I cannot speak for Danny but this seems to confuse intellectual freedom, which the term "academic freedom" usually means, with freedom from regulation. Academics are governed by a great many rules, each of which may restrict their freedom in some way. None of this necessarily has anything to do with academic freedom.
So I would say that things like contract requirements have nothing to do with academic freedom, unless they specify what cannot be said. Copyright does not do this. David David Wojick http://insidepublicaccess.com/ At 03:26 PM 3/24/2018, SANFORD G THATCHER wrote: >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 Universityâs >requirement for her to provide a digital version of her thesis in addition to >the hardbound one was a âbreach of her human rightsâ. 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/?p05> >https://unlockingresearch-blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p05 (relevant bits below) > >Usually I hear âAcademic Freedomâ thrown in in relation to being able to >choose where to publish. On the SCHOLCOMM and GOAL lists in the discussion >about Willinskyâs copyright proposal, academic freedom has been thrown into >the mix again. Given, there is potentially some validity in the statement >that: >âPolicies that impact academics that are not developed and supported by >academics are not consistent with academic freedom.â 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 - âPeople in this country have had >enough of expertsâ >https://www.ft.com/content/3be49734-29cb-11e6-83e4-abc22d5d108c Letâs not >even begin to talk about what is happening in the land of stripes and stars. > > > >Letâs keep focus on the issues that matter. > > > >Danny > > > >***************************************** > >The new scare threats to âAcademic Freedomâ > > > >The term âAcademic Freedomâ 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>: > > > >âMost startling thing said to me in conversation at the #R2RConf: > >âI wonder how much longer academic freedom will be tolerated in IHEs.â >(Specific context: authors being allowed to choose where they publish.) > > > >In this blog Iâd like to pick up on the âAcademic Freedomâ part of the >comment (which is not Rickâs, 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 âAcademic freedom means that both faculty members and >students can engage in intellectual debate without fear of censorship or >retaliationâ. > > > >This definition was based on the American Association of University > Professorsâ (AAUP) Statement on Academic > Freedom<https://www.aaup.org/report/1940-statement-principles-academic-freedom-and-tenure> > > which includes, quite specifically, âfull freedom in research and in > the publication of resultsâ. > > > >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 âfreedom > in publicationâ statement in light of evolution of scholarly > communication since 1940. > > > >The reason why the Academic Freedom/ ârestricting choice of > publicationâ 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 âvoiceâ. 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 letâs be clear. Academic Freedom is about freedom of expression > rather than freedom of publication outlet and ties into Robert Mertonâs > 1942 norms of science > <http://www.collier.sts.vt.edu/5424/pdfs/merton_1973.pdf> which are: > >§ âcommunalismâ: 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 Mertonâs 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/Cache > s/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
