The research game (part 2)
Posted December 9, 2014on:
Yesterday I reflected on the moral dilemma of playing the research game because it benefits only a few stakeholders. Today I continue with the processes of publishing research.
Most academics review articles and serve on editorial boards because it looks great on their CVs. For a few, this also provides power to lord over others by rejecting papers in the name of “objective” reviews. The same might be said of committees that determine disbursement of funds for research.
But all that is child’s play when compared to the ruse of publishers.
With one hand they pull in reviewers of journal papers for free (it is a service academics provide for one another after all). With the other, the publishers collect money by charging top dollar to libraries, organizations, and individuals who want journal collections or specific papers.
What I have reflected on is not news. In 2002, Frey compared the publishing process to prostitution. PhD Comics had an amusing take on this in 2011.
The open movement is a disruptive process that threatens the membership and rules of the game of research as currently played.
Open practice champions like Martin Weller do great work in this respect. His recent blog entry on the benefits of being open is a must-read.
Influential bodies like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation are insisting that research data and publications be shared with the Creative Commons Attribution licence.
A few local universities and agencies have shared some materials openly, but they are an insignificant drop in the research bucket.
Not only is the rest of published research is not so freely shared, researchers are complicit by playing to the rules set by publishers, universities, and grant bodies.
If you are not an academic, you should be morally outraged. If you are, you should reflect critically on the state of the playing field.