[GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] On Academic Freedom

[SANFORD G THATCHER]

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 <dak45 at 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/?p05>
https://unlockingresearch-blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p05 (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: dak45 at cam.ac.uk<mailto:dak45 at 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)