On open access publishing

On KnowledgeStitch.com, all of the articles are shared open access. In theory, that sounds great. In practice, not so much. Open access publishing is not as hopeful, or as disruptive, as it sounds…as I wish it were.

Arash Abizadeh has written a great piece in The Guardian, highlighting key issues on publishing with academic journals, as well as some structural challenges facing open access publishing. As he rightly points out, “the big five” academic publishers (Elsevier, Wiley, Taylor & Francis, Springer Nature, and SAGE) amass great wealth off the backs of academic labour—academic labour that is sometimes paid for by government funding, but often not paid for at all. For academics trying to secure work in a “publish or perish” environment, the pressures to perform said unpaid labour are seemingly endless.

But when we consider that academia itself is often a “pay to play” space to begin with, none of this is exactly surprising. Attending college or university is not financially viable for many people. And for those who manage to get their foot in the door, a hidden curriculum soon pops up as yet another barrier to success: it’s pretty hard to play the game if you don’t know the rules.

Some of the stats from Abizadeh’s article are staggering. For example, that universities in the UK paid more than £1bn for journal subscriptions fees and other charges between 2010-2019—with 90% of that going to those big 5 publishers. Authors can often request that their work be published open access (that is, free to access), but someone somewhere has to pay, as publishers charge a hefty price for their articles to be licensed this way.

So, while some authors may want to publish their work open access, without the funding to do so, they’ll have to opt out and keep their work locked behind a paywall.

Clearly open access publishing is not a perfect solution. I am reminded of an article from Papia Sengupta which highlights further structural barriers. Crucially, Sengupta asks a simple yet unravelling question:

Academics do not come to the question of open access on the same social footing, as power-dynamics operate across time and place.

I’m hoping that all is not lost. At least, that’s what I’m telling myself in making KnowledgeStitch.com, and in writing this newsletter. In Labour of Love: An Open Access Manifesto for Freedom, Integrity, and Creativity in the Humanities and Interpretive Social Sciences the authors articulate a vison for open access research that provides some hope for thinking about value differently, with clear recommendations for stakeholders involved.

The hypocrisy of it all - saying something is open when it’s clearly not - is terrible. Especially when we consider that much of the research being published by academics aims to better understand the world, let alone address issues related to social inequality. It’s clear that the system is not working. Or maybe it’s working just fine, and the joke is on us…

What are your thoughts on open access research, and the mess of it all? Would love if you would share them with me (you can reply to this email, [email protected], or leave a comment!)

And in the spirit of sharing, if you enjoyed this newsletter, please share it with anyone you think might also enjoy it!

Until next time,

Mary

If you have an article or project you’d like readers to check out (whether already published open access or not), be sure to submit a pitch here: