,
12 tweets,
4 min read
Read on Twitter
My thoughts on academic publishing are heavily influenced by the four years I spent co-editing the Berkeley Electronic Journal in Economic Analysis & Policy (BEJEAP).
Theoretically it still exists today, but it bears little resemblance to what it once was. A brief tale.
Theoretically it still exists today, but it bears little resemblance to what it once was. A brief tale.
One of several journals established as a brainchild of @ProfAaronEdlin about 20 years ago, I signed on in 2008 to work alongside some great colleagues including @orianabandiera, @deanyang, @ProfFionasm, @stevepuller, Gary Solon, Don Fullerton, Eric Zitzewitz, Nolan Miller...
Helmut Cremer, Michael Baker, Nuno Limao, Tom Buchmueller, Albert Ma, John Morgan, and Thierry Verdier.
I learned a great deal by reading their thoughtful decision letters to authors.
Here's what BEJEAP and its sibling journals did that was innovative for the time.
I learned a great deal by reading their thoughtful decision letters to authors.
Here's what BEJEAP and its sibling journals did that was innovative for the time.
In an era where the AER was still cranking out 25,000 print copies of each issue, BEJEAP was all-electronic from its inception.
It was open-access from its inception.
Authors were guaranteed 10 weeks to a first decision, and we fulfilled that guarantee almost every time.
It was open-access from its inception.
Authors were guaranteed 10 weeks to a first decision, and we fulfilled that guarantee almost every time.
There was no copyediting. Authors were given some instructions about how to format manuscripts (fonts, table formats). Provided they followed these instructions, articles were published immediately upon acceptance. With no print issues, there were no publication lags.
BEJEAP used a "tier" system to signal the quality of manuscripts. Although the overall acceptance rate was high (>40%), we used tiers to differentiate importance/quality.
The "Frontiers" tier was calibrated to "top-5" quality, with a "top-5" single-digit acceptance rate.
The "Frontiers" tier was calibrated to "top-5" quality, with a "top-5" single-digit acceptance rate.
The "Advances" tier was awarded to manuscripts worthy of second-tier general interest journals or top tier field journals, acceptance rate around 10%.
The "Contributions" tier corresponded to second-tier field journals.
The "Topics" tier to third-tier field journals.
The "Contributions" tier corresponded to second-tier field journals.
The "Topics" tier to third-tier field journals.
Our standard practice was to consider manuscripts for publication in at least the "Topics" tier unless they were (a) wrong or (b) right but of interest to no one.
The tier system allowed us to give authors choices about revising. More intense revisions could mean a higher tier.
The tier system allowed us to give authors choices about revising. More intense revisions could mean a higher tier.
BEJEAP faced one big challenge: making money. The journal had real expenses & attempted to cover them by selling institutional subscriptions, while preserving free access for individuals.
It's hard to make that formula work.
It's hard to make that formula work.
On Sept. 16, 2011 we editors received word that a for-profit publisher (DeGruyter) had bought the journal. DeGruyter immediately placed our back catalog behind a paywall, moved to eliminate the tier system and begin publishing in print.
The editors all resigned in protest.
The editors all resigned in protest.
BEJEAP still exists, but it bears little resemblance to the innovative start-up of a decade ago. It was not only ahead of its time then, it continues to be ahead of where we are now. 
The economics of academic publishing - both journals and books - poses severe challenges. How do we support a review & editorial system that consumes real resources while minimizing barriers to authors & readers?
That's the key problem BEJEAP couldn't solve.
That's the key problem BEJEAP couldn't solve.
