Following up on the events we first reported on here, CHE offers a couple of new details, in particular:
Christian Barry, one of the co-editors, told The Chronicle that he and the two other co-editors discussed among themselves and with Goodin what they should do. While they strongly disliked how Goodin was treated, they also recognized the work Goodin had poured into the journal and its important role in academe, which felt like it was worth preserving. With Goodin’s blessing, Barry said, they began discussing with Wiley representatives the contours of an agreement to take over editorship of the journal.
The conversation turned to numbers. Ed Colby, a Wiley spokesperson, told The Chronicle in an email that “a moderate increase of two additional articles per year had been proposed” to the co-editors. “Wiley is always looking for sustainable ways to grow our journals in close consultation with our editors, especially as we transition to open access and research becomes more international.”
According to Barry, Wiley’s original request was much higher. The journal had published 24 articles in 2022, per Barry. Wiley first proposed that the journal publish 30 articles in 2024, 32 in 2025, and 34 in 2026 — a more than 40-percent increase from its current level of production over a three-year span, Barry said. “It seemed very important to them that there be an upward trajectory.”
After some back and forth, Wiley agreed to a lower starting point of publishing 26 articles in the upcoming year and eventually publishing 34 articles in Year Five, Barry said. But Wiley also proposed, should the scholars not hit the mark, that the parties would discuss and agree on an action plan, he said. From the co-editors’ perspective, that was a no-go. They must have power to publish less than the target, to preserve the journal’s quality and their editorial discretion.
A high-quality academic journal is supposed to be selective, Barry said. He and his co-editors were not opposed to accepting more articles if, say, they were all of a sudden receiving 20 percent more excellent submissions. But “that’s just not really the way things work.”…
Ultimately, Barry said, he and the other co-editors “were not confident that we could have adequate autonomy in making our editorial decisions into the future in ways that would not be affected by the strong impetus to increase content.” They decided they would no longer pursue taking over editorship of the journal and plan to step down from their roles at the end of this year, once Goodin is no longer editor.
(Thanks to Annie Stilz for the pointer.)
Leave a Reply