Academic publishing and the need for a new framework of dynamic authorship

I would like to write an article aimed at academics, and readers who are interested in education and (particularly) higher education. The academic publishing model is staid and exploitative. Writers and their universities are charged exorbitant fees for the privilege of being published. But there is little, if any, editorial support in the process and, as a result, the quality of the work may not be perfect. Most publishers have outsourced their production work to external operators, often in India and the Philippines, to reduce labour costs. This process has been accompanied by a decimation of the role of the editor, who would otherwise play the role of a guardian of quality. This is egregious, particularly in light of the fact that the academic publishing industry is so profitable. Scholars who have English as a second language may not have the flair of the best writers, and may need time to improve the minor language errors that may mar their work. Everything that goes online now stays online – potentially forever. Therefore, writers should have the right to review and improve their work over time. I want to argue that we need a new model of dynamic authorship, i.e., writers should have ongoing control over improvement of their work. This would need a radical change in the way publishing works.

In an academic publishing environment that does not require publishers to pay contributors for their knowledge and output, and often encourages publishers to charge authors and their institutions exorbitant fees for the privilege of being published, what recourse to corrective action does an author have? If the academic publishing industry, which is highly profitable, wishes to truly work in collaboration with authors (and move away from a model that flagrantly exploits authors), then it should consider developing a more dynamic model of engagement. Authors should be able to amend their content and improve their work in a dynamic fashion, and not be restricted by the strictures of the print publication model that is no longer the functional basis of content production and dissemination. Authors should be able to make corrections and improve the quality of their work over time. They should also be allowed to make substantial changes to their work if such changes qualitatively improve their work, and they perceive making such improvements necessary for the future ramifications of their scholarship. Given the availability of block-chain-related and version-tracking technology, there is no reason why quality improvement should not be standard practice. In fact, what we have currently - a staid model wherein proofs are sent for 'final corrections' in a format that is neither appealing nor particularly user-friendly - belies the affordances of available technology.