Repeating wrong answers makes them not right. We have discussed this several times and I cannot see the sense to do this once again.
I have made my point clear in 2012: https://jlsc-pub.org/articles/abstract/10.7710/2162-3309.1043/ Klaus Graf 2018-03-24 20:26 GMT+01:00 SANFORD G THATCHER <s...@psu.edu>: > So, Danny, let me ask if you are ok with funders requiring authors to > publish > under a CC BY license and waive all rights they otherwise would have to > have > input into how and where their writings get translated and how and where > their > works are republished (e.g., in edited form that distorts the author's > meaning > and associates the author with a cause, ideology, etc. that the author > finds > abhorrent)? > > Is these rights do not pertain to academic freedom, please explain why. > > The same might be asked of those universities that require immediate OA > posting > of dissertations, allowing no time for an author to revise it and find a > publisher for it. Various associations (in history, medieval studies, etc.) > have adopted recommended embargo periods to deal with this problem. You are > saying that those associations are wrong to be concerned about this > problem? > That this has nothing to do with academic freedom either? > > Sandy thatcher > > > > On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 04:07 AM Danny Kingsley <da...@cam.ac.uk> wrote: > > > >Hi all, > > > >Can we have a quick chat about Academic Freedom? I am frankly fed up with > this > being trotted out in multiple discussions in relation to open access. It is > akin to the PhD student who recently tearfully told me that the > University’s > requirement for her to provide a digital version of her thesis in addition > to > the hardbound one was a ‘breach of her human rights’. I feel the academic > freedom argument is moving into similar levels of hysteria. > >I wrote a blog recently that addresses this issue: Scare campaigns, we > have > seen a few<https://unlockingresearch-blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p 05> > https://unlockingresearch-blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p 05 (relevant bits below) > >Usually I hear ‘Academic Freedom’ thrown in in relation to being able to > choose where to publish. On the SCHOLCOMM and GOAL lists in the discussion > about Willinsky’s copyright proposal, academic freedom has been thrown into > the mix again. Given, there is potentially some validity in the statement > that: > “Policies that impact academics that are not developed and supported by > academics are not consistent with academic freedom.” But copyright > ownership > (other than the moral right to be identified as an author of a work), and > the > place of publication are NOT enshrined in academic freedom. > > > >Academic Freedom is not being threatened by copyright licensing > requirements. > This is a stupid side issue. We are fiddling while Rome burns. The real > threat > to academic freedom is the systematic undermining of expertise and > academia. As > the UK justice secretary recently said - “People in this country have had > enough of experts” > https://www.ft.com/content/3be49734-29cb-11e6-83e4-abc22d5d108c Let’s not > even begin to talk about what is happening in the land of stripes and > stars. > > > >Let’s keep focus on the issues that matter. > > > >Danny > > > >***************************************** > >The new scare – threats to ‘Academic Freedom’ > > > >The term ‘Academic Freedom’ comes up a fair bit in discussions about open > access. In his tweet sent during the Researcher to Reader conference*, > one of > my Advisory Board colleagues Rick Anderson tweeted this > comment<https://twitter.com/Looptopper/status/968463945190313984>: > > > >“Most startling thing said to me in conversation at the #R2RConf: > >“I wonder how much longer academic freedom will be tolerated in IHEs.” > (Specific context: authors being allowed to choose where they publish.) > > > >In this blog I’d like to pick up on the ‘Academic Freedom’ part of the > comment (which is not Rick’s, he was quoting). > > > >Academic Freedom, according to a summary in the Times Higher > Education<https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2010/ > 12/21/defining-academic-freedom> is primarily that “Academic freedom > means that both faculty members and students can engage in intellectual > debate without fear of censorship or retaliation”. > > > >This definition was based on the American Association of University > Professors’ (AAUP) Statement on Academic Freedom<https://www.aaup.org/ > report/1940-statement-principles-academic-freedom-and-tenure> which > includes, quite specifically, “full freedom in research and in the > publication of results”. > > > >Personally I read that as meaning academics should be allowed to publish, > not that they have full freedom in choosing where. > > > >Rick has since contacted the AAUP<https://scholarlykitchen. > sspnet.org/2018/03/05/open-letter-aaup-faculty-authors- > full-freedom-publication/> to ask for clarification on this topic. Last > Friday, he tweeted that the AAUP has declined to revisit the 1940 statement > to clarify the ‘freedom in publication’ statement in light of evolution of > scholarly communication since 1940. > > > >The reason why the Academic Freedom/ ‘restricting choice of publication’ > threat(s) is so concerning to the research community has changed over time. > In the past it was essential to be able to publish in specific outlets > because colleagues would only read certain publications. Those publications > were effectively the academic ‘voice’. However today, with online > publication and search engines this argument no longer holds. > > > >What does matter however is the publication in certain journals is > necessary because of the way people are valued and rewarded. The problem is > not open access, the problem is the reward system to which we are beholden. > And the commercial publishing industry is fully aware of this. > > > >So let’s be clear. Academic Freedom is about freedom of expression rather > than freedom of publication outlet and ties into Robert Merton’s 1942 norms > of science <http://www.collier.sts.vt.edu/5424/pdfs/merton_1973.pdf> > which are: > >§ “communalism”: all scientists should have common ownership of > scientific goods (intellectual property), to promote collective > collaboration; secrecy is the opposite of this norm. > >§ universalism: scientific validity is independent of the sociopolitical > status/personal attributes of its participants > >§ disinterestedness: scientific institutions act for the benefit of a > common scientific enterprise, rather than for the personal gain of > individuals within them > >§ organized scepticism: scientific claims should be exposed to critical > scrutiny before being accepted: both in methodology and institutional codes > of conduct. > > > >If a publisher is preventing a researcher from publishing in a journal > based on their funding or institutional policy rather than the content of > the work being submitted then this is entirely in contravention of all of > Robert Merton’s norms of science. But the publisher is not, as it happens, > threatening the Academic Freedom of that author. > > > > > > > > > >Dr Danny Kingsley > >Deputy Director - Scholarly Communication & Research Services > >Head, Office of Scholarly Communication > >Cambridge University Library > >West Road, CB3 9DR > >e: da...@cam.ac.uk<mailto:da...@cam.ac.uk> > >p: 01223 747 437 > >m: 07711 500 564 > >t: @dannykay68 > >w: www.osc.cam.ac.uk<http://www.osc.cam.ac.uk/> > >b: https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk > >o: orcid.org/0000-0002-3636-5939 > > > >[/Users/dak45/Library/Containers/com.microsoft. > Outlook/Data/Library/Caches/Signatures/signature_404167699] > > > Sanford G. Thatcher > Frisco, TX 75034 > https://scholarsphere.psu.edu > > "If a book is worth reading, it is worth buying."-John Ruskin (1865) > > "The reason why so few good books are written is that so few people > who can write know anything."-Walter Bagehot (1853) > > "Logic, n. The art of thinking and reasoning in strict accordance > with the limitations and incapacities of the human > misunderstanding."-Ambrose Bierce (1906) > >
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
