When Modern Science was first launched by the Royal Society (UK) it was conceived as a public, shared enterprise open to everyone to share information. This was communicated by their first society publication – “The Proceedings”. Initially, this accepted submissions from anyone but it was not too long before the academics started erecting their “Quality Walls” to keep out the “Uneducated”.
So, private journals sprung up, particularly in Germany; again they initially accepted all submissions to expand the issues. However, as interest grew, professional editors etc. were hired to help the owners. These magazines proved so popular that they attracted numerous letters from interested readers; so much so, that abusive letters had to be blocked. This was the origin of The Referees – not Quality Assurance Experts but reasonable people able to spot personal abuse. All of this growing activity stimulated the growth of the Universities who became the principal contributors and soon, purchasers for their libraries as the prices climbed.
Now the modern journals are used as Ranking Tools to provide so-called “objective” quality standards that are used for academic promotions and job offers. Furthermore, the editors and referees have become Gatekeepers of the Orthodoxy – especially in science, where any threat to the huge intellectual investment made by the Professoriate is blocked anonymously and invisibly; just like government funding of research projects.
Now, there are truly Open Web Sites, like Academia.Edu, that accept everything and make it all freely available to the world. Of course, this means a lot more work for the Specialists who have to review many more papers; as well, they will have to justify their hiring/promotion decisions.
Dr Oudet, your brief description on origin of academic journals is highly informative and it traces the historical evolution of the journals to its present format.However their usefulness continues to remain.
Dear G. T.
Please explain why you believe academic journals still have some usefulness today. Educated people are expected to be able to give reasons for the positions.
I did not propose this question as a beauty contest where readers just 'vote'. I was trying to initiate a conversation.
Journals are useful but differently than they were in the past. Specializations have proliferated to the point than there is a journal for every specialty. A lot of people are trying to get published in journals as a mark of achievement and recognition. To publish in a specialized journal the writer should be expert in the field, an exception of which relates to the question.
On line journals have also become useful especially as a proof of publication date, since printed journals often delay a publication long enough that some other researcher than the first one gets most of the credit.
Peer review is important to put some discipline into the exchange of information. But peer review in my experience has also been a process to control access, resources, and the direction that research is allowed to go.
There is a health mix of freedom and restraint that operates in the organizations if not in the individuals.
RG seems remarkably fair allowing new ideas while letting the community decide the value. Quiet a lot of writers are not allowed in, including some highly professional people. There has to be some limitation, without which the site would be overrun by enthusiastic incompetency.
Dear Jerry: Only competitive academics care about being "first to publish".
Real researchers wish to share their insights with everyone; not getting sucked into the Competitive Culture of modern Capitalism.
Humans do best when they co-operate, not compete; which is simply a hangover from ancient tribal violence when one group steals and kills others - the oldest form of gangsterism.
Some useful points are made here indeed:
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2018/01/23/quantity-does-matter-as-citation-impact-increases-with-productivity/
Regards,
CT
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Academic Journals