Issue link: https://www.e-digitaleditions.com/i/302559
58 May/June 2014 BizEd your turn THE PUBLISHER OF a top-ranked journal in business ethics recently asked if my co-authors and I would like to pay US$2,000 so that our accepted article could be read free of charge by interested parties. After some discus- sion, we declined. We know this means that our paper can only be viewed by people who have access to paid subscriptions—probably through their university librar- ies—or who pay the individual price of $24.95 to down- load it. But since none of us felt this particular article was mainstream to us as authors, we were willing to save money rather than pay the price that would allow the article to be read and cited by more of our peers. For many reasons, I see a troubling element in the notion of paying to publish. Historically, the idea of academic publishing was to create a free market of ideas where everyone had equal access to top journals through public and university libraries. When there were few elite journals and researchers, the system worked well. Times have changed. The Association of Business Schools now evaluates more than 850 rated journals in its Academic Journal Quality Guide. Generally, university libraries subscribe to the journals most valued by the fac- ulty at their institutions. At Villanova School of Business (VSB), we identi- fied 61 top-tier, 111 second-tier, and 143 acceptable alternative journals; the school subscribes to most of these, and our faculty have access to their content. If we want to read articles published in journals to which the VSB library does not subscribe, we must pay a fee. One thing that bothers me is that scholars don't benefit monetarily from their own intellectual capital. Publish- ers obtain the research articles for free, but they sell the articles to interested schools and scholars, so they're the Pay Up or Perish ones who see a profit. On the other hand, faculty do see rewards. At VSB, for instance, whenever articles are accepted into top journals, faculty earn points toward merit pay, tenure, promotion, and grant funding. The numbers of citations and peer reviews they receive for their published articles also serve as key metrics for promotion, tenure, and endowed chair consideration. Therefore, I'm much more concerned about other aspects of the current arrangement in which academics must pay to read new research or pay to provide access to their own. 1. The pricing system leads to a further stratifica- tion among b-schools. Few universities can afford to subscribe to all the relevant journals. Even fewer institutions cover the fees faculty members may incur to purchase articles from other journals or to pay for their own articles to be open access. Universities that have that kind of money tend to be older and elite. Does the current pricing structure make it even more difficult for other schools to attract top faculty and produce high-quality research? 2. The system places an undue economic burden on junior faculty. As a senior faculty member with tenure and an endowed chair, I probably don't leave much on the table when I choose not to pay to make my articles free to all. Yet when junior faculty members are in the same situation, I advise them to pay up. It's essential that junior faculty not only get their work pub- lished in such journals, but also get it cited early in their careers so they develop the strong reputations that allow them to earn tenure or promo- tions. But is it right for their institu- tions to expect them to shoulder the economic burden of making their research open access? 3. Research is not being read. This is the most damaging outcome of all. Let me explain. In most countries, Internet resources like Wikipedia and personal blogs give us open access to so many by Stephen A. Stumpf It's time for publishers and professors to engage in vigorous dialogue about ways to make research more widely available.