SCHOLARPUB-L Archives

Scholarly Communications CKG

SCHOLARPUB-L@LISTSERV.UCOP.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Timothy Vollmer <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Timothy Vollmer <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 1 May 2023 09:08:08 -0700
Content-Type:
multipart/alternative
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (2630 bytes) , text/html (4 kB)
FYI -
https://dailynous.com/2023/04/27/wiley-removes-goodin-as-editor-of-the-journal-of-political-philosophy/

Anna Stilz (Princeton), a member of the *Journal of Political
Philosophy* editorial
board and editor-in-chief of *Philosophy & Public* Affairs, shared parts of
an email she sent to fellow editorial board members.

*Like many of you, I wrote earlier today to resign from Wiley’s Editorial
Board…  But now I’d just like to second [the complaint about] Wiley’s
unreasonable demands and to add my perspective as Editor-in-Chief of*
Philosophy
and Public Affairs*, another Wiley-owned journal.*

*Wiley has recently signed a number of major open-access agreements: this
means that increasingly, they get their revenue through author fees for
each article they publish (often covered now by public grant agencies),
rather than library subscriptions. Their current company-wide strategy for
maximizing revenue is to force the journals they own to publish as many
articles as possible to generate maximum author fees. Where Editors refuse
to do that, they exert all the pressure they can, up to and including
dismissal, as in this case. Though I am not privy to the details of Bob’s
communications with Wiley, I can say that P&PA has experienced similar
demands. A few years back we only succeeded in getting them to back down by
threatening to file a lawsuit. They were quiet for a while, but recently
their demands have begun to escalateUPOD again.*

*[...]*

*Wiley is not asking that we consider publishing a few more pieces that
fall at the borderline and are tough judgment calls. They are asking that
we increase the number of articles we publish by a factor of 10, and that
we continue increasing that number year after year. This conflicts with the
role of journals in our profession, which is to curate a body of
well-vetted, high quality work for an audience, to provide feedback that
improves people’s arguments, and to serve as a signalling device that
validates the importance of someone’s work when they go up for tenure and
promotion. If the top political philosophy journals now have to publish 50
articles per year, 100 the next year, 200 the next, and so on infinitely,
it no longer means anything to have your article published in these
journals. And the role of the Editorial team also becomes superfluous–if
the aim is to rush as many articles to publication as possible, why provide
careful comments?*



-- 
Timothy Vollmer
Scholarly Communication & Copyright Librarian
University of California, Berkeley
Doe Library, 189 Annex
Berkeley, CA 94720
[log in to unmask]
Pronouns: he/him


ATOM RSS1 RSS2