Open Access

Martin Paul Eve considers how OA might influence quality control

July 4, 2013 1336

Open Access (OA) is not about abandoning peer review but it does provide the opportunity to rethink its role and our methods, according to Martin Paul Eve, writing in Debating Open Access, a new publication from the British Academy. 67% of existing OA journals do not charge APCs and yet academics have tended to steer clear of them. People opt for recognised outlets because of the (erroneously) perceived emphasis on publication venue by accreditation structures such as RAE/REF/tenure.

In the print world peer review was historically linked to page limits; these do not apply in the electronic realm. Double blind review is a misnomer and even then preserved anonymity can be problematic. The alternative is to publish everything that meets a certain threshold of academic soundness and to let readers decide what should last; in effect a kind of post-publication, or peer-to-peer review.

This modification of peer review could lead to more collaboration and less insistence on an individual finished product.

Read the article in full

Dr Martin Paul Eve is a lecturer in English literature at the University of Lincoln with a research specialism in late-twentieth- and twenty-first-century American fiction. Martin has also spoken and written widely on issues surrounding open access for Insights journal, The Guardian, the LSE Impact Blog, a forthcoming book chapter with Intellect Press and many others, as well as being called to make an appearance before the 2013 House of Commons Business, Innovation and Skills Select Committee inquiry into Open Access. In addition to his literary research work and teaching, Martin is a Microsoft Certified Professional in C# and the .NET Framework, edits two peer reviewed open access journals and founded the Open Library of the Humanities, a practical intervention to introduce prestigious APC free open access publishing across the Humanities.

Read more about Debating Open Access, a collection of a series of 8 reflecting on the challenges and opportunities for humanities and social sciences open access publishing practices.

The British Academy is the UK’s national body which champions and supports the humanities and social sciences. It is an independent, self-governing fellowship of scholars, elected for their distinction in research and publication. Our purpose is to inspire, recognise and support excellence in the humanities and social sciences, throughout the UK and internationally, and to champion their role and value.

View all posts by British Academy

Related Articles

There’s Something in the Air, Part 2 – But It’s Not a Miasma
Insights
April 15, 2024

There’s Something in the Air, Part 2 – But It’s Not a Miasma

Read Now
To Better Forecast AI, We Need to Learn Where Its Money Is Pointing
Innovation
April 10, 2024

To Better Forecast AI, We Need to Learn Where Its Money Is Pointing

Read Now
A Community Call: Spotlight on Women’s Safety in the Music Industry 
Insights
March 22, 2024

A Community Call: Spotlight on Women’s Safety in the Music Industry 

Read Now
Charles V. Hamilton, 1929-2023: The Philosopher Behind ‘Black Power’
Career
March 5, 2024

Charles V. Hamilton, 1929-2023: The Philosopher Behind ‘Black Power’

Read Now
Did the Mainstream Make the Far-Right Mainstream?

Did the Mainstream Make the Far-Right Mainstream?

The processes of mainstreaming and normalization of far-right politics have much to do with the mainstream itself, if not more than with the far right.

Read Now
SSRC Links with U.S. Treasury on Evaluation Projects

SSRC Links with U.S. Treasury on Evaluation Projects

Thanks to a partnership between the SSRC and the US Department of the Treasury, two new research opportunities in program evaluation – the Homeowner Assistance Fund Project and the State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Project – have opened.

Read Now
The Use of Bad Data Reveals a Need for Retraction in Governmental Data Bases

The Use of Bad Data Reveals a Need for Retraction in Governmental Data Bases

Retractions are generally framed as a negative: as science not working properly, as an embarrassment for the institutions involved, or as a flaw in the peer review process. They can be all those things. But they can also be part of a story of science working the right way: finding and correcting errors, and publicly acknowledging when information turns out to be incorrect.

Read Now
0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

1 Comment
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments