This is a blog about economics, history, law and other things that interest me.
Monday, March 23, 2015
Friday, March 20, 2015
Open Access and Predatory Publishing
“Although predatory publishers predate open access, their
recent explosion was expedited by the emergence of fee-charging OA journals. Monica
Berger and Jill
Cirasella argue that librarians can play an important role in
helping researchers to avoid becoming prey. But there remains ambiguity over
what makes a publisher predatory. Librarians can help to counteract the
misconceptions and alarmism that stymie the acceptance of OA.”
They have some valid points, but there is also much that I disagree
with. They spend too much time criticizing Jeffrey Beall for not being
sufficiently supportive of OA. In addition, they confuse the issue of low
quality and predatory. There are a lot of low quality journals out there, but
they do not charge large fees to publish papers on line, they do not advertise that
you can have your paper published in a month, they do provide some peer review
and editing. They do not face up to the costs of the rush to OA, especially
attempts to mandate publication in OA journals.
Open access is not the same thing as predatory. Open access
means that people can view a piece of scholarship without having to pay a fee,
either directly or indirectly through their school or employer. Predatory
journals exist to make money by selling false information. The false
information that they sell is that the papers in them have been published in a
peer reviewed journal. Academics pay the predatory publisher to say that their
paper has been published in a peer reviewed journal; the academics then put the
lie into their cvs and their annual activity reports and their tenure and
promotion files. After examining a number of these journals I am convinced that
it is all too easy tell legitimate publishers from predatory publishers. The
researchers that publish in these fake journals are not being preyed upon; the
people that are led to believe that these researchers are publishing in peer
reviewed journals are the prey. Beall’slist is really more of a tool for these people than it is for researchers.
Being open access does not prove that a journal is predatory.
Not being open access does not prove that a journal is not predatory. There is,
however, a connection between open access and predatory publishers. Legitimate
open access journals have created an opportunity for predatory publishers by
publishing online and charging fees. Predatory publishers mimic these features,
but, unlike traditional journals they have no incentive to provide peer review
and editing. Traditional journals have an incentive to engage in careful peer
review and editing. They need to get people to buy their journal. The articles
have to be good enough that universities, members of an association, or people
in the field will be willing to pay to read them. Predatory publishers have no
incentive to expend time and resources on peer review and editing. The last
thing they want is to have anyone read the articles. If you read something like this it
will only make it harder to tell people that you thought you were publishing in
a legitimate journal.
Personally, I do not see publication in traditional journals
as incompatible with open access. I noted in a previous post that I went
through a recent issue of The American Economic
Review and was able to find an open access, or ungated, version of every
paper. In addition, we were hiring this
year and pretty much everyone had a website with access to their job market
paper. There are often some differences between the “ungated” version of a
paper and published version of a paper; if you want to cite a paper you should
probably get access to the published version. But if the issue is simply access
to research results the ungated version will typically provide this. It seems
to me that this general approach existed in economics for a long time. Even
before widespread access to the internet economists distributed working papers.
Pretty much anyone who mattered had
probably read your paper years before it appeared in print. There may be reasons why this approach will
not work in some disciplines. There may even be reasons it will not continue to
work in economics, but advocates for open access journals need to acknowledge
the problems they give rise to and the possible alternatives.
Thursday, March 19, 2015
More on The History Manifesto
American Historical
Review has Cohen and Mandler’s critique of The History Manifesto and Armitage and Guldi’s reply. Cohen and Mandler
also have a rejoinder
to Armitage and Guldi’s reply. I have previously referred to reviews of the
Manifesto by
Pseudoerasmus and Mark Koyama.
Saturday, March 14, 2015
More on the "new history of capitalism"
The U.S. Intellectual History Blog has published an interesting essay by James Livingston on the new history of capitalism and Walter Johnson's River of Dark Dreams. The essay is part 3 of a 4 part series.
More on the recession of the early 1920s
I saw the other day that James Grant’s The Forgotten Depression had received an award from the Manhattan
Institute. The book argues that the economy recovered quickly from a “Depression”
in the early 1920s because the government did not intervene, and that this
provides a lesson for our times. On the same day I read a new paper in the Journal of American History, “Before the
Roar: U.S. Unemployment Relief after World War I and the Long History of a
Paternalist Welfare Policy,” by Daniel Amsterdam. You would think they were written about two
different countries. Amsterdam describes numerous government responses (largely
at the state and local level, but in some cases promoted at the federal level)
to unemployment during the recession in the early 1920s.
I have to say, I find The
Forgotten Depression and its reception a bit puzzling. It seems to me that
the need to identify examples of times when the economy recovered quickly
without government intervention is motivated more by politics than by economic
theory or historical evidence. Why should a recovery be quick? If a credit boom
leads to a severe misallocation of resources, why would we expect that
reallocation after the boom would occur at any particular speed? Where is there
in, for example, Austrian Business Cycle Theory a method of predicting how many months a
recovery will take? Why, even in the absence of government intervention, might
it not take years for reallocation to occur?
I can understand making an argument that, other things
equal, markets should adjust more quickly when there are fewer restrictions
placed upon them. But 1920 and 2008 are so far from other things equal it is
difficult to make useful comparisons. The two periods differ fundamentally in
terms of the source of the boom and bust. The misallocation of resources, by
peacetime standards, was driven by the war. In addition, Grant focuses on the federal
government’s response to unemployment, but before WWII spending by state and
local governments (as well as regulation) exceeded that of the federal
government. Just because the federal
government did not do something in the past does not mean that government did
not do it. One would need to look carefully at state and local actions to
understand the role of “government” during the recession of the early twenties.
Amsterdam does not provide a complete picture of state and local action, but it is a good start.
And, yes, I called it a recession, not a depression. If we
choose to call the early twenties a depression then almost every downturn in
U.S. history should be called a depression. Grant rejects recent estimates of
historical business cycles by Christina Romer. Perhaps Romer’s estimates are in
error, but I do not find the lyrics of “Aint We Got Fun” to be persuasive
evidence that she erred.
The graph below shows percent change in Real GDP (1890-1950) based on the Millennial
Edition of Historical Statistics (Ca 9). The recession of the early 1920s was simply was not unusually long or severe compared to other downturns.
Wednesday, March 11, 2015
The History of Corporations and Securities Markets
Leslie Hannah’s keynote address to the Economic and Business
History Society, “The
Origins, Characteristics and Resilience of the “Anglo- American” Corporate
Model,” is now online.
Mary O’Sullivan argues that J.P. Morgan’s role needs to be
re-examined in “Too
Much Ado About Morgan’s Men: The U.S. Securities Market, 1908-1914.”
Friday, March 6, 2015
A Tale of Two Plantations
I have recently written about some new books on the history
of slavery that I did not like. I just finished one that I really did like: A
Tale of Two Plantations: Slave Life and Labor in Jamaica and Virginia
by Stephen Dunn. It is a remarkable work, following the lives of hundreds of
slaves on two large plantations: Mesopotamia in Jamaica and Mount Airy on the
Northern Neck of Virginia, not far from where I live. The bloggers at the Junto devoted several days to
discussion of the book and an interview with the author. One of the things that
I most enjoyed was the description of the process of historical
research. I thought this book was a great example of the historian taking his
reader along with him to the archives, describing the difficulties in finding
sources, the limits of those sources, and how he made certain inferences from
those sources.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)