No Journal is an Island: The John Donne Journal and the Possibilities of Open Access
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the possibilities for moving a print journal to Diamond Open Access electronic publication. It uses a case study of a mature academic publication, the John Donne Journal, to explore options for a transition that retains a print version of the journal—and thus its institutional and individual subscribers—while at the same time establishing a fully Open Access electronic version. Informed by a survey-based assessment of the interests and values of the membership of the John Donne Society (the journal's issuing body) and by a brief survey of the state of Open Access journal publication in Renaissance Studies, this paper then examines the means by which other journals have achieved electronic publication and the remaining options for sustainable (i.e. funded) Open Access journal publication. It ends by proposing an independent ('hipster') model for the John Donne Journal that leverages the print form as an asset and basis for approaching subscribing libraries to join the journal as continuing subscribers and partners in Open Access publication.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.063 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.048 | 0.036 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".