TAJA to be published by Wiley-Blackwell
Readers might be interested to hear that The Australian Journal of Anthropology (TAJA), the journal of the Australian Anthropological Association, is soon to be published by Wiley-Blackwell. The general tone of the article of was very positive about this change. For example:
“We are excited about partnering with a publisher of such international repute, and are confident that Wiley-Blackwell’s publishing expertise will raise the journal’s international profile and increase its citations,” said Professor Gillian Cowlishaw, President of the Australian Anthropological Society. Dr. Rozanna Lilley, editor-in-chief for the journal added, “Wiley-Blackwell’s success in publishing other flagship anthropological journals is impressive. We are confident that their strength and growing capability in the area of anthropological publications will be of great benefit to our journal and we look forward to a dynamic and productive relationship”.
This new partnership reinforces Wiley-Blackwell’s already prominent position as the ‘place to be’ for the social sciences. Publisher of over 450 journals with renowned society partners – including the American Anthropological Association and the Royal Anthropological Institute -Wiley-Blackwell continues to provide the scholarly community with access to the highest-quality content available.
In brief chats around the department here I get the sense that this will be, on the whole, a good thing for the journal, especially in terms of improving the profile of what is a high quality but not well-circulated publication. The increased exposure should be beneficial both for TAJA itself and the visibility of Australian anthropology as a whole.
I know that there has been some debate in the US about similar changes to the publication of prominent anthropology journals there as part of the whole Open Access discussion. Given that TAJA has never been ‘open access’ as such, this is probably less of an issue in this case, but I wonder what people who are more familiar with the open access issue have to say. One thing that occurs to me is that publishers seem to be introducing some highly restrictive measures to control the reproduction of electronic articles. For example, just today Lisa Wynn brought to my attention the fact that Sage seems to limit the ability to copy and save the pdf versions of its articles. It is possible to download the articles if you have the appropriate access but it is not possible to save the file to send to others. Neat trick. I wonder if similar restrictions will be enforced by Wiley-Blackwell. I also wonder what people think about these attempts to manage access to scholarly work.