Main menu:

History of RPE Thought

Posts by Tag

RSS New from the CCPA

  • 2019 Federal Budget Analysis February 27, 2019
    Watch this space for response and analysis of the federal budget from CCPA staff and our Alternative Federal Budget partners. More information will be added as it is available. Commentary and Analysis  Aim high, spend low: Federal budget 2019 by David MacDonald (CCPA) Budget 2019 fiddles while climate crisis looms by Hadrian Mertins-Kirkwood (CCPA) Organizational Responses Canadian Centre for Policy […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • Boots Riley in Winnipeg May 11 February 22, 2019
    Founder of the political Hip-Hop group The Coup, Boots Riley is a musician, rapper, writer and activist, whose feature film directorial and screenwriting debut — 2018’s celebrated Sorry to Bother You — received the award for Best First Feature at the 2019 Independent Spirit Awards (amongst several other accolades and recognitions). "[A] reflection of the […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • CCPA-BC welcomes Emira Mears as new Associate Director February 11, 2019
    This week the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives – BC Office is pleased to welcome Emira Mears to our staff team as our newly appointed Associate Director. Emira is an accomplished communications professional, digital strategist and entrepreneur. Through her former company Raised Eyebrow, she has had the opportunity to work with many organizations in the […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • Study explores media coverage of pipeline controversies December 14, 2018
    Supporters of fossil fuel infrastructure projects position themselves as friends of working people, framing climate action as antithetical to the more immediately pressing need to protect oil and gas workers’ livelihoods. And as the latest report from the CCPA-BC and Corporate Mapping Project confirms, this framing has become dominant across the media landscape. Focusing on pipeline […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • Study highlights ‘uncomfortable truth’ about racism in the job market December 12, 2018
    "Racialized workers in Ontario are significantly more likely to be concentrated in low-wage jobs and face persistent unemployment and earnings gaps compared to white employees — pointing to the “uncomfortable truth” about racism in the job market, according to a new study." Read the Toronto Star's coverage of our updated colour-coded labour market report, released […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
Progressive Bloggers

Meta

Recent Blog Posts

Posts by Author

Recent Blog Comments

The Progressive Economics Forum

Copyright on Campus

A recent article by George Monbiot in The Guardian takes a critical look at academic publishers, apparently with a focus on the United Kingdom. The article makes the following points:

-Journals now eat up 65 percent of university library budgets.

-“[A]cademic publishers get their articles, their peer reviewing (vetting by other researchers) and even much of their editing for free.” 

-The research published by academic publishers is largely funded by publicly-funded research grants.

-Elsevier, Springer and Wiley currently publish 42 percent of all journal articles. In the most recent financial year, Elsevier’s operating profit margin was 36 percent.

The article suggests that the money paid to academic publishers represents a “tax on education,” and that academic publishers add “little value to the publishing process.”

The piece also features the following provocative excerpt:

“In the short term, governments should refer the academic publishers to their competition watchdogs, and insist that all papers arising from publicly funded research are placed in a free public database. In the longer term, they should work with researchers to cut out the middleman altogether, creating – along the lines proposed by Björn Brembs of Berlin’s Freie Universität – a single global archive of academic literature and data. Peer-review would be overseen by an independent body. It could be funded by the library budgets which are currently being diverted into the hands of privateers.”

The article appears amid campaigns for copyright reform by both the Canadian Association of University Teachers and the Canadian Federation of Students. Both organizations advocate in favour of more open access.

Enjoy and share:

Comments

Comment from Purple Library Guy
Time: September 2, 2011, 12:16 am

I work at a university library, and I absolutely agree that the journal publishers are basically a racket. They don’t do much and they charge an arm and a leg. For the most part, you’re not even paying for a paper copy any more, it’s all online. Anyone can host a database, don’t see what we need these profiteers for. They should be run out of business and a more direct publicly funded model substituted, cutting out the middleman.

I’d tend to disagree with the very centralized approach the article suggests to deal with the issue, though. I’d rather see a more distributed solution, with little databases all over, open and readily mirrored, and many different peer-reviewing groups, perhaps sharing certain kinds of infrastructure such as software, which would be open source. I don’t like the idea of a single universal peer-reviewing gatekeeper.

Comment from Denise Freedman
Time: September 3, 2011, 6:25 pm

I understand the necessity of academic journals, often find articles interesting and stimulating, accept that, in the not too distant future, I will have to seek publications (as I have already presented a paper at one of the “Learneds;”) but I also begin to understand how they not only have usurped the place of general interest publications, but also have sapped the critical and even revolutionary spirit of many disciplines, particularly sociology, social work, and the social “sciences” in general.

Russell Jacobly argues in The Last Intellectuals how the demise of general interest publications, especially newspapers, and what seems to me embarrassment of sociologists at their roles at the University of California, Berkeley in the 60’s and even the University of Toronto in the late 60’s and early 70’s, along with the rise of mathematical modelling (aping the physical sciences) and the journals that require such work, has absorbed what might have been the generation of intellectuals after that of Galbraith, Jacobs, and many others.

Ben Agger in The Discourse of Dominance discusses this in particular relation to the field of sociology, which includes my own profession of social work.

Jacoby, in The Repression of Psychoanalysis, discusses the erasure of psychoanalysis as a political and social theory, along with the disappearance of lay analysts, as it became a professional and clinical field dominated by doctors–what I am beginning to understand as practitioners of allopathic medicine (as Pat and Hugh Armstrong describe it in Wasting Away)–also a model for the fall of social work as a radical practice.

What possible relation does this have to the need for ‘open source’ “academic” journals?

None, if one does not, or cannot see the totality, the excruciating closeness of liberation, and the forces, throughout the 20th century, and on into the 21st, that have blinded us to its possibility and almost eliminated the conditions for the possibility for it.

The disappearance of the public intellectual marks an inverse path to the rise of academia, and the quintessential academic journal, and the mathematical-speak that is its vernacular: the absorption of all those who were on the barricades in the 60’s and who will never be on the barricades in the 10’s.

Are there any to follow them?

Write a comment





Related articles