(A good blog post from Kathleen Fitzpatrick, an Associate Professor, Department of Media Studies, Pomona College, who has taken up the recent online debate on Open Access Publishing). Thanks to Larry Stillman for the link)
Thereâ€™s a fascinating exchange around open access publishing and the reasons scholars might resist it developing right now, beginning with Dan Cohenâ€™s post, Open Access Publishing and Scholarly Values, which he wrote for the Hacking the Academy volume, a crowd-sourced book he and Tom Scheinfeldt are editing (to be published by the University of Michigan Pressâ€™s Digital Culture Books). Dan argues for the ethical â€” as well as the practical â€” imperative for contemporary scholars to publish their work in openly distributed forms and venues.
Stephen Ramsay then published a response, Open Access Publishing and Scholarly Values (continued), in which he points out that the ways we substitute what we now understand as â€œpeer reviewâ€ for real evaluation and judgment by our peers, particularly at the stage of tenure and promotion reviews, so overwhelms this ethical/practical imperative that we never even really get to the stage of deciding whether publishing openly could be a good thing or not.