The essay deals with central problems of scientific publications, especially in the field of digital databases, and deals with current legislative initiatives for the use of works in research and teaching.
De Dagelijkse Redactie/Le Comité de rédaction/The Editorial Committee
Open Access is great, but killing academic journals is not. Also on the internet, there is no such thing as a free lunch. Peer review, editing and keeping articles available online all cost money. And someone has to pay for that. Either through subscriptions or through article processing charges and through the hidden costs of thousands of library people and university technicians making sure that articles go and stay on line and are accessible with the latest browsers.
Over the years, peer review has developed into one of the fundaments of science as a means to provide feedback on scientific output in a relatively objective manner. While peer review is done with the common good in mind, specifically to provide a quality check, a novelty and relevance check, fraud detection and general manuscript improvement, it has its weaknesses and faces threats that undermine both its effectiveness and even its goals. Herein, I address the role of the various actors in the peer reviewing process, the authors, the editors, the reviewers and the broader society. While the first three actors are active participants in the process, the role of society is indirect as it sets the boundary conditions for the process. I will argue that although authors, editors and reviewers all are in part to blame for the sub-optimal functioning of the system, it is the broader society that intentionally and unintentionally causes many of these problems by enforcing a publish-or-perish culture in academia.
Ansprache zum 100-jährigen Jubiläum der Gründung der Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis
Jaap de Wilde
By looking at its intellectual history, this chapter addresses the problem that Balance of Power by most observers is treated one-sidedly in adversarial terms, whereas a balance of power-logic often requires cooperation. The Peace of Utrecht (1713) is an example where the balance can be better compared with an arch than with a pair of scales. Moreover, an adversarial Balance of Power has little to do with weighing power in imaginary scales: 1) there are no objective standards for measuring power, 2) means of power cannot predict outcomes of struggles; and 3) outcomes themselves are discursive tools rather than historic facts. Balance of Power has two specific political functions: the first is to structure an analysis of specific historic episodes; the second is to support specific political argumentations. Using the scales argument is likely to undermine the associational logic.
Paul Meerts and Peter Beeuwkes
After a short introduction this chapter describes the political context of the Peace of Utrecht. It then turns to the pre-negotiation processes, after which the chapter analyzes the processes of negotiation themselves as well as the behaviour of the diplomats representing the main stakeholders. It then compares the Utrecht negotiations to those at Nijmegen and Ryswick, thereby putting the Peace of Utrecht in the broader perspective of preceding peace negotiations on Dutch soil. After this the chapter poses the question: what is the profile of the effective negotiator in the past and the present? Are there differences in the behaviour of negotiators in the eighteenth century and today? It then concludes by briefly putting the Utrecht negotiations in the broader context of diplomatic negotiation as it evolved from the beginning of the 18th century till the beginning of the 21st.