Context, if you want it: a recent article in The Stone, the NYT’s philosophy blog that Brian Leiter likes to mock. The position, if you want it: some forms of art/music/etc. are superior to others, with classical music, for instance, being superior to pop music.
My views, if you want them: sure, there’s good art and bad art. There’s also a whole lot of complications that philosophers of art, especially those who think you can make simple divisions between high culture (the kind academics like and participate in) and low culture (the kind they look down on, or study in “studies” departments) with impunity. Continue reading
I’m going to grab my fiddle while people are setting fires and ignore the whole Finch Report Open Access bomb that’s blowing up right now.* Suffice it to say, I need to finish reading all of it (I don’t do journals right now, so only about thirty pages are of more than academic interest to bookies like me) before I act like I have something intelligent and novel to say about it—but, worry not, I will talk about it.**
Instead, let’s talk about something that’s tangential to the whole Finch Report/Open Access debate: the institution of peer review. Yes, a lot of people aren’t too keen on it (“why are we paying for this, again?”), but for those of us who publish things, it’s important. Sure, it’s the gold standard, sure, it’s an assurance of quality—but for us, if it doesn’t pass peer review, we don’t have to waste good money publishing it. Continue reading
I actually don’t hate most of our authors or readership. Most of them, truth be told, are very good and interesting people. Yes, I make a lot of jokes at the expense of technophobic, change-resistant professors.
Not all the people we work with are like that. Not even most of them are, deep down inside.
Of course, some very senior ones are—and everyone has to at least act like they believe these Senior Academic Gods. Thus, problems.
Note to self: when I am old and crotchety, don’t be like that.
Further note to self: after attainting Geezerdom, remember that younger self kinda had a point.
Yet further note: even now, my cynical, nihilistic still younger self had several points. Find out what his good ones were, and develop them now that you know better.
Credit where credit is due: much of this is based of a spiel from Bigbossman to grad students attracted by the promise of free food and cheap books. By the way, locusts descending on a ripe field have nothing on a bunch of grad students who have heard that there are $3 books. Also, a lot of it I may have discussed already; however, there were a few new things, and some points of discussion worth, well, discussing.
Time to crush the hopes and dreams of many a publishing pundit: just because it’s in an electronic format doesn’t mean it’s cheap to produce—or that you can/should skip the publisher and go straight to dissemination. This one will probably hack off half my twitter feed—it aims straight at the core of at least a few of the assumptions behind open access publishing—but the assumption that publishing houses do nothing but slap someone’s text on paper is wronger than a wrong thing that’s wrong.