Making Knowledge Free Can Cost You Your Freedom – Bloomberg

“Seven years ago, a Kazakhstani graduate student named Alexandra Elbakyan started a website with a seemingly innocuous goal: Make most of the world’s research freely available to anyone with internet access. It’s a sad reflection on the state of scientific publishing that she is now a fugitive hiding in Russia. Most people agree that if the public funds scientific research, it should also have free access to the results. …The publishers have responded with legal action. Last year, Elsevier won $15 million in damages for copyright infringement. More recently, a Virginia court awarded the American Chemical Society $4.8 million and ordered internet search engines, web hosting sites and service providers to stop facilitating Sci-Hub activities….”

Open Access and the Theological Imagination | Talea Anderson, David Squires | Digital Humanities Quarterly

“Abstract:  The past twenty years have witnessed a mounting crisis in academic publishing. Companies such as Reed-Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, and Taylor and Francis have earned unprecedented profits by controlling more and more scholarly output while increasing subscription rates to academic journals. Thus publishers have consolidated their influence despite widespread hopes that digital platforms would disperse control over knowledge production. Open access initiatives dating back to the mid-1990s evidence a religious zeal for overcoming corporate interests in academic publishing, with key advocates branding their efforts as archivangelism. Little attention has been given to the legacy or implications of religious rhetoric in open access debates despite its increasing pitch in recent years. This essay shows how the Protestant imaginary reconciles–rather than opposes–open access initiatives with market economics by tracing the rhetoric of openness to free-market liberalism. Working against the tendency to accept the Reformation as an analogy for the relationship between knowledge production, publishers, and academics, we read Protestantism as a counterproductive element of the archivangelist inheritance.”

The PACE PLOS One data will not be released and the article won’t be retracted – Mind the Brain

“Two years have passed since I requested release of the PLOS One PACE data, eight months since the Expression of Concern was posted. What can we expect?…

The PLOS One Senior Editors completed the pre-specified process of deciding what to do about the data not being shared.  They took no action. …

International trends will continue toward making uploading data into publicly accessible repositories a requirement for publication. PLOS One has slowed down by buying into discredited arguments about patient consent forms not allowing sharing of anonymized data….”

Capitalism and Open Science ? Epeak World News

“I see a lot of confusion about the interaction between capitalism, neoliberalism and open science in public discussion right now. This article is a response to Stuart Lawson’s Against capital and a continuation of the arguments I found in Eric Kansa’s article It’s the Neoliberalism, Stupid: Why instrumentalist arguments for Open Access, Open Data, and Open Science are not enough.”

Capitalism and Open Science ? Epeak World News

“I see a lot of confusion about the interaction between capitalism, neoliberalism and open science in public discussion right now. This article is a response to Stuart Lawson’s Against capital and a continuation of the arguments I found in Eric Kansa’s article It’s the Neoliberalism, Stupid: Why instrumentalist arguments for Open Access, Open Data, and Open Science are not enough.”

A Question of Social Justice: How Policies of Profit Negate Engagement of Developing World Bioethicists and Undermine Global Bioethics: The American Journal of Bioethics: Vol 17, No 10

Abstract:  We identify the ways the policies of leading international bioethics journals limit the participation of researchers working in the resource-constrained settings of low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) in the development of the field of bioethics. Lack of access to essential scholarly resources makes it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for many LMIC bioethicists to learn from, meaningfully engage in, and further contribute to the global bioethics discourse. Underrepresentation of LMIC perspectives in leading journals sustains the hegemony of Western bioethics, limits the presentation of diverse moral visions of life, health, and medicine, and undermines aspirations to create a truly “global” bioethics. Limited attention to this problem indicates a lack of empathy and moral imagination on the part of bioethicists in high-income countries, raises questions about the ethics of bioethics, and highlights the urgent need to find ways to remedy this social injustice.

A Call for Open Access and Empathy Is Not Enough: Hands on Are Needed!: The American Journal of Bioethics: Vol 17, No 10

Abstract:  Chattopadhyay and colleagues (2017) call for inclusive access to bioethics journals and global participation in the bioethics discourse. They argue that the understanding of global bioethics may be misleading. If only people from one (small) part of the world publish in bioethics journals, global bioethics is not representative. We absolutely support their call to develop the field of bioethics by reducing journal payment-barriers and emphasizing empirical ethics, analysis, and theoretical perspectives from low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). But, based on our experiences from research, teaching, and capacity building in bioethics in Ethiopia, we find that access alone has less impact when not reinforced by close collaborations between high- and low-income colleagues and essential capacity building in bioethics among students, clinicians, and academic staff in the LMIC.

Open Access, Books, and the Tricky Transition | School of Advanced Study

“The Third Research Excellence Framework, scheduled for the mid-2020s, now has a mandate for open access books. Despite calls from the digitally enlightened, however, most humanities long-form writing remains very much ensconced within the traditions and economics (both symbolic and financial) of the printed book. In this talk, I will discuss the challenges of a migration from conventional books to an open access model and the range of approaches that are currently being taken.

In the age of data mining, distant reading, and cultural analytics, scholars increasingly rely upon automated, algorithm-based procedures in order to parse the exponentially growing databases of digitized textual and visual resources. While these new trends are dramatically shifting the scale of our objects of study, from one book to millions of books, from one painting to millions of images, the most traditional output of humanistic scholarship—the single author monograph—has maintained its institutional pre-eminence in the academic world, while showing the limitations of its printed format. Recent initiatives, such as the AHRC-funded Academic Book of the Future in the UK and the Andrew W. Mellon-funded digital publishing initiative in the USA, have answered the need to envision new forms of scholarly publication on the digital platform, and in particular the need to design and produce a digital equivalent to, or substitute for, the printed monograph. Libraries, academic presses and a number of scholars across a variety of disciplines are participating in this endeavour, debating key questions in the process, such as: What is an academic book?  Who are its readers? What can technology do to help make academic books more accessible and sharable without compromising their integrity and durability? Yet, a more fundamental question remains to be answered, as our own idea of what a ‘book’ is (or was) and does (or did) evolves: how can a digital, ‘single-author’ monograph effectively draw from the growing field of digital culture, without losing those characteristics that made it perhaps the most stable form of humanistic culture since the Gutenberg revolution? Our speakers will debate some of these questions and provide their points of view on some of the specific issues involved. After their short presentations, all participants are invited to bring their own ideas about, and experience with, digital publishing to the table.”

Finding a third way to open access | Research Information

Entrenched viewpoints on both sides of the open access debate risk leaving authors stuck in no man’s land, argues Rob Johnson….In politics, the ‘third way’ emerged as a synthesis of right-wing economics and left-wing social policies. Perhaps it’s time for us to embrace a ‘third way to OA’ – enabling us to harness the dynamism of commercial players in the interests of opening up research findings to the world.