Far too many faculty members end up feeling anxious that they've accomplished -- and relaxed -- much less than they had hoped over the summer months, write Joya Misra and Jennifer Lundquist, who offer tips on how to avoid that.
San Francisco State University has reached an agreement with its embattled College of Ethnic Studies. The college, the only one of its kind in the country, has said it is chronically underfunded, to the point that it can barely sustain operations beyond paying full-time personnel. Facing student protests, President Les Wong said the college was overspending.
The agreement, reached late last week between the university and student hunger strikers, says that central administration will make an additional $482,806 investment in the college, in addition to an earlier $250,000 additional commitment for next academic year. That’s upward of the approximately $500,000 faculty members at the college estimated they needed to close their budget gap earlier this year. The investment includes support for two full-time, tenure-track faculty lines in Africana studies, four work-study positions and the development of a Pacific Islander studies program. The agreement also provides for more regular communication between the college and the university about funding and other needs. All parties have agreed to a silent period through the end of the year.
The White House announced a new initiative and increased research funding for the study of microbiomes, communities of micro-organisms that live on or in people, plants, soil, oceans and the atmosphere -- and that can have a positive impact or, when dysfunctional, a negative one. Federal agencies will coordinate research programs to promote interdisciplinary research agendas by researchers. In addition, several private organizations, such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, are creating programs to support such research. The University of California at San Diego and the University of Michigan also announced programs. An article last year in The Atlantic outlined why many scientists see this type of effort as crucial.
Most people assume that medievalists like me have no interest or investment in new forms of books and publication processes. Nothing could be farther from the truth. While some aspects of digital writing -- especially increased speed, scale and access -- are undoubtedly new, other central features of blogging, wiki and social media platforms are not just old, but so old that they had become virtually obsolete prior to the invention of the computer. In fact, we can say they are newly medieval -- a recognition that has important implications for open communications in peer review.
When we describe an encyclopedia that operates as an unfinished accumulation of information about the world, in which multiple texts are compiled, abbreviated, juxtaposed, revised and recategorized by multiple (often) anonymous contributors over time, we are not just describing Wikipedia. We are describing the miscellaneous and assembled nature of most medieval collections, such as the bestiary, the florilegium and the chronicle. When we describe the expansion of a social network through written correspondence, we are not just describing friending on Facebook or following on Twitter. We are describing the medieval art of letter writing that flourished among notaries and bureaucrats, encouraging writers to share words with friends.
And when we describe a culture of commentary, in which the proliferation of comments upon a text or issue usurp the primacy of the text or issue itself, we are not just describing blog rants on the click-bait article of the day. We are describing the thriving industry of medieval commentaries on classical philosophy, biblical interpretation and legal codes. While all of these practices have continued to exist in various forms throughout the high age of print, they have achieved a prominence today that they have not experienced since the Middle Ages.
Among those many commonalities, the prevalence of commentary reflects a particular disposition toward writing and reading that is at the core of open-access movements. Advocates for open access have been working tirelessly to make scholarly work freely available online without most copyright and licensing restrictions, offering a vigorous response to the price barriers that limit the availability of scholarship to readers. The scientific community, for some time now, has been publishing research findings through open-access platforms, such as the Public Library of Science (PLoS), to share their work in a timely manner.
In contrast, humanities scholars have been slow to embrace such platforms, but humanities-focused open access now comes in a variety of packages from library consortia, such as the Open Library of the Humanities, to scholarly journals, such as Digital Humanities Quarterly, and independent presses, such as Open Humanities Press and punctum books. All of these open-access formats reflect a simple, yet seemingly radical, ideal: scholarly writing wants readers. This ideal, however, has an uncomfortable by-product: if scholarly work becomes more accessible to readers, the work becomes more vulnerable and its reception becomes more transparent. While there are multiple implications for this vulnerability and transparency within the context of open access, a key one is the relevance of open annotation practices for innovations in peer review.
Social Annotation and Open Peer Review
Reading has almost always been a social act, but I want to suggest that reading hasn’t been this social since the Middle Ages. An important distinction, however, must be made. Whereas now the social nature of reading is enhanced through ubiquity and accessibility, reading during the Middle Ages was social because of scarcity and inaccessibility. Digital texts thrive on speed, scale and access, offering multiple opportunities for encounters with readers. Medieval texts and readers were relatively scarce, raising the value and utility of the single book, which might be used by generations of commentators for interpretations of Aesop’s fables in the classroom to legal glosses on canon law. From these two very different contexts emerge an emphasis on commentary and annotation, which establish a text’s value and use.
Unfortunately, the potential of this social culture of commentary is often squandered, especially within traditional methods of double-blind peer review. I have been persuaded by Kathleen Fitzpatrick and Martin Paul Eve, among others, that open peer review (even in partially open formats) offers more benefits than double-blind peer review for the following reasons.
Open review makes commentary more transparent. Open peer review is the equivalent of a Microsoft Word document that tracks changes, showing markup. Many medieval manuscripts and early printed books were produced in anticipation of this marked-up state, with complex textual apparatus, including space for interlineal glosses and marginalia. Within open review formats, the comments of writers and reviewers are made available to all, encouraging vigorous dialogue. For example, the Modern Language Association Commons is currently hosting an open review of the volume Digital Pedagogy in the Humanities, which uses a commentary platform that allows for discussion between reviewers and writers. Such an open format allows writers to evaluate the feedback intelligently, which I have witnessed in two open-review experiments hosted by the journal Postmedieval and Media Commons Press. Writers can assess feedback by asking themselves questions, such as, “Is this just one reviewer’s agenda or is this critique shared by others?” Perhaps most importantly, the transparency of open review reveals bias. If a reviewer has a clear bias, the community of reviewers can help to identify it.
Open review enhances the utility and relevance of the commentary. Within open-review platforms, reviewers are often self-selected, based on their investment and expertise, as opposed to responding to a request from an editor to review a manuscript (which may not reflect the reviewer’s interests or expertise).
Open review allows for a large number of reviewers. Rather than limit the task of review to a handful of reviewers, work shared in open review is crowdsourced and potentially subject to a large volume of commentary. The work of reviewing could then be distributed, making it less of a burden upon individual reviewers and enriching and enlarging the community invested in the work.
Open review treats scholarly work as it really is: work in progress. Finished work is a myth, despite our emphasis on products. An exciting new project, the Open Access Companion to The Canterbury Tales, refers to its first incarnation as a kind of Netflix-like “first season,” recognizing that its value will be maintained or enhanced through accumulation and evolution.
Open review maximizes the value, relevance and impact of the work. Years ago, I asked a senior scholar about an argument he made in his first book and was shocked when he replied, “I don’t believe that anymore.” Now that I have published my own work and have revised my thoughts about some aspects of it, I see this as a natural consequence of doing scholarly work. We often change our minds, especially after being exposed to other reasoned critiques of our work. Open review formats could therefore continue postprint, making book reviews more significant and useful. The book review process would become more dynamic -- authors (and other reviewers) could respond to and correct outrageous or uninformed claims in reviews.
We should all be moving toward open-review practices and publicly accessible review platforms, but given the precarious positions of many scholars and publishers, we should proceed with caution. After all, blind forms of review have often allowed work to stand on its own and protected scholars from bias and career-damaging critiques. Keeping in mind Kathleen Fitzpatrick and Avi Santo’s important call for “structured flexibility” in developing protocols and tools for open review, I offer the following recommendations:
Make comments publicly available, even within double-blind formats. Whereas anonymity often protects the identities of junior scholars or reviewers who might be given little consideration because of their professional status, I see little benefit from keeping commentary hidden, especially on open-access platforms. While the redaction of comments keeps some critiques out of the hands of tenure review committees, such transparency would allow the larger scholarly community to redress critiques that are useless, unfair or biased. Even within such an open platform, however, editors would need to moderate commentary, especially to prevent trolling, spamming and harassment. If editors want to limit the feedback authors receive, they could open the comments only to reviewers, which could provide a forum for reconciling confusing or contradictory feedback.
Adopt single-blind formats, in which the author remains anonymous and the names of reviewers are divulged. This kind of limited open review maintains transparency during the review process, while at the same time mitigating the possible embarrassment or damage to the promotion of a scholar whose work results in public rejection. Many publishers already use a limited form of single-blind review, revealing the name of the author to two or three reviewers only known by the editor. This format protects the reviewers, which can be beneficial for junior or less established scholars who want their reviews to be taken seriously, but it also licenses reviewers to pursue critiques they may not be willing to stand behind. By contrast, an open-review platform that reveals the names of reviewers to the public would encourage responsible critiques and provide valuable contexts, such as a reviewer’s scholarly perspectives or preferences, for feedback that would otherwise be unavailable to authors.
Establish multistage processes that combine blind and open review formats. Even within double-blind review, established authors are often identifiable because of their reputations for particular kinds of scholarship or areas of expertise. For such known quantities, even the most transparent forms of open review may be appropriate. New scholars to a field, however, may benefit from multistage processes, in which their work is subject first to blind review before being deemed publishable and then vetted through open review. These hybridized formats would be especially appropriate for well-established journals and presses that already have active and vigorous scholarly communities that are seeking to make their work more available to the public at large.
Create spaces for postpublication open review. Many medieval manuscripts survive marked and mediated by the hands of multiple marginal commentators, creating a readerly trail that medievalists follow to track the way the work has been received over time. Today, our book reviews are too often limited to the views of individual scholars, who may not be invested in the work they are reviewing. Postpublication book or article review spaces would open up and crowdsource the reception of the work, providing opportunities for authors to respond to feedback from multiple interested reviewers and make important revisions to their publications.
Open Access Needs Open Review to Be Open
It is important to stress that open access, even in its most liberal forms, does not require open review -- double-blind processes can continue unabated. Open-access publishers who continue to use blind review will not undermine their efforts to make scholarly work accessible. However, those publishers will not fully succeed in making this work open.
The democratic potential and ethic of openness is not fully realized without open review, which would provide opportunities for scholarly dialogue and critique throughout the writing process and beyond. The quality, range and significance of work could be greatly enhanced, offering a distributed network of invested writers and reviewers, rather than small cohorts of experts and exclusive publishing priesthoods.
Alex Mueller is associate professor of English at the University of Massachusetts in Boston.
You just got the journal editor’s email. Your article was accepted. Congratulations!
Now what happens?
The next steps used to be automatic: sign your author rights over to the publisher, check your proofs, wait for the article to appear and then bask in glory -- or at least update your CV and tenure file.
But times have changed. Institutional mandates for open access, rising awareness of author rights and growing options for disseminating work online mean that automatic assignment of author rights to publishers is not always desirable, or even possible. At the same time, dwindling institutional subscription budgets, increased pressure on corporate publishers to show profits and dependence of small scholarly associations on journal revenues mean that publishers scramble to capture as many salable rights as they can.
As a consequence, authors increasingly find themselves negotiating with publishers to see their work to completion, even after they successfully navigate academic peer review.
This situation is bad for authors, who start at a huge disadvantage in any negotiations with publishers. Multinational corporate publishers work with hundreds of journals and thousands of authors at once, and few journals are short of submissions. Publishers can always walk away from the table and wait for a more compliant author to come along.
But for authors, a decision to walk away involves a variety of unsatisfactory compromises. Starting over at another journal triggers another peer-review cycle and incurs costly delays. There’s no guarantee that the next journal will be more open to negotiation. And author-friendly alternatives, such as new open-access journals, often lack the prestige of more established journals. In an academic world with tightening job markets and rising tenure requirements, these compromises can have negative career consequences.
Turning authors into negotiators after peer review also undermines the peer-review process and threatens editorial autonomy. Once an article has passed peer review, there is no good academic reason not to publish. Peer reviewers and editors have agreed that the paper should be published. The academic decision has already been made. If publishers respected the peer-review process, academic decisions would be final, and publication would be a reward for academic quality.
Instead, publishers increasingly use academic decisions as business leverage to extract more concessions from authors before publication. For example, in my own field, the sociology of religion, both leading subfield journals have recently reduced the scope of rights granted back to authors by significantly extending embargo periods on published articles. Both journals have also moved to web-based publication agreements, making it difficult to attach the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition addendum that helps authors retain important rights. Things are getting worse, not better.
So how do we fix these problems? How can we keep the power of peer review in the hands of academics? How can we start leveling the playing field for authors?
It’s a big challenge. Any solution needs to empower authors to walk away from negotiations without incurring career-threatening penalties and to offer a way to leverage academic decisions for the benefit of authors rather than publishers.
My suggestion? Make journal acceptance portable.
This solution is radical, but it’s not complicated. Making journal acceptance portable means that journals would honor acceptance decisions from other journals, publish those articles without additional peer review and explicitly credit the original journal’s acceptance for publication. This solution could be applied to existing journals with more generous publication terms or to new open-access journals designed for maximum author flexibility.
How would it work?
For illustrative purposes, let’s say we start a new open-access journal called the Journal of Prestige Redistribution.
First, the editors of JPR would make a list of trusted journals. That would involve reaching a working consensus about, for example, the most prestigious journals for a given field or subfield. The trusted journal list would establish JPR’s scope and would assure readers that every JPR article originally passed peer review at a prestigious journal in their field. Articles accepted at trusted journals would automatically be eligible for publication in JPR, without further review.
Second, JPR would establish a protocol for verifying that a paper successfully passed peer review at a trusted journal. A model for this protocol already exists. Publons, a service that gives credit to reviewers for reviewing journal submissions, verifies those reviews using the confirmation email from the relevant journal. Following that model, authors who wish to transfer their acceptance to JPR could simply provide JPR editors with the acceptance letter from the journal’s academic editor.
Third, JPR would publish accepted articles without further peer review, giving explicit credit to the journal at which peer review took place. For example, JPR might publish each paper with a header or footnote that says, “This paper passed academic peer review at Leading Academic Journal. Subsequent to acceptance, business negotiations with Corporate Journal Publisher broke down.” This notice would guarantee the visibility of the paper’s peer-review pedigree and reinforce the distinction between academic merit and business interests.
Ideally the resulting publications would combine the best parts of our current scholarly publishing system: the imprimatur of established, prestigious journals and the author-friendly policies of newer alternatives. By making acceptances portable, JPR-like journals could empower authors to negotiate from a stronger position, knowing that walking away would not mean starting over. And, as the (hypothetical) name suggests, JPR journals could liberate from any given corporate publisher the prestige that quality academic peer reviewing provides, restoring editorial autonomy to the publishing process.
So why not do it?
One objection is that academic editors who are hard-pressed to find peer reviewers may see a JPR publication as free riding on their peer-review process. But arguably every paper rejected after peer review is also a free rider. Making acceptances portable likely would have little effect on submissions or editorial workload. But it would put pressure on publishers to improve terms and conditions for authors. Admittedly, that pressure could create awkwardness for editors who cooperate with publishers to limit author rights.
Then, of course, there is the possibility of fraud. An unscrupulous author might find a way to forge an acceptance email, for example. Or an author could attempt to publish a different version of the paper than the version originally accepted. Those are legitimate problems, but they are not distinct to the JPR model. Perhaps even you have pulled out a few paragraphs from the final version after satisfying reviewer No. 2?
Probably the biggest objection is that corporate publishers will see portable acceptances as a threat, thereby becoming motivated to alter their submission terms and conditions or enforce new rules on editors and reviewers, in order to prevent JPR-like journals from succeeding. But corporate publishers already see challenges to their business interests as a threat. Academics are not obliged to defend those business interests.
Which brings up a final concern. Who will step up? Editors, authors and professional associations are all entangled in a scholarly publishing system that increasingly favors corporate publishers over academic contributors. Reform by any individual, editor or association is difficult. Defending academic interests requires mobilizing supportive communities and institutions. It’s possible that academe just isn’t ready to support a JPR proposal.
Whether we’re ready or not, scholarly publishing is changing. We don’t know exactly what future changes will look like. But we must be willing to explore options that benefit authors and support academic autonomy. Sure, some options might disadvantage some publishing companies or threaten established status hierarchies. They might even make some enemies. But they also might create a more generative, equitable and author-centered academic publishing future.
A regional National Labor Relations Board judge this week dismissed a petition from full-time faculty members at Marywood University to form a union. Using a framework for assessing the merit of such bids laid out in a 2013 decision regarding Pacific Lutheran University, the board officer found that the Marywood professors did not perform specific religious roles that would exempt them from NLRB oversight, as the Roman Catholic university had argued. But the judge did find that the instructors’ jobs were sufficiently managerial in nature to preclude them.
“At most, the documents and testimony introduced by the employer suggest that faculty members are generally expected to support the university’s mission and core values, much of which is expressed largely in nonreligious terms, including respect, empowerment, service and excellence,” Harold A. Maier, a Philadelphia-based NLRB officer, wrote in his decision regarding the religious exemption question. “More critically, [Marywood] did not produce evidence suggesting that faculty have a specific role in promoting its religious mission and values.”
Yet Marywood’s full-time faculty “exercises effective control” over some aspects of university operations, Maier wrote. “The faculty has extensive control over academic programs and a lesser, but still meaningful role in enrollment management and personnel policy and decisions.” And the NLRB has “never required that total faculty control is a prerequisite to finding managerial status.”
Maier’s conclusions are similar to those reached by a separate NLRB office regarding a union bid by full-time faculty members at Carroll College, in January. The two decisions taken together suggest a continued trend against full-time faculty unions at private institutions, even though some onlookers said the Pacific Lutheran decision may have opened doors to them.
Juneann Greco, Marywood spokeswoman, said via email that the decision “provides positive guidance going forward, encouraging our faculty, administration and staff to continue to work together, guided by our Marywood values, in the best interest of our students.” A spokesperson for the Pennsylvania State Education Association, which is part of the National Education Association and with which the proposed union is affiliated, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
In recent years, we’ve seen a surge of articles, essays and blog posts by professional philosophers on the future of philosophy. While it isn’t surprising that people who reflect professionally would reflect on the future of their profession, this surge is symptomatic of a deeper anxiety that some philosophers, and many humanists, have felt in the modern, outcome-oriented academy.
Some of the reflections are more conservative, defending the status quo and arguing that philosophy is just as strong, if not stronger, than it ever was (e.g., Scott Soames, “Philosophy’s True Home”). Others are more progressive, contending that the profession must be diversified if it is to be capable of responding to the complex challenges of a pluralistic world (e.g., Minna Salami, “Philosophy has to be about more than just white men”).
Such anxieties are not unfounded. The university’s role in a globally interconnected world is changing, and we need to be responsive to that change. Without sustained, intentional efforts to engage the challenges of a global public, philosophy will languish.
In a New York Times essay, Robert Frodeman and Adam Briggle argue that philosophy as an endeavor lost its way when, in an effort to be integrated into the modern research university, it sought to establish itself as a specialized discipline alongside other disciplines. Although controversial, their position rightly identifies a source of philosophy’s current crisis: to turn inward to disciplinary concerns is to turn away from the questions that the world asks of us.
Before its emergence as a department within the modern research institution, philosophy had in fact long been deeply engaged with the world. At its heart, philosophy is a broad human activity requiring a heightened attunement to the environment we inhabit and a cultivated ability to respond to complexity with nuance and a sense for what is just. If it sacrificed this broader scope of concern as a price of legitimacy in the modern research university, then the “purified” discipline of philosophy was indeed significantly different from the embedded practice of gadflies and other lovers of wisdom. Philosophy, disciplined in this way, is not well positioned to live up to the public commitments it has embodied from its earliest beginnings.
But not all modern research universities are the same. Consider, in particular, how philosophy has taken root in the American land-grant universities that emerged in the 19th century to provide all citizens with access to higher education, democratizing an institution that had been available only to a select few. The land-grant mission directs all of higher education, including philosophy, to the lived realities of the world, emphasizing our shared responsibility to support citizen leaders in grappling with difficult challenges from a diversity of perspectives.
To the extent that philosophy lost its way by turning inward, perhaps it can find its way again in the contemporary public land-grant university by returning to an outward focus that addresses the most complex and intractable challenges of our time. Unlike traditional research universities or, for that matter, liberal arts colleges and other four-year institutions, land-grant universities are charged with the responsibility of reaching out to their states and to the broader regions in which they are situated. Further, they maintain statewide extension networks that support the flow of knowledge and information with the public.
In this context, philosophy can draw on its deepest historical roots as a publicly engaged activity while cultivating the synthesis of a wide range of disciplinary perspectives. Our vision of a philosophy at home in the public land-grant university requires the disciplinary pursuit of a progressive research agenda that emphasizes democratic and inclusive public engagement with real-world issues, such as food security, climate change and environmental justice.
To speak of the disciplinary pursuit of a progressive, inclusive and democratic research agenda is to affirm both the theoretical (and often esoteric) accomplishments of philosophy as an academic discipline and the imperative to be responsive to the world we share. It is a call for an engaged philosophy that recognizes that theory is best informed by practice and that practice is always enriched by theory -- such that the segregation of the two always results in the impoverishment of both.
So understood, engaged philosophy is different from a common conception of applied philosophy, according to which one works out the theory in isolation from the messiness of the real world into which it is then deployed. This conception encourages the antidemocratic view that academic philosophers work out solutions on their own and then merely deliver them to the masses; it is a renunciation of the dialogue that enriches the work. By contrast, engaged philosophy emphasizes the coordination of a broad range of voices, which secures responsiveness to complexity, sensitivity to differences in core values and beliefs, and a robust commitment to justice.
Philosophy has a well-earned reputation for analysis, but the practice of engaged philosophy in the land-grant context requires a cultivated capacity for synthesis -- of philosophical approaches, of philosophy with other academic disciplines and of academic with nonacademic perspectives. This capacity entails commitment to two key principles.
First, engaged philosophy is committed to cross-disciplinary research, understood as including both interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary activity. Complex problems such as food security and environmental justice have important conceptual and empirical dimensions that require input from a wide range of other disciplines; at the same time, they are problems for people outside the academy, and any adequate response will require input from nonacademic stakeholders. Philosophers can and should play a fundamental role in these cross-disciplinary responses, illuminating the nature of the values in play and providing common ground that facilitates the integration of the various perspectives, both inside and outside the academy. But we should also always come prepared to listen and learn, so our own disciplinary approach is enriched by our engagement with others as we respond to the challenges we face. For example, the Michigan State University-based Toolbox Project uses philosophical concepts and methods to facilitate communication and collaboration in cross-disciplinary projects, ranging from work on transplant rejection in pediatric patients, oil and gas inputs into the Gulf of Mexico, and climate resiliency in western Michigan.
Second, engaged philosophy is committed to inclusivity. A commitment to cross-disciplinary research entails inclusivity in the research response, but research represents only one mode of engagement. Sustainable and just responses to complex social problems require cultivating the habits of inclusive practice and solidarity on a broad scale. This involves ensuring the participation of those who are affected by the problem in all stages of the research process, as well as before research begins and after it concludes. Unless engaged philosophers, and university researchers more generally, work shoulder to shoulder with activists and community members on efforts such as those that involve environmental justice, climate policy and indigenous peoples, the responses they develop will lack the trust and respect needed to ensure long-term viability.
But the habits of inclusive practice must not be cultivated exclusively in philosophy’s external relationships. They must also be embodied in the practices of academic philosophy itself. This means that a much more inclusive understanding of what “counts as” philosophy and of who “looks like” a philosopher is required. Philosophy has been accused of being a monoculture, both in terms of its thematic foci and its demographic composition. Engagement can reveal new contexts for philosophical work, increasing the diversity of philosophical problems and of the philosophical practitioners who engage them.
Just as universities must adapt to remain relevant and accountable in a changing world, so too must the disciplines that give academic depth to them. The anxiety of philosophers is symptomatic of a broader concern about our role in this changing institutional context. But the symptoms themselves point to possible remedies. Specifically, a more inclusive philosophy profession that acknowledges its potential as a partner in cross-disciplinary efforts could model a broader and more diverse understanding of academic excellence -- one rooted in publicly engaged initiatives that enrich the human experience.
Although land-grant universities have their own fraught histories, for the land granted was gained through the colonization of indigenous peoples, they remain ideal institutional sites in which to realize this synthetic vision, because they provide the infrastructure and the resources necessary to advance these commitments to an inclusive and engaged philosophy. The humanities more broadly, and philosophy in particular, are well positioned in the land-grant university to catalyze initiatives that can deepen our shared responses to the most difficult challenges we face.
Christopher P. Long is dean of the College of Arts and Letters and professor of philosophy at Michigan State University, and Michael O’Rourke is professor of philosophy and faculty in AgBioResearch at the university.