4 ms·

The other side of it is reputation. Academic publishing to a questionable journal (even if it's a good journal) can be a black mark on your career. You not only

The other side of it is reputation. Academic publishing to a questionable journal (even if it's a good journal) can be a black mark on your career. You not only have to get over the hump of at least break even profit but also convince tenured professors stuck in their ways that your journal will gain and keep a positive reputation. This task is insurmountable for the most part. At least with the current way academia works. Current journals have been around for decades, sometimes even reaching the 100 year mark. Back in the ye olde days it was easy for anyone to publish anything (even non-academics). These days these journals are so deeply entrenched in the minds of academics it would be like convincing 10% of fortune 500 companies to switch from excel to your new cool software. Even it's it better they won't because of this mental block.

dbingham 4y ago
Yeah, that may be. But it seems worth trying given all the negative impacts of the status quo.
- Test0129 4y ago
  I'm not saying to _not_ try it. It's just going to be a dumpster-fire-money-pit that has an extremely high probability of either bankrupting you or producing nothing of significant value. This isn't a shot at OP. The best way to force change here isn't yet another journal, but rather fix the access issues of current journals, convince them it's a good idea to be less exclusive (ever noticed certain initials tend to be published more than others?), and moreover stop the university-journal death-bond that currently is in the market. Good luck at any rate.
blep_ 4y ago
Could the solution be "don't actually tie it to the journal"? Have the journal treat itself more as an implementation detail than as an end in itself; you didn't publish a paper in the Journal of Lasers, you just published a paper about lasers. This is still a mental shift for academics to get over, but I wonder if it's a more feasible one.

dbingham 4y ago

Yeah, that may be. But it seems worth trying given all the negative impacts of the status quo.

Test0129 4y ago
I'm not saying to _not_ try it. It's just going to be a dumpster-fire-money-pit that has an extremely high probability of either bankrupting you or producing nothing of significant value. This isn't a shot at OP. The best way to force change here isn't yet another journal, but rather fix the access issues of current journals, convince them it's a good idea to be less exclusive (ever noticed certain initials tend to be published more than others?), and moreover stop the university-journal death-bond that currently is in the market. Good luck at any rate.

blep_ 4y ago

Could the solution be "don't actually tie it to the journal"? Have the journal treat itself more as an implementation detail than as an end in itself; you didn't publish a paper in the Journal of Lasers, you just published a paper about lasers. This is still a mental shift for academics to get over, but I wonder if it's a more feasible one.