Update October 7, 2012 (why blog comments are not encouraged)
The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics began as a place to gather some of my writings, both formal and informal, on the topic of open access, at the request of friends.
The main focus of this blog is open access, and scholarly communications in general. The concept of poetic economics, however, can be applied to any field of endeavour. This idea is to think of economics as a means to strive for the best we can achieve on this earth; to begin with poetic vision, and use our knowledge of how things work as a poet uses words, to create beauty and meaning.
As of 2004 when this blog started, most of my writings on this subject were originally listserv postings. Only some of these writings have been gathered. More can be found in the listserv discussions, on the SPARC Open Access Forum, SCHOLCOMM, ERIL-L, Liblicense-L, the American Scientist Open Access Forum and its successor GOAL. What I have liked about the lists is the interactivity, the opportunity to discuss and debate, particularly with those who do not necessarily share my views.
As of 2012, I find that I participate much less in listserv discussions, and am not convinced of the usefulness of discussions via blog commenting. For this reason, while commenting on IJPE is sometimes turned on, I do not encourage it.
Hi Heather, this is a comment from @PubAdvisor in reference to your post: The dramatic growth of Open Access. I am a scientist who supports OA and its growth but who is also surprised by a peculiar narrative. That is: the rise of OA as a means to support exclusively the spreading of scholarly information. I am more concerned by the content of scholarly information rather than its instantaneous dissemination. Working at the base of scientific endeavour (in the lab) I know that a large amount of scholarly information is wrong. This problem will certainly increase with the growth of OA. What are your thoughts on the necessity of filtering reproducible information from the ever-increasing flood of data that has been and will be produced by the "publish or perish" paradigm in science? You seem to have noticed that discussion via blog commenting can be disruptive, useless and cluttering your site. Excluding this possibility, what else can be done to make use of filters? Are we going to move into a world of more information, including scholarly content, without the possibility to verify what is correct and what is not?ReplyDelete
Dear Anonymous AND twitter handle-anonymous: to repeat what is stated above, this is a scholarly blog and anonymous comments are not posted. Please state your name, affiliation and disclose any connection / conflict of interest. For example, if you are defending Access Copyright, are you a current or past member of the Access Copyright Board, working for Access Copyright, receiving payouts etc.? Similarly, if you are defending the practices of traditional subscription-based publishers, you need to state clearly who you are and your involvement with any publishers.ReplyDelete