Facebook Google Menu Linkedin lock Pinterest Search Twitter

Advertisement

Media

May 3, 2012

The other media story that dwarfs the News fiasco

Quietly this week, while the UK was in uproar about the activities of the last big media company in a dying industry, something of far greater import happened in the world of media and information.

Share

Quietly this week, while the UK was in uproar about the activities of the last big media company in a dying industry, something of far greater import happened in the world of media and information. The UK government announced that it would be making all research papers generated within its public universities available openly, online, for free.

Currently, the hundreds of thousands of research papers thus generated are sequestered in thousands of privately produced journals, whose subscriptions — for university and public libraries — are exorbitant, often running into tens of thousands of dollars. Access to individual papers — often small notes, on piddling experimental findings — can run from 20 to 40 dollars a pop.

Often run by sleazy ex- or current academics, the commercialisation of academic research has been one of the most crooked rackets of the information era, with the public footing the bill, and the private sector reaping the profits. Indeed, in recent years the prices became so exorbitant that smaller universities had to make deep cuts in the number of journals they subscribed to, thus actually reversing the degree of access that academics had to research and interpretation.

How this bizarre state of affairs came about is a case study in information-era capitalism. Academic journals were once upon a time produced by universities, at minimal cost, and circulated haphazardly, depending upon the scope and prestige of the institution concerned. Material in journals from Oxbridge and other prominent institutions were noticed immediately, those in minor journals could be bypassed or rediscovered several times, delaying progress by decades. For example, John Cade, the Australian psychiatrist, discovered and published — in Melbourne — on the role of lithium salts as a potential treatment for manic depression in the late 1940s. But it was another decade or more before other researchers elsewhere found the work, replicated it, and made it into a standard treatment.

In the 1970s and ’80s, several companies — Sage, Carfax, etc — sprang up to bundle journals together, and improve their global circulation, a good thing. Pretty soon, most of the smaller companies were bought up by larger publishing groups — which also began to bud off ever-smaller and more specialised journals they could sell to libraries. In an era when any notion of qualitative assessment of academic output was swamped by quantitative measurement of articles published in journals such as Review of Siberian Dendrochronology, or Time, Space, Disability, S-xuality — publications whose contributors often outnumbered their readers. Libraries bought ’em, no one read ’em, the academics got their career points and everyone was happy.

Then came the online revolution, and the whole circulation problem — which had created the research cartels — was solved in a trice. Academics would write the articles whose creation was part of the duties that gained them their salary, and universities would put up their research online for all to see, right? Uh, not so much. Big Academic Publishing (BAP hereafter) not only kept its hold on academic production, but also expanded it by the method that had become familiar to us in the online era — pricing that has no relationship to cost. It was in the online period, when the circulation cost of academic papers began to approach zero, that the prices started to go through the roof.

BAP came down like a ton of bricks on anyone who attempted to multiply distribute copies of “its” material, relying on that mind-stopping oxymoron of our era “intellectual property” — the idea that infinitely reproducible information was ownable in the same way as material property, such as a hammer or land. Tame think tank amphibia were happy to endlessly repeat the notion that the private market was the most rapid and efficient distributor of production known to humanity.

Trouble was, that position was obviously bollocks to anyone engaged in the actual activity — research, interpretation, thought — that BAP was enclosing and commodifying. Both humanists and scientists know that their discoveries and insights are made by a process that is essentially communistic — the free exchange of ideas, criticism and findings whether by seminar, in the lab, idle chat, email exchanges or formal papers. Intellectual work makes visible the essential absurdity of intellectual “property” — for any notion of propriety slows the process of collective creation.

Of course, in areas where huge profits are to be made, the temptation to academics to join the IP gold rush proves irresistible — but most scientists, etc, are working on the pigmentation of bile, the genitals of lizards or Alain Badiou, and opportunities for a payday are few and far between. Increasingly, as privacy walls have enclosed their research, they have started to resist, first formally and then more systematically, sharing their work outside the privatised journals. Guerilla groups of young academics have been using their access privileges to upload metered academic material en masse, thus making a mockery of the charging process.

Thus the UK government’s move was not without genuine intent, but it was also a response to a groundswell of movement from the people themselves — and part of a wider movement, in software, in design, in much more, which recognises that the information realm is inherently post-capitalist. Whatever need there is for forms of licensing, royalties, etc, are provisional arrangements, not the expression — as is the case with property — of a deep structure of the thing itself (i.e. with property, non-iterability — if I have the hammer, it means you don’t, etc).

In every area of our lives, from science to pharmaceuticals to culture, we would benefit from a major realignment of ownership, open sourcing and free exchange, with the bias towards the latter two. That doesn’t mean there can or should be open-slather — creators have to retain some sort of moral rights to control the form and use of what they create, payment for the labour of creation has to be factored in through charges, licenses, royalties, etc. But in the case of this academic work, payment had already been made — it was that freebie that proved so irresistible to BAP.

The UK government’s decision is one small victory; but it is up to the people who work in these fields, the doctors, scientists and academics, to en masse make the enclosure and sequestration of genuinely free thought — which is only free when it occurs outside the “free” market — impossible to enforce.

Advertisement

We recommend

From around the web

Powered by Taboola

23 comments

Leave a comment

23 thoughts on “The other media story that dwarfs the News fiasco

  1. Alex

    A very good, good news story! Thank you!

  2. robinw

    Very interesting and the wider ramifications re ‘intellectual property’ are such that they will take decades to be sorted out. However, there is no doubt that ownership will be rewritten over the coming years, especially in such areas as this, software and the arts to name just another couple because of the net.

  3. James K

    Yes! This is a good move. Thanks for the update and the good news.

  4. Tom McLoughlin

    I noticed this story elsewhere too.

    I like this perspective stepping back from the day to day cut and thrust.

    I am interested in a similar alternate view regarding the Power Index series here on Crikey relating to the those with day to day power of life and death …. at least arguably ….

    – who ensures sewage is taken away so we don’t die of cholera.
    – who ensures clean water arrives in the pipe
    – who runs domestic and industrial waste removal from living areas
    – who provides fresh food
    – who organises traffic lights – at least in metro NSW
    – who ensures medical assistance of widespread life saving nature e.g. antibiotics, setting broken bones, removal of rotten teeth avoiding septacaemia etc
    – who ensures clean air to breathe
    – who supervises the legal social contract day to day to avoid social ills of violence and cheating
    – and yes who provides news of the wider world so we have a sense of the world and our place in it day to day

    I doubt any of these people are famous or rich but in terms of power they mean alot to the average citizen. It appears axiomatic they will always provide their service and seem to be ignored accordingly.

  5. Roger Scott

    “Groundswells” only start with an individual prepared to step out of line and risk a challenge to the establishment. The Guardian and Observer coverage correctly pin-pointed the originator of the swell as Timothy Gowers, professor of mathematics at Cambridge and Fields Medallist (=Nobel Prize). A very rare example of someone prepared to use the privilege of rank and status to advance the interests of all academics and the wider society.

  6. Glenn Brandham

    Thanks for that…good news is so hard to find.

  7. Gavin Moodie

    Open access is supported in Australia by the National Health and Medical Research Council which expects publications of research funded by the council to be put on an open repository within 12 months of publication. The retiring chair of the Australian Research Council has not supported open access, it seems from her public comments because she doesn’t understand it well.

    Queensland University of Technology supported open access early and strongly, and its digital repository (QUT ePrints) is good. About a third of Australian universities are like QUT in having reasonably advanced digital repositories, about a third have a repository but don’t support it very well, and a third seem disinterested, altho not antagonistic.

    CSIRO has an active publications unit which produces reports in an attractive and accessible form, but I couldn’t find its digital repository.

  8. mattsui

    Perhaps researchers could be given their own internet domain instead ( .sci .res or something sililar).
    Then all could publish freely or even put up a nominal paywall system to cover costs.
    When my paper is approved, I simply publish my results through this portal and invite peer review and scrutiny from any and all. A good catalogue/seacrh engine could even make it interesting for lay people and younger students to visit.

  9. Gavin Moodie

    @ mattsui

    That is indeed happening, altho not quite as you write.

    There are now several journals or web sites which are reasonably well regarded and are open to the public. The Social Science Research Network is mostly for economics, PLoS publishes 7 open access journals in the health and biological sciences, and the UK’s Wellcome Trust, Germany’s Max Planck Society and the the US’ Howard Hughes Medical Institute will soon publish eLife, an open access journal in the life sciences.

    Some open access journals invite authors to post their papers, readers to post their critiques and then authors to post their revised papers.

  10. Guy Rundle

    groundswells dont start with a single individual – tho individuals may play crucial roles in getting them to the next level. they start with many people coming to the same conclusion – that current arrangements are unjust or unworkable. open academia is part of the wider open source movement which has been going on for decades.

    gavin is correct to point out the various groups currently offering open source – the importance of this story is that the UK is the first national jurisdiction to do so.

  11. AR

    What a refreshing read after the constant dreary politics. Could GR be our very own Renaissance, polymath, public intellectual?

  12. Charles Richardson

    Great news and great story, Guy. We only disagree on terminology – I’d say the intellectual “property” racket has got nothing at all to do with the free market. It’s a classic case of a government-created monopoly. If we’d left it to the market in the first place, we wouldn’t have gotten into this mess.

  13. Steve Barnes

    Interesting article, but misses the two vital points about open source publishing, peer review, and journal impact factors. Young scientists are forced by the career structure of academia to publish in well established journals that are cited by othe established journals. These are the short and curlies by which the likes of Elsevier and Springer hold us researchers. Appealing to the market is nonsense. We tried that, it gave us a monopoly. BAP not only controls the market, it gets all its content and editorial labour for free. It’s a racket the Sopranos could only dream of.

  14. Gavin Moodie

    I don’t understand how the control of intellectual property, and in particular the publication of research results, is a monopoly.

    The 3 biggest academic journals publishers (Reed Elsevier, Springer Science+Business Media, and John Wiley & Sons) publish 42% of all articles. That is an oligopoly, not a monopoly.

    Neither do I understand how this oligopoly has been created by government; it has arisen from the forces of capitalism tending towards monopoly explained by Marx. Of course intellectual property – like all property – is established and regulated by governments, but it is a stretch to claim that all monopolies are thus ‘created’ by government.

  15. Gavin Moodie

    @ Steve Barnes

    Hence the significance of PLoS which has a reasonable if not a stellar impact factor at the moment, and the establishment of eLife. Those of who can without unduly harming our careers are supporting open access journals so that in time the emphasis might shift from paywall to open access publishing.

  16. Tom McLoughlin

    I should have noted law courts generally now publish significant decisions via their own court website – which by the way are incredible sources of serious legal advice. I seem to recall these are called “citation neutral” whereas hard copy IP are found in proprietary law journals.

    It is still the case that in appeals to higher courts that hard copies of cases in primary proprietary law journals must be provided to the court. The cost of subscription to these proprietary journals via say Lexis Nexis are quite huge. Students however tend to have complementary online subscription, no doubt via a licencing agreement with the private provider.

    The day the court’s own citation neutral web source is the primary hard copy is the day the public legal system stops colluding with private interests gouging the public for what is a publicly funded legal system.

  17. Gavin Moodie

    @ Tom McLoughlin

    And most written judgements of most Australian courts have been published on the Australasian Legal Information Institute’s web site since 1995. Not only are these readily accessible to everyone, they are also timely – the commercial case reports are often delayed.

    Judgements in the lower courts routinely cite AustLII, often because many judgements aren’t reported by the commercial publishers. In time this will be adopted even by the superior courts. But we mustn’t expect this to happen soon!

  18. James K

    Gavin is right to query Charles R’s comments about the free market left
    alone, would never have created the problem we can have with ‘intellectual
    property’.

    Even an article like this one still upsets free market enthusiasts! But no
    worries: the free market never causes any problems! It is all about
    terrible government interference!

    And the world really is flat and the moon is made of cheese.

  19. Gavin Moodie

    The UK’s decision was announced by David Willetts, Minister of State for Universities and Science, in a speech ‘Public access to publicly-funded research’ to the Publishers Association annual general meeting, London, on 2 May 2012.

    It is a longish 4,000 words but well written and worth reading if one wants a fair discussion of the strengths and limitations of current arrangements.

  20. Sandshoe

    To send the reference on again to an interested specialist in their field, I went at the beginning of this week into my files only to find just the title of it in the bare bones of the email advising I was sending it (dated 2008). Not locating the article itself in my files I went online to identify the reference and found it listed but could not access it, not being a member, which publication is the Medical Journal of Australia (MJA).

    Considering this impasse I wondered if I was a poor-fellow member when in 2008 I distributed the link, had a previous right of access to at least an index, so tried my email addresses present and past to retrieve or be issued a password. Nothing.

    I thought through the important meaning of the article, which is regarding communication between consumers and clinicians.

    I returned to the website of the MJA and, ironic in view of this Crikey article I now read by Rundle, wrote my immediate strong view that my not being able to access the article in the public domain is discriminatory and disadvantages consumers.

    I fear, as an example, that the advance of the science of communication between consumers and clinicians is inappropriately restricted and limited by this reservation, yet is the most powerful tool we might establish to redress the problems continually emergent and changing at this interface.

  21. Warren Joffe

    I’m glad to see Charles Richardson taking up the cudgels (not really contra
    Guy Rundle I hope) against excessive IP protection, especially that great
    racket, presumably created originally in its excessive form by aristocratic
    MPs to look after their younger siblings with literary or other artistic talent,
    which is copyright extended for much beyond the creator’s lifetime. It shoul
    be no more than life or 25 years whichever is the longer.

    As Charles says, copyright is a legislated gift of a property right to people
    who, if they are talented creators, would hardly need any incentive to use
    their talents and who, if enough people like what they produce, might well
    be very well rewarded anyway. Of course the idiot Garrett picked up idiotic
    advice to copy the French with Resale Rights Royalties which could extend
    for 150 years (a bit like Agatha Christie’s great-grandchildren picking up
    royalties on productions of The Mousetrap still). At least the worthy
    recommender of the Resale Rights nonsense (which is eminently avoidable
    anyway) recommended a cap on it which would have made sure that it
    wasn’t principally a boon to the heirs of rich and famous artists or their
    by now rich and famous heirs. Whitley and Williams are just two names
    that come immediately to mind (and Garrett can’t claim any credit for the
    good that the latter’s legacy is being used for in the arts world).

  22. Warren Joffe

    Opps, Whiteley…

  23. harford susanne

    great news story! thank you for this wonderful information

Advertisement

https://www.crikey.com.au/2012/05/03/rundle-the-other-media-story-that-dwarfs-the-news-fiasco/ == https://www.crikey.com.au/free-trial/==https://www.crikey.com.au/subscribe/

Show popup

Telling you what the others don't. FREE for 21 days.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.