This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/sep/16/knowledge-is-part-of-the-rip-off-economy
The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
Previous version
1
Next version
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Knowledge is part of the rip-off economy | Knowledge is part of the rip-off economy |
| (4 months later) | |
| Michael Mabe and Stephen Lotinga (Letters, 15 September) criticise George Monbiot’s timely critique of the dying racket that is modern academic publishing. Lotinga in particular makes much of the expertise of the hidden workforce in academic publishing. | Michael Mabe and Stephen Lotinga (Letters, 15 September) criticise George Monbiot’s timely critique of the dying racket that is modern academic publishing. Lotinga in particular makes much of the expertise of the hidden workforce in academic publishing. |
| A few years ago, I published an article in a reasonably well-known social science journal. After my article was accepted, I received an invoice for €2,300, plus VAT. This was the “processing fee” to cover the editorial and production costs on a short article. The invoice should have gone to my home institution, which would be expected to pay from a centrally disbursed fund to cover the costs of open-access publishing on an otherwise paywalled site. It came to me by mistake but was something of an eye-opener. The copy-editing was carried out at the equivalent of a call centre somewhere in south Asia, and was perfunctory and mechanical. I dread to think what proportion of my €2,300 went to the people who actually edited the text. | A few years ago, I published an article in a reasonably well-known social science journal. After my article was accepted, I received an invoice for €2,300, plus VAT. This was the “processing fee” to cover the editorial and production costs on a short article. The invoice should have gone to my home institution, which would be expected to pay from a centrally disbursed fund to cover the costs of open-access publishing on an otherwise paywalled site. It came to me by mistake but was something of an eye-opener. The copy-editing was carried out at the equivalent of a call centre somewhere in south Asia, and was perfunctory and mechanical. I dread to think what proportion of my €2,300 went to the people who actually edited the text. |
| Over the past 30 years, the publishers of academic journals have outsourced what used to be skilled tasks, initially to freelancers in Britain and the US, but increasingly to much cheaper sites in Asia. The quality of editing has collapsed in the process. The profits of the publishers have increased. It is hard to feel much sympathy for the defenders of such a cynically exploitative operation.Professor Jonathan SpencerRegius professor of south Asian language, culture and society, School of Social and Political Science, University of Edinburgh | Over the past 30 years, the publishers of academic journals have outsourced what used to be skilled tasks, initially to freelancers in Britain and the US, but increasingly to much cheaper sites in Asia. The quality of editing has collapsed in the process. The profits of the publishers have increased. It is hard to feel much sympathy for the defenders of such a cynically exploitative operation.Professor Jonathan SpencerRegius professor of south Asian language, culture and society, School of Social and Political Science, University of Edinburgh |
| • Facts are sacred, you say. But knowledge? That’s now part of the rip-off economy. It’s not just science. In humanities and social sciences, too, academics are forced to give their publicly funded research to be sold back at huge cost to them and huge profit to the publishers. In the 1820s and 1830s radicals campaigned against “taxes on knowledge”, imposed by the government on newspapers. Now in Manchester we put up statues to men like Abel Heywood, who was sent to prison for selling illegal newspapers. We need a campaign against today’s “taxes on knowledge”, imposed not by governments but by corporations. Margaret BeethamManchester | • Facts are sacred, you say. But knowledge? That’s now part of the rip-off economy. It’s not just science. In humanities and social sciences, too, academics are forced to give their publicly funded research to be sold back at huge cost to them and huge profit to the publishers. In the 1820s and 1830s radicals campaigned against “taxes on knowledge”, imposed by the government on newspapers. Now in Manchester we put up statues to men like Abel Heywood, who was sent to prison for selling illegal newspapers. We need a campaign against today’s “taxes on knowledge”, imposed not by governments but by corporations. Margaret BeethamManchester |
| • Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com | • Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com |
| • Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters | • Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters |
| • Do you have a photo you’d like to share with Guardian readers? Click here to upload it and we’ll publish the best submissions in the letters spread of our print edition | • Do you have a photo you’d like to share with Guardian readers? Click here to upload it and we’ll publish the best submissions in the letters spread of our print edition |
| Peer review and scientific publishing | Peer review and scientific publishing |
| Research | Research |
| Higher education | Higher education |
| letters | letters |
| Share on Facebook | Share on Facebook |
| Share on Twitter | Share on Twitter |
| Share via Email | Share via Email |
| Share on LinkedIn | Share on LinkedIn |
| Share on Pinterest | Share on Pinterest |
| Share on WhatsApp | Share on WhatsApp |
| Share on Messenger | Share on Messenger |
| Reuse this content | Reuse this content |
Previous version
1
Next version