In the sciences, preprints in many fields are acceptable, as is the posting of raw data. But in the social sciences and humanities, preprints are not acceptable, and previous publication in a blog means it can’t be submitted for publication. TWC follows this rule. From my POV, because I am very practical, it’s all about copyright and ownership problems. And of course articles that appear in TWC go through a round or two of revision, and then they are edited. We’d like the final revised, edited version to appear.

I’m hopeful that more researchers will take OA more seriously. However, every agreement that I’ve read that faculty has signed has an opt-out clause, so really it’s just a statement of an ideal and will probably not affect actual behavior. People will still choose where to submit on the basis of prestige.

We are doing everything right behind the scenes: submitting to indexing, permitting aggregation, and in general making the metadata available via some magic OJS plug-ins. We are doing our best to be library and archive friendly. We also subscribe to the DOI system, so permanence of hotlinks to our essays is important to us; this is actually unusual in the humanities.

I don’t think anybody will confuse TWC with Salon or Slate. The audiences are clearly different, and that’s marked by site design and mode of presentation of data. We signal what TWC is and who it is for by prominently placing the names of editorial board members on our home page. The site is also not date bound (thus not newsy or bloggish), and we don’t feature shiny images or ads. OJS (the software we use) has a distinctive look that isn’t terribly customizable, and that’s another signal that speaks to audience and readership.

Of course misreading of cues is possible. I’d say our content will speak for itself, but I really do think that TWC is not mixing signals and confusingly presenting itself. It’s hard enough appealing to acas and fans both! We want to be rigorous yet accessible, and that is a hard line to walk sometimes.

Of course, what this means, though, is that the definition of ’scholarly journal’ has to be revisited. If it’s no longer necessarily format-based, what exactly differentiates the website TWC from, say, the website Salon or Slate. Of course, editors and authors and librarians may know, but will the average reader necessarily recognize and understand the difference?

Unfortunately, we’ve seen too many online journals come out of the gate, go a couple of issues, and then die off. For what it’s worth, a decision to publish in print or to charge a subscription can be seen as a commitment to stick around for a while.

My thinking is making TWC truly successful must continue being a joint effort. So far, this journal has been excellent about focusing on what matters in a scholarly journal, and I get the feeling that it’s already built up a fair amount of name recognition in and general good will from academia. For these to continue, though, just as us readers and authors must commit to focusing on the content of scholarly literature, not the format or packaging, the editors have to commit to maintaining a high level of content and making it clear that this is an academic journal in the form of a website, not a website that hosts some articles that happen to include abstracts and footnotes.

Since many universities, including my own, are state-funded and more legislatures are calling for transparency, open access to research done by faculty at those universities seem imperative despite the very real challenges that are involved (I only understand the tip of the iceberg, I’m fairly sure).

(full disclosure, board member, and co-editor with Sarah Gatson of upcoming Race and Ethnicity in fandom special issue).

When TWC first began, we’d just had a program review that among other things demanded more publishing at higher prestige journals, so there are real pressures put on faculty/departments.

I am following the STM model closely because as it goes, the humanities will follow.