3 ms·
The most important reason why the ACM's publishing model (and academic publishing generally) doesn't just dry up and blow away is that people on academic career
by rst 16y ago
The most important reason why the ACM's publishing model (and academic publishing generally) doesn't just dry up and blow away is that people on academic career tracks are judged by their publication record --- meaning publication in prestigious journals; putting the same text on a web site someplace doesn't count. So, if an academic doesn't let the ACM (or Elsevier, or someone else equally grabby) take control of their writing about their work, they effectively sacrifice a valuable career chit.
Unfortunately, less expensive alternatives are going to be hard to bootstrap: a new, no-name journal almost by definition hasn't had the chance to establish prestige by publishing papers which go on to get widely cited. And if the idea is to do the same job while sucking less money out of people, that leaves very little cash for promotion, or to compensate "big names" that might lend credibility to the project...
- quanticle 16y agoUnfortunately, less expensive alternatives are going to be hard to bootstrap: a new, no-name journal almost by definition hasn't had the chance to establish prestige by publishing papers which go on to get widely cited. Well, it depends. If (and I admit that this is a huge if) you can get a couple of really big names to start publishing stuff in your new journal, you can bootstrap a journal pretty quickly. However, for this to happen, the big names that you're dealing have to be really, really disgusted with their current journal.
- rst 16y agoNot just with their current journal (the big shots usually have a choice of venues), but with academic publishing in general. But of course, what makes someone a "big name" in academia is that they've succeeded well in the system as it is, and aren't likely to be deeply aggrieved with it.