Content uploaded by Jordan Ballor
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jordan Ballor on Dec 15, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
Journal of Scholarly Publishing April 2005
Scholarship at the Crossroads:
The Journal of Markets &
Morality Case Study
JORDAN J. BALLOR
Like many other publications in what J. David Bolter calls ‘the late age of
print,’ the Journal of Markets & Morality is at a crossroads, brought about by
the rapid advent of technological progress. While embarking on a discussion
of the contemporary issues facing the publication of a scholarly journal, the
author provides a brief survey of the history of the Journal of Markets &
Morality to orient the discussion.
The Journal of Markets & Morality (JMM) is an interdisciplinary, peer-
reviewed academic journal produced by the Acton Institute for the
Study of Religion and Liberty, an educational and literary organiza-
tion. It began in 1998 as a print-only journal and, in 2002, added free
full-text electronic versions of all current and previous content. Thus,
subscribers and non-subscribers alike could enjoy full electronic ac-
cess to all content, but only subscribers would receive a print version
of the journal. The question was then raised, as by a librarian from
Australia in correspondence with journal staff, ‘What would I be get-
ting for subscribing that I can’t get now?’
This situation persisted until the summer of 2004, when the current
study was commissioned. The various pressures and interests of JMM
had resulted in a patchwork system of delivery, through which all
content was freely available in electronic format on the World Wide
Web but the print form of the journal was available only for a sub-
scription fee. This strange situation attests to the truth of Andrew
Odlyzko’s observation that ‘the scholarly publishing business is full of
inertia and perverse economic incentives.’
1
This study examines the situation of the scholarly journal as it is
146 Journal of Scholarly Publishing
faced with the challenges of old and new media. This discussion will
be applied to the case of the Journal of Markets & Morality, and we will
find that the various needs of the audiences of the journal call for a
multifaceted approach to publishing.
The Advent of Electronic Media: Possibility and Complexity
A general survey of the scholarly publishing industry before and after
the turn of the third millennium helps place such phenomena in
perspective. With the advent and proliferation of information tech-
nologies in the late twentieth century, especially the innovation of the
Internet, scholars and educational institutions were faced with scin-
tillating possibilities as well as complex difficulties. James E. Bradley
and Richard A. Muller address these developments at some length
and with notable clarity. They observe, ‘Major methodological ad-
vances in the humanities are usually not as frequent, nor as dramatic,
as advances in the natural sciences. Two notable exceptions to this
rule are found in the Enlightenment and in the current revolution in
the storage and retrieval of information.’
2
These words, true at the
time of their writing ten years ago, have become even more salient as
the transition into the ‘Information Age’ has progressed.
Beyond the popular applications of the new technologies, scholars
and researchers are particularly affected by such innovations. As
Bradley and Muller write, ‘We believe that the newer technology,
understood broadly, is no longer optional. The scholar who neglects
current technological advances in the manipulation and accessing of
sources puts himself or herself in the position of the student who
refuses to adopt the methodological advances of the Enlightenment;
they become, by definition, precritical.’
3
The benefits of the informa-
tion technology to the scholar are closely related to ‘the conceptual
elegance of unimpeded research, and exhaustive, near-perfect bibli-
ographies.’
4
But with such advances comes a corresponding responsibility on
the part of the researcher. As Bradley and Muller observe,
The contemporary excitement over the new availability of bibliographical
resources and actual documents must be balanced by the realizations that
the establishment of a superb bibliographical base for research through the
use of various databases merely leaves the researcher without excuse.
5
Scholarship at the Crossroads 147
The ability of research scholars to have such unprecedented access
to primary and secondary materials, via computers and electronic
media, leads to the expectation that any respectable scholar will pur-
sue the acquisition of such information with all the more vigour and
diligence. And this is one of the major difficulties that now faces
scholars, in the second decade of the Internet age.
As Stephen E. Arnold writes, ‘Libraries and individual researchers
are likely to be befuddled about where to go to find what they need in
the current STM or scholarly data universe. Locating and getting pre-
cisely what one needs has become somewhat more complicated in
the Internet age.’
6
Clearly the World Wide Web itself offers incredible
varieties and types of sources of information, varying from personal
Web sites, to online encyclopaedias, to electronic versions of aca-
demic papers. The tendency of the layperson is quite often to use a
trusted search engine (e.g., Google or Yahoo!) and type in a relevant
word or phrase to find information on a topic of interest. This is the
impulse addressed by J. David Bolter when he writes, ‘Readers will
turn to the Web for information, and if they cannot find it there and
are not willing to look elsewhere, then cyberspace may become by
default the universal book, encyclopaedia, and library all in one.’
7
Nevertheless, scholars have generally remained much more cir-
cumscribed and focused in their approaches to research. Whereas a
generic search engine makes no distinction between a personal Web
page and a scholarly journal, specialized databases of scholarly litera-
ture are designed to limit the field of inquiry to respected and trusted
sources. Arnold addresses the proliferation of these media for re-
search, which add more complexity to the responsibilities of the re-
searcher. There is no one-stop search engine in existence that allows a
researcher to find a relevant ThM thesis, PhD dissertation, original
sixteenth-century document, or scholarly journal article. Instead, there
exist standard but multiple streams of dissemination for scholarly
thought, which is what Arnold addresses, in part, when he states that
‘publishers, abstracting and indexing companies, subscription agen-
cies, and the new online providers like HighWire Press seem to be on a
collision course.’
8
The possibilities and responsibilities of scholarship in the informa-
tion age would seem to be a powerful impetus to realize such an all-
encompassing resource, the disparate pieces of which are already in
existence. In the field of theology, for example, to find a ThM thesis,
148 Journal of Scholarly Publishing
the researcher could go to the Theological Research Exchange Net-
work, ‘a library of over 10,000 theological thesis/dissertation titles
representing research from as many as 70 different institutions.’
9
PhD
dissertations are organized and searchable via the Dissertation Ab-
stracts database, which ‘covers every doctoral dissertation completed
in the U.S. for the last 150 years.’
10
An electronic version of an original
sixteenth-century document would be accessible on Early English
Books Online (EEBO).
11
Journal articles and reviews are available by
means of the ATLA Religion Database.
12
The latter three resources are
all managed by the same organization and yet remain disparate and
highly specialized databases.
Beyond the pure research interests in making data available via
electronic means, numerous other phenomena seem to contribute to
a trend toward e-media. Genevieve Brown and Beverly J. Irby observe,
‘Online articles are easily revised. Older versions can be replaced by
new versions as many times as necessary. This allows authors to cor-
rect errors, to adjust articles as their thinking evolves, and to update
past articles by adding new research studies into the bibliography.’
13
These possibilities may be more or less attractive depending on the
field in which the author works. In the areas of medicine or math-
ematics, for example, up-to-date modifications may significantly en-
hance the usefulness of published research.
The Audiences of JMM
As the publication of a non-profit educational organization, JMM is in
an atypical position, given its interdisciplinary focus. Typically, aca-
demic journals are produced by degree-granting educational institu-
tions or by professional societies. Furthermore, JMM ‘promotes
intellectual exploration of the relationship between economics and
morality from both social science and theological perspectives. It seeks
to bring together theologians, philosophers, economists, and other
scholars for dialogue concerning the morality of the marketplace.’
14
As such, the journal is truly cross-disciplinary, attempting to target
the intersection of economics, ethics, philosophy, and theology.
Thus, as one might expect, the primary audience of JMM is made
up of scholarly practitioners in the aforementioned fields. As a group
they appear to have ambivalent interests in the journal’s mode publi-
cation. The primary academic audience can be further divided into
Scholarship at the Crossroads 149
two sub-groups (whose membership may overlap): contributors (au-
thors) and consumers (readers).
By virtue of the importance of the academic audience to JMM,
other secondary audiences become important. For example, the piv-
otal role of libraries as centres of academic learning and research
places them as key gatekeepers and sources for the journal’s primary
audience (scholars). Since scholars are so dependent on institutional
libraries for much of their research, these libraries become an impor-
tant constituency for JMM.
Further down the line come subscription agencies, which function
as service providers for many libraries. Companies such as EBSCO
manage and facilitate the periodical subscriptions for libraries, which
may not have the staff or budget to administer the often confusing
web of electronic periodical subscriptions. This makes them an im-
portant, albeit tertiary, audience for JMM.
Beyond these lies a fourth group of stakeholders in JMM that is an
artefact of its institutional ties. The Acton Institute is a ‘501 (c)(3) non
profit, non denominational organization that accepts no government
support. It relies solely on the fully tax-deductible contributions of
foundations, corporations, and concerned individuals.’
15
This adds a
unique element to the concerns associated with publishing an aca-
demic journal. Donors form an audience whose interest in the journal
is somewhat different from, albeit linked to, that of researchers and
scholars. JMM is a subscription-based academic journal, but because
it is subsidized by contributions above and beyond its subscription
sales, the pressure to match production costs with subscription sales
is not as pronounced as it might be for other journals. Subscription
prices are therefore not so closely linked to the relative number of
subscribers. Editorial objectivity is maintained through a number of
means, including an independent editorial board and peer review of
all articles.
Scholars
As previously noted, the primary audience of a scholarly journal is the
community of scholars who make use of it. There are two facets of this
group, however, or roles that it plays in the process. Members of the
community are both producers of scholarly material and consumers
of it. Scholars function as producers through their authorship of jour-
150 Journal of Scholarly Publishing
nal articles and book reviews and as consumers through their reader-
ship of the same.
Thus, a major obstacle stands against the ‘ideal’ world of elec-
tronic-only scholarly journals. This obstacle is indicative of ambiva-
lence on the part of the scholar. As a researcher, the scholar is in
general interested in maximizing the efficiency of research, and elec-
tronic journals enable this to an incredible degree when compared
with print journals. As we will see below, however, the scholar as an
author has an ongoing and overriding interest in publishing material
in print journals. In some sense, the same person who wants to be
able to find other people’s work in electronic journals wants his or her
own work to be published in print journals.
Authors
There are certainly a number of factors that contribute to the desire of
a particular scholar to attempt to be published in a particular journal.
One of the key motivators for a scholar to submit an article to one
journal over another, however, is the prestige of the journal; that is,
how well it garners respect within and among its scholarly niche
audience.
The tension between print and electronic journals arises out of the
comparative degree to which print journals dominate electronic jour-
nals with regard to prestige, especially in the humanities. Whereas
instantaneous dissemination of research is compelling in fields such
as medicine or mathematics, print journals are somewhat removed
from such concerns in the humanities and social sciences. More im-
portant in these fields is the level of respectability a particular journal
has, which is inherently linked to the length of time it has been in
publication and the reputation of its referees.
As Terry Ann Rohe writes,
Professors have traditionally wanted to publish in the most prestigious jour-
nals, even if it takes longer to see their work in print (and even if the publica-
tions cost more for their own institutions to buy). Faculty members who want
to advance professionally are not concerned with the economics of the pub-
lishing market place.
16
Researchers are interested in being published in traditional print
Scholarship at the Crossroads 151
journals in large part because their advancement in the field of
academia is dependent upon such publication. Publication creden-
tials form a large and important part of such career concerns as the
hiring process and tenure review. And there is a definite hierarchy of
credit for each publication. Aldrin E. Sweeney has documented this in
a survey of various administrators and faculty members at ten pub-
licly funded universities in Florida.
17
Sweeney found a variety of atti-
tudes represented toward electronic journals in the tenure process. In
general, however, ‘sixty-seven percent of all respondents in the study
agreed or strongly agreed that electronically published articles should
be counted in the tenure and promotion process.’
18
What this assessment unfortunately overlooks is the relative weight
of electronic publications as compared with print journals. If the re-
sponse of a faculty member in the survey is representative of the
attitude of any substantial number of scholars, it is instructive: ‘As of
now, they (electronic publications) really don’t count much. They are
not respected and are probably considered no better than a confer-
ence paper.’
19
In this way, the view of the academic value of electronic
journals weighs heavily on whether or not there will remain a place
for print journals. Rohe writes, ‘Unless there are accepted alternatives
for faculty that will allow them to disseminate information, enhance
their reputations, and earn them rewards, they will have no incentive
to change the present model of publishing.’
20
Sweeney notes that, unlike to the Florida public universities he
examined, Rutgers University ‘openly acknowledges the scholarship
associated with electronic publications, while similarly prestigious
universities in Florida, according to my survey, do not do so.’
21
Sweeney
cites Rutgers’ ‘1999–2000 Academic Reappointment/Promotion In-
structions’ memorandum, noting that there is a fourfold division for
‘acceptable evidence of scholarship’ with respect to academic jour-
nals: (1) refereed journal articles; (2) non-refereed journal articles; (3)
refereed electronic publications; and (4) non-refereed electronic pub-
lications.
22
This same division is carried over into the ‘2004–2005 Aca-
demic Reappointment/Promotion Instructions’ form.
23
It should be
noted, however, that this form seems to reproduce a sort of hierarchy
with respect to the types of scholarship and their order. The first item
called for is the dissertation, the basic passport for scholarly corre-
spondence. Following this are books, which are followed by journal
articles (with their fourfold division). The list continues downward in
152 Journal of Scholarly Publishing
relative scholarly weight through published conference proceedings,
notes, book reviews, and conference presentations and lectures. Even
though Rutgers acknowledges electronic publication in the advance-
ment process, there is apparently a relative weighting in favour of
printed publications. At this point, in general, electronic journals do
not command the prestige of print journals in the tenure and promo-
tion process.
For better or worse, a significant component of prestige for a jour-
nal is whether or not it is printed in hard copy. As Bolter writes,
For most of us today, the printed book remains the embodiment of text. Both
as authors and as readers, we still regard books and journals as the place to
locate our most prestigious texts. Few authors today aspire to publish a first
novel on the Internet (it is too easy); they still want to be in print.
24
This is true for both the scholar and the layperson. As Richard E.
Quandt writes, ‘paper journals tend to dominate in prestige,’ and this
is an empirical observation rather than a judgement about whether or
not this should be the case.
25
As a result, Quandt concludes, ‘no
individual scholar has much of an incentive to transfer his or her
loyalty to electronic counterparts, which is the classic problem of
public goods.’
26
Whether or not the perception is warranted by reality, in general,
getting published electronically is viewed as easier than getting pub-
lished in hard copy. No doubt this is due in part to the fact that to be
published in hard copy requires what is thought to be a greater eco-
nomic investment by the publisher. Some party is expending capital
to publish a text, and this expenditure carries with it a certain assur-
ance that at least someone is investing in the work, forecasting that it
is worthy of publication. This economic investment may in some
cases be tied to a particular view of the concrete value of hard copy
over electronic media. There is some truth to the contention of Rob
Kling and Lisa Covi that, on some level at least, scholars ‘feel that e-
journals must be of lower intellectual quality than p-journals, because
they sense something insubstantial and potentially transient – ghostly,
superficial, unreal, and thus untrustworthy – in electronic media.’
27
This more positive view of hard copy carries with it a certain level of
assurance in terms of credibility as well. If a publisher is willing to
invest large sums of money to print a text, this speaks to either the
quality and merit of the work, the foolishness and ignorance of the
Scholarship at the Crossroads 153
publisher, or a combination of both. In this way, the higher economic
costs associated with hard-copy publication serve to bulwark printed
texts against electronic texts with respect to prestige. Given these two
interrelated factors, it is valid to say that ‘for authors, the brake on
electronic publishing comes from ability and credibility.’
28
For these reasons, JMM began as and continues to be a hard-copy
publication. Its contributors come from a variety of fields, from theol-
ogy and philosophy to economics and history. One of the shared
interests of the scholars in these fields, however, is the importance of
being published in a prestigious, peer-reviewed academic journal.
Determining the causes of this desire is not as important as recogniz-
ing its effect. But, as Bolter writes, ‘academics are not publishing their
most valued thoughts about new media – the ones for which they
hope to obtain tenure or promotion – in new media.’
29
This statement
recalls observations above about the amount of respect given to print
as opposed to electronic journals by tenure and faculty review admin-
istrations. The fact that JMM appears in hard copy gives scholars
greater incentive to publish in it than if it appeared in electronic form
only.
Readers
Whereas the force of scholars as authors pushes JMM toward hard-
copy publication, scholars as readers produce an opposing pressure.
The ease with which electronic resources can be searched, linked,
saved, shared, and cited (with greater accuracy with respect to quota-
tions) makes an electronic version of a publication much more useful
for the scholar than the traditional hard copy.
With respect to searching and linking, Hal R. Varian writes, ‘It is
much easier to search electronic media. References can be immedi-
ately displayed using hyperlinks. Both forward and reverse biblio-
graphic searches can be done using online materials, which should
greatly aid literature.’
30
Powerful electronic tools allow much more
comprehensive and variable searches than are available in a tradi-
tional hard-copy index. In addition, both SGML and PDF formats are
now able to produce live links within the text body and notes.
31
With respect to saving and sharing, electronic publications allow
much greater accessibility. For a scholar with a personal computer
(and especially a laptop), the resources at her command are restricted
by limits of hard-drive space rather than by physical space available
154 Journal of Scholarly Publishing
or finite strength to carry printed copies of books. The portability of
laptops allows scholarly work to be done in a number of locations and
environments. As Bradley and Muller write,
given the contemporary ease with which personal computers are linked to
databases, and given the growing bulk of material that is now available through
interlibrary loan, the need for students to locate themselves near large re-
search libraries is proportionately reduced.
32
While the ability to share information electronically has led to a
crisis in the music world, in the realm of research, the ease with
which papers and articles can be posted on Web pages or sent via e-
mail represents a huge step forward in the possibilities for scholarly
interaction.
The possible influence of electronic publications can also be ex-
tended to the citation of works. Both the citation of the specific infor-
mation about the article or work itself (author, title, date, etc.) and the
content of the piece can be more accurately referenced in electronic
form. The ‘copy and paste’ feature of word processors allows for the
quick and easy citation of text, with a corresponding reduction of the
likelihood of typographical error. As historian Richard Muller notes,
the long days of manual entry of bibliographic information, so de-
tailed and so prone to error, are no longer necessary.
33
With electronic
searches, accurate bibliographical information can easily be copied
and pasted by the researcher for use in his citations.
These observations barely scratch the surface of the possibilities
for scholarly research that electronic texts are bringing to reality. They
do, however, adequately point to the growing need for scholarly tools,
including journals, to have a viable electronic presence.
Libraries
With Muller and Bradley’s observation that scholars no longer require
geographical proximity to large research libraries, it might be tempt-
ing to overlook the ongoing role that libraries play as centres of schol-
arly inquiry. Muller and Bradley temper such temptations, writing
that ‘the obvious merits and advantages of databases ought not, how-
ever, to be allowed to obscure the continuing importance of hands-on
study in great libraries and archives.’
34
Indeed, in some ways the
Scholarship at the Crossroads 155
importance of collections of primary sources becomes even more
pressing, as ‘the establishment of a superb bibliographical base for
research through the use of various databases merely leaves the re-
searcher without excuse.’
35
Bradley and Muller further argue that ‘vast stores of books and
manuscripts are not and will probably never be available on film or
fiche: the materials themselves will still need to be procured and, not
infrequently, they will have to be procured through the services of
major libraries.’
36
Full-text databases such as Early English Books Online
(EEBO) and JSTOR, however, are illustrative of a trend in the opposite
direction. The fact is that there are finite stores of primary source
materials, and once a collection has been digitized, as in the case of
EEBO, it is no longer limited by the print medium’s restrictions. Fires
and other disasters present a real threat to the livelihood of collec-
tions that exist only in hard copy, especially when these texts are
centuries old.
Nevertheless, Bradley and Muller do point to a major way in which
libraries will remain important in the future: as gatekeepers of digital
information. Bolter writes, ‘In the late age of print, academic and
public libraries are becoming hybrids, combinations of printed texts
with electronic facilities, accessed through terminals and computers
onsite or online through the Internet.’
37
Bolter specifically cites the
Bibliothèque Nationale de France, where ‘the building now functions
almost as a portal to cyberspace. If the physical collection validates
and anchors the shift into the electronic medium, the electronic col-
lection is meant to ensure that the great national library will not
become obsolete.’
38
Prescient librarians have kept abreast of techno-
logical trends and innovations, both to better facilitate the research of
scholars and to maintain a privileged position of necessary existence.
In this way, ‘Because the physical libraries continue to fulfill a variety
of institutional and cultural purposes, it seems unlikely that they will
be dismantled in the near future.’
39
Kevin Guthrie presented to an American Libraries Association meet-
ing in 2001 the results of a study that focused on the perception of
electronic media by faculty.
40
While Guthrie’s questions focused al-
most exclusively on the faculty member as a reader or consumer of e-
media, his study comes to some illuminating conclusions regarding
the relationship between researchers and libraries. Guthrie concluded
that ‘electronic resources are important to faculty’ and that ‘human-
156 Journal of Scholarly Publishing
ists depend more on the library for access than social scientists.’
According to the surveyed faculty, the ‘library access role is expected
to diminish,’ but this expectation is tempered by the fact that ‘elec-
tronic archiving is important to all.’ This points to a belief that the
ongoing relevance of libraries will be tied, in some large measure,
to the extent to which they act as a storehouse for and gateway to
e-media.
Two of the major influences that seem to make the move toward
electronic journals likely are consumer demand (functionality) and
cost concerns. It is for these reasons that Varian states,
It is widely expected that a great deal of scholarly communication will move
to an electronic format. The Internet offers much lower cost of reproduction
and distribution than print, the scholarly community has excellent connectiv-
ity, and the current system of journal pricing seems to be too expensive. Each
of these factors is helping push journals from paper to electronic media.
41
The former demand for functionality rises from the expectations of
end users, while the latter demand for lower prices comes from sub-
scribers, including institutions and libraries.
This speaks to the continuing importance of libraries in the face of
struggle. Comparable to talk of the ‘burst’ of the tech bubble in the
stock market in 2000, it has become commonplace over the past
decade to refer to a ‘library crisis’ in the information sciences field.
The general tenor of the discussion has revolved around the budget
crunch at libraries, resulting from restrictions in funding and increases
in operating costs.
Odlyzko sums up the situation for academic libraries when he writes
that ‘over the decade from 1982 to 1992, library expenditures have
grown by over a third even after adjusting for general inflation (ARL).
However, they have fallen by about 10 percent as a share of total
university spending.’
42
He attributes this relative drop to a lack of
push among researchers, as ‘apparently the pressure from scholars to
maintain library collection has not been great enough, and other
priorities have been winning. At some point in the future more drastic
cuts are likely.’
43
This crisis, however, is especially linked to scholarly journals, in
many cases because the perceived answer to the crisis lies therein.
In late 1998, Carol Tenopir and Donald W. King observed, ‘Libraries
are experiencing an untenable situation because spiraling prices are
Scholarship at the Crossroads 157
causing them to spend more for fewer journals,’ a phenomenon that
‘dominates discussions among publishers, librarians, and scientists.’
44
The general pressures pointed out by Odlyzko produce specific and
pointed manifestations in the case of scholarly journals. Tenopir and
King allude to libraries ‘paying more for less’ in this area and explain
this development in the following way: ‘Scholarly journal prices have
risen significantly for two compelling reasons: Scholarly journals are
characterized by (1) very high fixed costs and (2) a relatively low, and
decreasing, number of subscriptions to cover those costs.’
45
In the case of scholarly journals, the electronic journal is usually
trumpeted as the answer to the dilemma. The electronic journal could
conceivably alleviate, at least to some extent, both of the above-men-
tioned causes for rising journal prices. The high fixed costs would be
tempered, especially in the area of distribution. Mailing costs of print
journals represent a high and ongoing cost, above and beyond the
printing and material costs of producing the journal itself. In addi-
tion, a journal that offers some or all of the searchability and conven-
ience functions outlined in the previous section would presumably be
much more competitive with regard to subscriptions, especially with
respect to a comparable journal that may only offer a print version.
This might help to reverse, or at least check, the trend of declining
subscription numbers.
In the case of an electronic journal, libraries and scholars would no
longer be paying ‘more for less.’ They could, depending on the specif-
ics of the journal in question, be paying the same, or perhaps even
less, for more (in terms of functionality and searchability). In these
ways, and perhaps others, electronic journals could alter the situation
in which
journal pricing and other factors have led to libraries paying more for less,
publishers’ circulation decreasing, readers paying much more in time for
obtaining needed information, and the libraries’ and readers’ funding sources
becoming disillusioned concerning their allocation of funds. In other words, a
lose-lose-lose-lose situation has been created over the years.
46
Judith Edwards, however, cautions against overblown claims about
electronic journals as the answer to the library crisis. She writes,
In an ideal world, the electronic journal is surely the answer to so many of our
traditional problems, with speedy delivery, availability unlimited by time or
158 Journal of Scholarly Publishing
geography, and searching facilities. And think of all the shelf space saved! In
reality, we’re in a transitional period, having to cope with all our print jour-
nals at the same time as coming to terms with a new medium.
47
Certainly part of coming to terms with the new medium is assessing
the continued importance of the already established medium.
The economic considerations of libraries are a force that helps to
push them toward digitizing their collections. Beyond the research
interests of scholars, libraries must account for shrinking or stagnant
budgets while also dealing with increasing demand for their services.
Varian examines some of these concerns when he writes of the ‘shelf-
space savings to libraries’ that electronic publications offer.
48
While
there are important costs associated with electronic media, Varian con-
cludes, the transition to ‘electronic documents will undoubtedly re-
duce many of the traditional library costs once it is fully implemented.’
49
Among the various incidental costs associated with a library’s utili-
zation of electronic materials is the need to maximize the efficiency of
documenting and indexing available sources. With respect to schol-
arly journals, for instance, there are numerous ways in which the
electronic form of these publications might be available to a particu-
lar institution. Open-source publications might be fully available on
an independently run server. Subscription-based journals might be
available on CD-ROM for use on a specific workstation; these journals
might also host their content online and restrict access to subscribers.
If libraries want to make their electronic resources as readily available
as the texts in their physical collections, some way of integrating the
contents of these various sources of electronic documents must be
established.
Obviously the extent to which the publication itself is responsive to
the needs of its institutional subscribers will have an important effect
on how much time and effort library staff must expend to integrate a
particular electronic holding. If the holdings are available on a re-
stricted basis, on a remote server hosted by the publishers, it is most
often the case that some sort of blanket authorization is given to a
subscribing institution. This can be accomplished via a secure proxy
connection and/or the recognition of a subscriber’s static IP address.
This solution at least addresses the accessibility issue involved with
restricted content, while indirectly accommodating the indexing of
the material.
Scholarship at the Crossroads 159
There are, in general, at least two main ways that the organization
of electronic content is accomplished. The first is through the estab-
lishment of cooperative databases and indexes among a variety of
institutions. Tenopir and King note that ‘electronic journals today still
comprise a relatively small percentage of scholarly journal publica-
tions, but change is coming quickly, as demonstrated by the self-
proclaimed, authoritative source of scholarly electronic journals
being developed by CIC, a consortium of university libraries for the
Big Ten and the University of Chicago.’
50
Presumably such a consor-
tium takes up the time and resources of library staff. It is at this
point that the second major means of keeping tabs on electronic
resources comes up.
Subscription Agencies
A variety of services have arisen to fill the need for organization and
management of electronic publication subscriptions. These subscrip-
tion agencies are most often privately run enterprises that work on
behalf of a library’s staff. Very often they provide expertise and ser-
vices that are not easily reproducible by the library’s own employees.
Subscription agencies often have the resources to monitor and
track the use of electronic resources. Varian writes,
it is much easier to monitor the use of electronic media. Since the primary
point of the editorial and refereeing process is to economize on readers’
attention, it should be very useful to have some feedback on whether arti-
cles are actually read. This would help make more rational decisions about
journal acquisition, faculty retention, and other critical resource allocation
issues.
51
In this way, the relative value of a journal to a particular institution
can be determined, in part, by the frequency with which its materials
are consulted by researchers.
The multiplicity of such subscriptions services speaks to an appar-
ent lack of expertise or resources on the part of libraries to handle
electronic journal subscriptions. A good example is EBSCO, which
offers ‘EBSCOhost Electronic Journals Service (EJS),’ a service that
‘handles electronic journal access and management needs.’
52
The up-
graded and more costly version, called EJS Enhanced, ‘offers exten-
160 Journal of Scholarly Publishing
sive features that help with e-journal management tasks such as:
tracking the registration status of e-journals, authentication assist-
ance to facilitate both on-campus and remote access to e-journal
content, automatic management of e-journal URLs and much more.’
53
A major selling point for this service is that no effort is required on the
part of the library to maintain accurate records of its electronic hold-
ings. This is because ‘EBSCO provides durable URLs for every journal,
table of contents and article in EJS Enhanced. No URL maintenance
by the library is required.’
54
The significance of subscription agencies for journal publishers
comes in their relative success in carving out a market niche. Sub-
scription agencies are an established medium that many libraries use
to manage their electronic periodical holdings. The importance of
subscription agencies is thus subsidiary to that of primary institu-
tional subscribers, but because of the establishment of recognized
and successful means of dissemination and the relative ubiquity of
subscription agencies, they must be reckoned with by the concerned
journal.
Donors
As a peer-reviewed scholarly journal published by an independent
non-profit educational institution, JMM maintains a unique position
with respect to the importance of subscriptions. The costs associated
with producing the journal are subsidized in part by the charitable
donations of individuals and grants from philanthropic institutions.
As a result, the solvency of the journal has never been directly tied to
the income it generates, either through institutional or individual
subscriptions.
This is a particular and discrete instance of Odlyzko’s observation
that ‘the scholarly publishing business is full of inertia and perverse
economic incentives.’
55
It is, nevertheless, a primary purpose of the
journal to serve as a medium for the broad dissemination of its dis-
tinctive cross-disciplinary material. For donors, the broader interest
in sharing this material as efficiently and usefully as possible obvi-
ously leads to a better fit with some form of electronic publication.
This interest, however, is tempered by a powerful interest in seeing
some substantial return on the charitable investment. What Kling and
Covi write about scholars is even more applicable to many donors,
Scholarship at the Crossroads 161
who also may ‘feel that e-journals must be of lower intellectual quality
than p-journals, because they sense something insubstantial and po-
tentially transient – ghostly, superficial, unreal, and thus untrustwor-
thy – in electronic media.’
56
Thus, the concerns of donors may generally be described in two
ways: the dissemination of ideas and the tangibility and worth of their
investment. Their concern with respect to the spread of ideas is best
met by an electronic edition of the journal, while their concerns for
prestige and tangibility are best met by a print edition. While, ‘in the
late age of print, scholars in the humanities continue to regard print
forms as authoritative,’ this seems to be even more true of concerned
lay people.
57
Predictions of Future Trends
The situation, then, is this: Economic and functionality concerns are
pushing scholarly journals toward electronic media, while traditional
views of the prestige and importance of publication for the advance-
ment process act as a counterforce. The sole emphasis on the eco-
nomics of the library crisis leads many to conclude that print journals
will inevitably become obsolete. It is for this reason that Bolter writes,
Although print remains indispensable, it no longer seems indispensable: that
is its curious condition in the late age of print. Electronic technology provides
a range of new possibilities, whereas the possibilities of print seem to have
been played out.
58
Many have recognized the complex nature of the current state of
journal publishing, which represents the necessity of a mix of elec-
tronic and print formats. What C.J. Armstrong and R.E. Lonsdale write
with respect to the United Kingdom is more broadly applicable to the
entire academic world: ‘There is an inherent belief in the UK that the
printed monograph is destined to survive as a partner to its electronic
companion.’
59
The realistic prediction, then, in view of the forces at work in the
realm of journal publication, is that for the foreseeable future elec-
tronic journals will not replace print journals, but both will exist to-
gether in a complementary fashion, each addressing different
demands. Print journals have a firm superior position over electronic
162 Journal of Scholarly Publishing
journals with respect to the question of authoritativeness and respect.
This state of affairs leads Quandt to conclude, ‘It is extremely unlikely
that competition from upstart electronic journals will dislodge exist-
ing prestige journals from their dominant position in the near term.’
60
Tenopir and King concur, stating that
Scholarly journals are likely to be available for quite some time in a variety of
formats: exclusively print, exclusively electronic, and a combination of elec-
tronic and print. From both a cost and use stand point, that mixture makes
sense.
61
With this in mind, it seems clear that the ideal solution for a schol-
arly journal that wishes to meet the varied demands of its stakeholders
(with concerns comparable to those of the Journal of Markets & Mo-
rality) is to appear in both print and electronic formats. We can also
say that, just as any scholar who ignores the technological advances in
his or her field becomes, in the words of Bradley and Muller, ‘precriti-
cal,’ the same is true of a scholarly journal that overlooks new techno-
logical possibilities.
JORDAN J. BALLOR currently serves as associate editor for the Journal
of Markets & Morality. His duties include coordinating the journal’s
electronic edition, researching, writing, and providing editorial assist-
ance. He holds a Master of Theology (ThM) degree from Calvin Theo-
logical Seminary and will be pursuing doctoral studies in historical
theology beginning in the fall of 2005.
1 Andrew Odlyzko, ‘The Economics of Electronic Journals,’ The Journal
of Electronic Publishing 4, 1 (September 1998), available at http://
www.press.umich.edu/jep/04-01/odlyzko.html
2 James E. Bradley and Richard A. Muller, Church History: An Introduction
to Research, Reference Works, and Methods (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans
1995), 73
3 Ibid., 74
4 Ibid.
5 Ibid., 75
Scholarship at the Crossroads 163
6 Stephen E. Arnold, ‘The Scholarly Hothouse: Electronic STM Journals,’
Database (February/March 1999): 27–33, 32–3
7 J. David Bolter, Writing Space: Computers, Hypertext, and the Remedi-
ation of Print, 2nd ed. (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum 2001), 96. Google
has recognized the market for a comprehensive Internet-based academic
search engine by introducing Google Scholar, http://
scholar.google.com.
8 Arnold, ‘The Scholarly Hothouse,’ 32
9 Theological Research Exchange Network, http://www.tren.com/
10 The Hekman Digital Library, Research Databases: Dissertation Abstracts,
http://www.calvin.edu/cgi-bin/lib/dbinfo.pl?id=36
11 Early English Books Online (EEBO), http://www.eebo.chadwyck.com/
home
12 ATLA Religion Database, http://www.atla.com/products/catalogs/
catalogs_rdb.html
13 Genevieve Brown and Beverly J. Irby, ‘Initiating and Editing an Online
Professional Refereed Journal,’ The Journal of Electronic Publishing 8, 1
(August 2002), available at http://www.press.umich.edu/jep/08-01/
irby.html
14 Journal of Markets & Morality, http://www.marketsandmorality.com
15 Acton Institute for the Study of Religion & Liberty, ‘Join Us in Advancing
Freedom and Virtue,’ https://secure.lexi.net/acton/
16 Terry Ann Rohe, ‘How Does Electronic Publishing Affect the Scholarly
Communication Process?’ The Journal of Electronic Publishing 3,
3 (March 1998), available at http://www.press.umich.edu/jep/03-03/
rohe.html
17 Aldrin E. Sweeney, ‘Should You Publish in Electronic Journals?’ The
Journal of Electronic Publishing 6, 2 (December 2000), available at
http://www.press.umich.edu/jep/06-02/sweeney.html
18 Ibid.
19 Ibid.
20 Rohe, ‘How Does Electronic Publishing Affect the Scholarly Communica-
tion Process?’
21 Sweeney, ‘Should You Publish in Electronic Journals?’
22 Ibid.
23 Rutgers University, ‘Academic Reappointments/Promotions,’ http://
ruweb.rutgers.edu/oldqueens/FACpromotions.shtml
24 Bolter, Writing Space, 3
164 Journal of Scholarly Publishing
25 Richard E. Quandt, ‘Scholarly Materials: Paper or Digital?’ Library Trends
51, 3 (Winter 2003): 349–75, 361
26 Ibid.
27 Rob Kling and Lisa Covi, ‘Electronic Journals and Legitimate Media in
the Systems of Scholarly Communication,’ The Information Society 11,
4 (October–December 1995): 261–71; quoted in Sweeney, ‘Should You
Publish in Electronic Journals?’ This question of transience and insub-
stantiality is underscored by the current situation of The Journal of
Electronic Publishing. The journal is not currently active, and all that
keeps it from fading into oblivion is the diligence of the University of
Michigan Press in keeping the journal’s archives available online (pre-
sumably indefinitely).
28 Chris J. Armstrong and Ray E. Lonsdale, ‘Scholarly Monographs: Why
Would I Want to Publish Electronically?’ The Electronic Library 18, 1
(2000): 21–9, 27
29 Bolter, Writing Space, 111
30 Hal R. Varian, ‘The Future of Electronic Journals,’ The Journal of Elec-
tronic Publishing 4, 1 (September 1998), available at http://www.press
.umich.edu/jep/04-01/varian.html
31 For the relationship of SGML to HTML and XML, see Bill Kasdorf, ‘SGML
and PDF: Why We Need Both,’ The Journal of Electronic Publishing 3,
4 (June 1998), http://www.press.umich/edu/jep/03-04/kasdorf.html
32 Bradley and Muller, Church History, 74–5
33 Richard A. Muller, lecture, HSTH D98: Research Methodology, Fall 2003,
Calvin Theological Seminary, Grand Rapids, Mich.
34 Bradley and Muller, Church History, 75
35 Ibid.
36 Ibid.
37 Bolter, Writing Space, 93
38 Ibid., 95
39 Ibid., 93
40 Kevin Guthrie, ‘What Do Faculty Think of Electronic Resources?’ ALA
Participants Meeting (June 17, 2001), available at http://www.jstor.org/
about/faculty.survey.ppt
41 Varian, ‘The Future of Electronic Journals’
42 Odlyzko, ‘The Economics of Electronic Journals’
43 Ibid.
44 Carol Tenopir and Donald W. King, ‘Designing Electronic Journals with
30 Years of Lessons from Print,’ The Journal of Electronic Publishing 4,
Scholarship at the Crossroads 165
2 (December 1998), available at http://www.press.umich.edu/jep/04-02/
king.html
45 Ibid.
46 Ibid.
47 Judith Edwards, ‘Electronic Journals: Problem or Panacaea?’ Ariadne
10 (July 15, 1997), available at http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue10/
journals/
48 Varian, ‘The Future of Electronic Journals’
49 Ibid.
50 Tenopir and King, ‘Designing Electronic Journals with 30 Years of Les-
sons from Print’
51 Varian, ‘The Future of Electronic Journals’
52 EBSCO, ‘E-Resources,’ http://www.ebsco.com/home/ejournals/
default.asp
53 Ibid.
54 Ibid.
55 Odlyzko, ‘The Economics of Electronic Journals’
56 Kling and Covi, ‘Electronic Journals and Legitimate Media’
57 Bolter, Writing Space, 112
58 Ibid., 2
59 Armstrong and Lonsdale, ‘Scholarly Monographs,’ 22
60 Quandt, ‘Scholarly Materials,’ 371
61 Tenopir and King, ‘Designing Electronic Journals with 30 Years of Les-
sons from Print’
