Hi all, I'll discuss here two major issues discussed in this thread: the freedom (1) in the choice of journals in which to publish and (2) in the choice of a user licence when publishing.
I don't think it's very useful to discuss these issues on the basis of what exactly does - or don't - cover the notion of academic freedom. I concur here with Åkerlind & Kayrooz (2003; doi:10.1080/0729436032000145176, paywalled) that "there is substantial variation in views as to the meaning of academic freedom. [...] In public debate [...] this kind of variation in meanings and definitions can lead to debate at cross purposes". We should rather focus on the higher goals academic freedom is supposed to achieve, one of which being permitting, or helping academics "to undertake research to create new knowledge, freely disseminated to their students and the wider academic community" (Karran and Mallinson, 2017; http://eprints.lincoln.ac.uk/26811). I would add that academic freedom should ensure that these activities (research and its dissemination) be done in the interests of both the scientific community and the society. In other words, as we often hear about open science, "science done right". So, instead of trying to determine (or convince others) that a given policy is unacceptable because it is at odds with academic freedom, according to some non-consensual definition, I prefer to ask "Does this policy help or hinder the creation and dissemination of knew knowledge, in the interests of the scientific community and the public?". Now, as to the two issues mentioned above. Choice of journals. - A policy restricting the number of journals suitable for publication could, theoretically at least, bar some researchers altogether from publishing in journals, for instance if they have chosen unpopular subjects or methods that, though they are legitimate, few journals will consider. But I haven't heard of such a problem. What may occur, though, is that they couldn't publish in some journals - possibly well-rated ones (normally meaning a high impact factor). However, as you're certainly aware, there is an ongoing discussion about this so-called "prestige economy", which seems to many an impediment to "good science". What is at stake here seems more the interest of the researcher, who is subject to a flawed evaluation system. Invoking academic freedom as an argument that, in fact, helps maintaining this system doesn't seem appropriate to me. Choice of license. - More generally, it's about the way one deals with copyright when publishing. It's true that mandates and policies may force researchers to let go of the control over their works they have been getting back lately - remember that they have for a long time willingly, or without giving it a thought, abandoned this control to publishers. Again, one should consider how total control by researchers - who are most often employees of publicly funded institutions - of the use of works resulting mostly from publicly funded research fares with the interests of the scientific community and the public. What I prefer to discuss is not, for instance, how CC BY makes a researcher uncomfortable, but what are its pros and cons from a more general perspective. There are arguments from both perspectives in this thread, and I do think there are significant issues to clarify concerning the risks, from a collective perspective, associated to the use of CC BY licenses (personally, I think the advantages far exceed those risks, even for individual researchers). In brief, I understand very well why researchers don't like constraints, but using academic freedom as an argument to support individual decisions or, indirectly, whole systems that may conflict with collective interests can just devaluate this important concept. Marc Couture
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
