The statement from the editors is here: Download Public statement Resignations from the Editorial Board of the Journal of Economic Surveys (final). From the statement:
The…documentation submitted to our analysis [by Wiley] appeared to emphasize quantity over quality of the papers submitted and strongly favoured cross pollination among the various Wiley publications also in relation to papers that we would have not considered favourably for the Journal of Economic Surveys increasing – in our perception – risks of proliferation of poor-quality science.
For earlier coverage, see this from the editor of P&PA, and this comment from David Velleman on an earlier thread:
The initial hope behind the academic OA movement — at least at Philosophers' Imprint, which was the first OA journal in Philosophy — was that universities would cut commercial publishers out of the knowledge-dissemination business entirely, by redirecting the funds traditionally spent on paper-and-ink journals (including not only subscriptions but selection, binding, storage, etc.) to in-house OA publishing operations. We were encouraged in this hope by our librarian colleagues at the University of Michigan, who were on the leading edge of digital librarianship at the time. We wanted the academic world to become, insofar as possible, self-sufficient in the dissemination of academic work. If academic libraries had gradually moved their periodicals departments into OA publishing, it might have worked. Unfortunately, the commercial publishers quickly captured the OA market and turned it into a source of profits, and most academic institutions made no effort to participate in the work of disseminating scholarship. Looking back, we can see that our vision would have required some central coordination as well as central funding for the transition. We were too idealistic — or perhaps I should say, too soft-headed.
Leave a Reply