Since @poritzj has been active here, I am taking the liberty of reposting his really good (and hard) questions about doing reviews for academic Journals. He shared these in the Creative Commons Slack as well as in/on Twitter (maybe elsewhere).
Question about morality/practicality of open access…
I regularly get asked to review scholarly papers for academic journals in the areas of my disciplinary expertise.
I used to do it because I thought that this was the way the field advances, by collective effort. To be honest, I also liked to be able to say on my CV that I review for . And it is also a way to keep on top of what topics are getting the most attention this very moment by the researchers in my field.
But the journals are rarely (never?) entirely open access … maybe they have one of those deals where authors pay huge APCs to go open, I honestly have never looked into it. (Mostly, recently, it’s been Taylor and Francis- and Springer Verlag-owned journals, and journals from the IEEE (a professional society).)
I’ve been thinking in recent years that I should work very hard never to publish my own work in fora which are not OA … hence my question:
Does my reviewing work for these closed journals support the inequitable system of scholarly publishing that I abhor, or is should I just support the decision of the researchers who chose where to submit their work?
I should note that of course I am not paid for my time doing the reviewing work … but there is an argument that I am compensated by that line of my CV and by my very early previews of current work. And, anyway, I don’t like the neoliberal view that everything has to be directly compensated – maybe sometimes we just work collectively for a better world – so I don’t know that I think the issue of my (lack of) payment is relevant.
Any thoughts, friends?
Please join in a conversation here about journal reviews in or not in open access journals.