I'm not speaking for the journal, but as I recall, Computers & Comp is published in print for a rhetorical effect--namely, to show that the field is serious enough computers & writing to bear the burden of print publication (like other "real" fields and subfields). A lot of departments probably wouldn't accept online publications towards hiring, tenure, and promotion decisions, so C&C became a sort of patch to let computers & writing professionals stay ahead in backwards times.

As for this latest example of capitalist extortion; I say, it's great. As long as we keep publicizing and condemning these abuses by the capitalist publishing industry, the sooner we'll see people removing their lips from the poisoned suckbottle of a profiteering industry and switch to the wholesome breast of open content!

"Computers & Comp is published in print for a rhetorical effect--namely, to show that the field is serious enough computers & writing to bear the burden of print publication"

I agree that this is a valid argument historically, when the journal was first established. But that argument becomes less vaild every day and should be readdressed in light of the following considerations:

1. The Public Library of Science Initiative. That movement is making the case at the university level within the sciences for acceptance of electronic journals because they provide better access for scholars and researchers. Not to mention that online journals, on their own, have gained more respect and will continue to do so.
2. Ethos has already been established by having the journal in print. How much would it really affect credibility to move online now, especially given (1)?
3. What happens to the ethos of articles in the journal which argue for ubiquitous access to electronic resources when choice of the medium of publication weighs these issues and finds in favor of decreased access? How can we criticize others ideologically for making the same, pragmatic decisions involving access?
4. Elsevier is the largest provider of access to online journals. Supporting them is the same as continuing to support, through use, Microsoft Word as the default document format and purchasing MS Office as the "herd mentality" software choice; yet, we now have a reasonable alternative in OpenOffice. The only way for alternatives which addresss issues we are concerned about to become popular is through action, through use.

cel4145--You have definitely made some irrefutable points. You're absolutely right; Computers and Composition should have switched to an online format already. Where do I sign?

I'm not sure that it should have already. For instance, the Public Library of Science Initiative has really gained momentum in the last year.

But yes. It's time to consider change. I only wish I knew where I sign (sigh).

Thanks for this great story and followup discussion.

I'm not convinced that "Ethos has already been established by having the journal in print." (cel4145 is Charlie, right? Hi Charlie.) Maybe it has been established within the C&C, C&W, and TechRhet communities, and possibly within Rhetoric & Composition more broadly, but don't most Deans, Provosts, and Tenure & Promotion Committees still look to print publications as evidence of scholarship?

On some campuses, the disciplines of rhetoric, composition, and writing studies still struggle to achieve some level of acknowledgement even as disciplines, much less have their journals recoginized as credible.

I'm not saying that it should be that way, but excluding self-selecting and early-adopting communities, it might be that way.

Just a thought.

Cheers,

Michael

Yes, it's me, Charlie :)

No doubt that there are advantages to print journals in terms of tenure and promotion. Nevertheless, I would love to see serious discussion from the community of C&W and TechRhet people about alternatives. For example, adopting Open Access policies.

What's it like out there as far as tenure, hiring, promotion, and web publications? Are decision-makers still thinking in terms of, "Well, that's not scholarship; anybody can throw anything up on the web"?

For two years on NCTE's Executive committee, I participated in numerous subcommittee discussions regarding the role and purpose of academic journals. As in all publications, there's a tension between author needs and reader needs. My sense of most academic journals is the weight generally comes down on the side of author's needs: tenure and promotion are regularly cited as a major function of journal publishing. Then, working with the assumption that deans and faculty tenure committees are all curmudgeons, the most traditional format gets argued for because you can't change 25 years of tradition (or whatever it is).

One effect of this drumbeat for credibility is that few journals in Rhet/Comp show any interest in the working composition teacher's needs. Community college faculty teach most of the composition in United States higher education, but since they don't need to publish in peer-reviewed journals to get tenure, they don't often write for them, and most of the journals do not see this majority of the members of the field as the audience for their publication.

Electronic publication has the possibility of making authors more aware of the breadth of audience for research and scholarship in composition--and it could lead to more weight being given readers' needs than to authors' needs.

Personally, I think the perceived needs of university tenure candidates should not drive journal publication policies as much as they do.

Yes.

... But I don't think this is malicous or planned. Each year, new students need less and less ramp-up time to get right into blogging culture or web design, but the tenured faculty don't progress at nearly that speed. The burden is on us to make sure we are communicating clearly about what we do.

There's aleady a good title: "The Drumbeat for Credibility: Disciplinary Ethos in Rhetoric & Composition Publications."

I can imagine:

* A moderator versed in the issues
* A newish professor, looking at the tenure process
* A tenured prof who has published in print and online and counts both on her vita
* An Open Source advocate
* A Curmudgeon
* An NCTE or C&C rep (or both)
* A publisher's rep

People would come to hear this.

Just a thought.

Michael

I'd love to see this thing filmed and made available online! :-) I wonder what the curmudgeon would say other than the simple pragmatics that are doomed anyway. These curmudgeons are really just cronies of a capitalistic publishing company anyway. Have you seen the way the publishing companies court faculty at C's? Yeah, I'll give you all a "free dinner," but you'd better assign our $75 new rhet/comp book to all your classes next year.

I always think it's funny to hear people touting that nonsense about there not being any money to be made in higher education, then see the textbook publishers' skyscrapers in NYC. It's about time we severed this link to disinterested and even parasitic business and took matters into our own hands--online publishing is an obvious way to accomplish this.