RE: Tenure and journals (RE: Elsevier profit)

[Jan Velterop <jan@biomedcentral.com>]

Very interesting. Does this mean that Loughborough happily pays for
whatever the leading journals cost? Does Loughborough have no
subscriptions or licences to any journals other than leading ones?

The question that intrigues me is this: In most BigDeal packages there is
only a minority of 'leading' journals. Who submit/publish their papers
to/in the vast numbers of solid, but not 'leading' journals? What if
researchers start publishing their good, solid papers that just don't
quite make it into leading journals in open access journals instead?
Currently they are more or less being 'buried' in expensive journals with
(very) limited circulation. Besides, some open access journals are rapidly
moving up the leadership scales. And more will follow if leading papers
are being published in them. After all, leading journals may lend prestige
to those who publish in them, but those who publish in them also lend
prestige to the leading journals.

Jan Velterop 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fytton Rowland [mailto:J.F.Rowland@lboro.ac.uk]
> Sent: 01 April 2003 04:56
> To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
> Subject: Re: Tenure and journals (RE: Elsevier profit)
> 
> 
> My university insists on precisely the reverse of this virtuous suggestion
> - it insists that academics *must* publish in the leading journals of
> their field (or as leading as they can manage to get into), not only for
> promotion, but also to avoid the risk of disciplinary procedures that
> could theoretically lead to the sack!  (We don't have tenure, only
> "open-ended contracts".)
> 
> Fytton Rowland, Dept of Information Science, Loughborough 
> University, UK.