The decision in publication has not been about going to an academic print one vs. a Web-based one because so many academic journals either have gone wholly online or archive digitally. Rather, the question now seems more to be about going for high-brow or low-brow, to radically over-simplify.

On the one extreme are the journals that require a half-year to a year of peer review before a decision is made and then rigorous publishing processes to shape an article into the proper form. On the other extreme would be a self-published site by the writer who has turned his or her name into a brand and then uses that select channel to deliver articles for cash. (And no, I’m not making this up. I’ve been to actual sites like this.)

Some Points of Comparison

This issue has come to the fore with one of the faculty that I’ve been working with on a collaborative wiki project. To encourage more participation in this project, he and I have been thinking about ways to publicize this. Coincidentally, I am on a reviewer panel for two publications. Both are well read and well regarded. One tends more towards high-brow and tough, and the other tends to be more populist and more supportive of writers.

No Contest

There was really no contest. I suggested that he go with the latter one. He would have a chance to showcase the wiki’s many functionalities in a multimedia-rich way with the latter publication. He would reach a much wider band of readers with the latter journal. He would likely be cited much more in others’ projects and papers. People intrigued by his work would not run up against restricted access or calls for payment.

(Most high-end journal articles are lucky to get downloads in the mid to upper two-digits from digital repositories, which have to be subscribed to at not-unsubstantial costs by libraries. And one could maybe assume that several of those downloads may be from the published author and his / her colleagues, friends, and family.)

Coming from a person who has been accused of being “too academic,” this realization may finally acknowledge a sea change in academic publishing…and a further divergence between the high-brow and the populist.