Scripture & Theology

Last week the New York Times covered Harvard University’s proposal to publish free on the web. (The motion passed.) Robert Darnton, director of the university library, believes the decision represents “a first step toward freeing scholarship from the stranglehold of commercial publishers by making it freely available on our own university repository.”

Darnton’s editorial for The Harvard Crimson is morally charged: “commercial publishers” are seen as opportunist, the open access cause as for the benefit of “everyone who wants to learn, … [pointing] the way toward a digital commonwealth, in which ideas would flow freely in all directions.” And it is frankly difficult to accept that Harvard professors are “passive victims of the system.” Nonetheless, advocates of the open access movement make a strong case.

Intriguingly, in its own publishing universe, the New York Times has also struggled with open access questions. When I registered with NYTimes.com in college, all content was free. But after TimesSelect was introduced in 2005, I had to pay to view archived stores and op-ed pieces. Then, just last September, nearly everything was made free again.

Slate.com, an icon for the news media’s adaptation to the internet, pointed out in October 2007 that the trend toward free news is probably to a news firm’s advantage. Slate cited a study by economist Matthew Gentzkow, appropriately available for download, which suggests that free news is financially viable. The NYT evidently agrees: “we believe offering unfettered access to New York Times reporting and analysis best serves the interest of our readers, our brand and the long-term vitality of our journalism.”

All this puts me in mind of our new venture here at ScriptureTheology.net. What strikes me first is the disanalogy.

News is not the same as academic publication. Harvard is a big brand, and as with the NYT it would be surprising if going “open” was not felt to align with the university’s best interests. Yet the experiments of each body will be subject to different variables.

This fledgling S&T venture is different yet again. Indeed, it hardly bears comparison (stature notwithstanding): we do not aim to compete with news outlets or academic journals. If there is an analogy—better, a model to emulate—I think Slate comes pretty close. We aim to be something that has not quite existed before and that is conceivable now because of the internet.

Interest in theological exegesis is on the rise, at least if a spate of new publications on the subject is any indication. What is needed, we feel, is:

• a digest, a way of tracking and filtering new trends;
• a forum (even if we had a budget this effort would remain communal and international);
• deference to the logic of established institutions (editorial boards, universities, communions), which have vital functions;
• innovation in view of new possibilities.

Whether or not Harvard inaugurates a brave “digital commonwealth,” the internet has changed the publishing landscape fundamentally. We may not all be peers, but in terms of access we stand virtually on the same level.