As a class, we’ve discussed publishing quite a bit in relation to other topics such as Crowds, Public Humanities, and Social Media to name a few. The common theme that is brought up is open access publishing. With the internet comes a new way to make text available. Augusta Rohrback refers to this as “post-authorism”. As Rohrback mentions, it changes “how we read and think about authors”.

The norms of publishing change with the technology – there is an ease of access, ease of means, and an ease of availability. The digital age does make it easier to get work published, as there are many different platforms available, at no charge, to publish work, such as Wattpad or even a website generator like Wordpress. There is much more text available to analyze now in terms of literature, but this causes conflicts as in the past only “good” works were considered for publication, whereas now, anything can be published. This, to me, makes the canon irrelevant for our time period and moving forward. That being said, it does offer more possibilities to analyze text and draw conclusions as there are more available to be analyzed and it offers a means to also delve into societal and cultural issues. However, it is not as easy to publish scholarship online. There are many things to consider including costs for the platform, the DOI numbers, and the CLOCKSS archival services. Then, one must gather a group of people to be editors, peer reviews, and so on.

However, there is now an availability that was not there before. Anyone from any background can now access what was previously inaccessible unless they were scholars. I think this is especially important when it comes to discussing history, which is often one sided and fails to address the point of view of the minorities. People of different racial, cultural, and social backgrounds will have different interpretations of events; therefore, it’s important for them to have a platform where they can share their version of history.

I do support open access publishing especially when there are benefits. One benefit of publishing online, especially textbooks is that 1) education should be free and 2) it benefits low income students who are not always able to afford the learning material required for class.

One issue that is discussed in terms of publishing is open peer review. In the article “Planned Obsolescence”, Kathleen Fitzpatrick discusses “conduct[ing ]peer review in the open”. To generate more conversations, she allowed specialists in the field and the general publish to comment on scholarship. I do agree with the act of doing peer review in the open, however, I am still wary about letting anyone provide feedback and comments. While it can be useful in order to identify areas where explanations may be confusing or underdeveloped, there is also the issue of authority. Experts in the field and not just anyone off the internet usually perform peer review. Therefore, how can the author trust the comments on their work when it may not be specialists who are involved?

I think it is important to also note that when discussing publishing we should not confine ourselves to academic/scholarship writing and non-academic writing, as the internet has offered a platform for artists to publish their work as well. For example, the website DeviantArt is a medium for artists to display their art.