Re: <nettime> some more nuanced thoughts on SWARTZ

[Keith Sanborn <mrzero@panix.com>]

It's actually worse than that: academic journals in my limited experience refuse to pay any rights for images and the writer of an article (at least in the USSA) using images has to submit proof that s/he has secured copyright permission for reproducing them, which means s/he has to pay for them or try to persuade the maker/owner of the image to yield rights of reproduction to the journal in my experience on absurd terms. Your mileage may vary.

I wd love to know if there is any general research on the economics of academic journals--print or electronic.

It is my perception that writers generally financially support the journals to which they submit work and receive no direct compensation. Their payback--besides the joy of sharing their knowledge and the satisfaction of inflecting discourse within their field--comes in terms of enhanced prestige, which can translate into employment security--albeit temporary these days--or some other form of career advancement, if they teach in a university.

So, in some sense, it's a pay to play situation, which in the best cases may be reimbursed or otherwise supported by a well-endowed university employer, but in the increasingly adjunct-based world, is increasingly rare. 

The inference that anyone advocates people working for free or not being compensated for their efforts is not simply incorrect, it's irrelevant. It is my distinct impression that even academic superstars derive most of their income from university salaries or public lectures, rather than from publishing contracts, unless they happen to write something that becomes the odd NY TIMES Best seller.

Someone please correct me if I've gotten this wrong, but it is my experience that academia, like other arenas of intellectual endeavor, functions more according to the logic of potlatch than that of capitalist accumulation. 

Keith Sanborn

On Jul 25, 2011, at 6:54 AM, Marco Ricci <andare@fatbombers.com> wrote:

> sorry David Golumbia, but.. ehm.. do you get any money from JSTOR if one of
> your articles is being purchased?
> If yes, well that weakens my point, by i think it will make sense anyway.
> However, i really don't think a researcher gets anything from JSTOR. As far
> as I know, he doesn't even get money from a paper edition academic journal
> which publishes his articles and sells them to the public for mostly
> illogically high prices. (I won't enter here the discussion about the
> barriers that such publications present on "the other side", that is to the
> access to publication and academic recognition). If, as i reckon, no
> researcher gets a cent from Jstor for his articles, why do you associate
> retribution for your work with payment to Jstor?

 <...>


#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@kein.org