posted on 2014-06-05, 14:40authored byDavid Harvie, Geoff Lightfoot, Simon Lilley, Kenneth Weir
The economics and organization of academic publishing have been the subject of
much controversy recently – within the UK and internationally. Both journalists (e.g.
Monbiot, 2011) and academics (e.g. Gowers, 2012) have objected to publishers’
pricing practices and business models. The past few years have not only witnessed
debate, but more energetic activity too. One publishing giant is currently boycotted
by academics, and not for the first time. In a few instances, editorial boards have
resigned en masse in protest at high subscription prices. We have seen the creation of
numerous open-access initiatives and dozens of new open-access journals, including
the über-respectable Public Library of Science (PLoS). In 2012, a group
commissioned by the UK government published the results of its year-long study into the academic journal market and the feasibility of adopting open access (Finch
Report, 2012).
In this Proposition, we review some of these developments. [Taken from introduction]
History
Citation
Prometheus : Critical Studies in Innovation, 2013, 31 (3), pp. 229-239
Version
VoR (Version of Record)
Published in
Prometheus : Critical Studies in Innovation
Publisher
Taylor & Francis (Routledge) : STM, Behavioural Science and Public Health Title