net