 |
 |
Hello all, Regarding that point, and if I may be the annoying one in this plan, as early-career researchers if we "look down" on big publishers' journals we then look down on having jobs and other commodities such as homes and food, since the attribution of said jobs is for a big part dependent upon our capacity to publish in said journals. I say that while being favourable to the escape from this consortium, but this is the answer to "Why oh why critical social scientists keep publishing in those". Now the advantage is that the persons in charge of setting the criteria for recruitment are our senior peers, although they are still constrained in their own ways I am sure. The first step is not the creation of independent journals, even though independent journals are necessary. The first step is the creation of a system which encourages people who participate to independent journals. Anyway, I'm sure the issue is more complicated than that, but I thought it was worth reminding. Best, AM 2017-09-21 9:26 GMT+02:00 Buscher, Bram <[log in to unmask]>: > Amen Simon - this is an absolutely crucial next step. I have deep respect > for Farhana and all those who are taking action to put pressure on TWQ/T&F > to get that horrible piece retracted. At the same time, we should indeed > be under no illusion that this kind of commotion is actually great for big > publishers if we don¹t take further action along the lines suggested by > Simon, Gowers, and others. Like with Trump, the more outrageous these > things become, the more clicks, Œeyeballs¹ and distraction from what is > actually important they tend to yield: precisely those things that keep > the powerful in power. > > So thanks for your leadership in this regard, Simon. Let¹s flip! > > Best, > Bram > > On 21/09/2017, 01:42, "A forum for critical and radical geographers on > behalf of Batterbury, Simon" <[log in to unmask] on behalf of > [log in to unmask]> wrote: > > >The obvious next step is to now 'flip' the journal back to academic > >ownership, as Sir Tim Gowers, the originator the the "Academic Spring", > >now recommends. For about $1000 the Board can reassemble such a journal > >under a new name, independently or with a small publisher. They would > >never allow a Gilley episode. Why, oh why, are critical social scientists > >still publishing the majority of their work with the "big five" > >publishers? Human geographers: look down the list of "top" journals, and > >ask yourselves where the profits are going. This issue has snuck up on > >us, and it is not pretty. Take publishing back. As his last point below > >says. > >Gowers https://gowers.wordpress.com/2017/07/27/another-journal-flips/ > > > >He says" There is widespread (even if not universal) agreement that > >something is deeply wrong with the current system of academic publishing. > >The basic point, which has been made innumerable times by innumerable > >people, is that the really hard parts ‹ the writing of papers, and the > >peer review and selection of the ones to publish ‹ are done voluntarily > >by academics, and modern technology makes things like typesetting and > >dissemination extremely cheap. And yet publishers are making more money > >than ever before. They do this by insisting that we give them ownership > >of the content we produce ... What can be done about this? There are many > >actions, none of which are likely to be sufficient to bring about major > >change on their own, but which in combination will help to get us to a > >tipping point. In no particular order, here are some of them. > > > >Create new journals that operate much more cheaply and wait for them to > >become established. > >Persuade libraries not to agree to Big Deals with the big publishers. > >Refuse to publish with, write for, or edit for, the big publishers. > >Make sure all your work is freely available online. > >Encourage journals that are supporting the big publishers to leave those > >publishers and set up in a cheaper and fairer way. > > > >etc. > > > > > >Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 22:24:47 +0800 > >From: Tracey Skelton <[log in to unmask]> > >Subject: Re: "The case for colonialism", any response from twq yet? > > > >Dear Farhana, > > > >I have watched this discussion closely and I personally know several > >members of the editorial board who resigned. I know that many of them are > >deeply committed to TWQ and have been committed to their roles and the > >scholarship of the journal. So to resign has been a difficult but > >important decision. > > > >It is clear now that we have all been lied to by the editor and this > >ridiculous piece of writing somehow got published. Personally I will not > >engage with TWQ in any way until there is a resolution of the kind the > >editorial board resignees and other participants in this debate have > >requested. How can we trust such a journal and such an editor? > > > >I also wanted to write to you, yourself Farhana, to applaud all the work > >and energy you have to put into this awful situation. I have read your > >eloquent contributions and I totally agree with your arguments. I am very > >glad that there are people like you who are observant, dedicated and > >practitioners of accurate, warranted and truthful scholarship. > >Thank you for your energy and commitment. I hope one day I can meet you > >in person to express my respect. > > > >Sincerely to all those politically aware and vigilant scholars who defend > >the commitment to social justice in all its guises, > > > >Tracey Skelton > > > >Prof. Simon Batterbury >