Academic stratospheres-cum-underworlds: when highs and lows of publication cultures meet
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-01-2017-0013 |
| Pages | 516-528 |
| Date | 18 September 2017 |
| Published date | 18 September 2017 |
| Author | Tereza Stöckelová,Filip Vostal |
| Subject Matter | Library & information science,Information behaviour & retrieval,Information & knowledge management,Information management & governance,Information management |
Academic stratospheres-cum-
underworlds: when highs and
lows of publication cultures meet
Tereza Stöckelová
Institute of Sociology, Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague, Czech Republic, and
Filip Vostal
Institute of Philosophy, Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague, Czech Republic
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to link up and think through two bodies of literature, namely the
critique of predatory publishing practices and the critique of political economy of established publishers,
while introducing a reflection on the dynamic asymmetries of geopolitics and economics of globalizing
knowledge production.
Design/methodology/approach –The authors deploy a conceptual approach developed with reference to
a case study in order to explore the embedded logic of the current system of academic publishing.
Findings –The analysis shows that rather than examining two seemingly different issues ( predatory
publishing vs established publishers) as conflictual dualism, it is more productive to conceive them in
associative and mutually constitutive fashion.
Research limitations/implications –A nuanced and multidimensional research approach is neededif we
are to understand the dynamics of contemporary academic landscape.
Originality/value –The originality of the contribution lies in its problematizing of three established
approaches that feature debates on the transformation of the academy. It moves beyond a micro-level
explanation by (the lack of) individual morality as well as a structural explanatory framework preoccupied
with publishing infrastructure and culturalist approach based on ready-made dichotomies of west/north vs
south/east. Instead, the analysis provides an account that engages both with morality and geopolitics whilst
tackling them as dynamic processes in making.
Keywords Web of Science, Elsevier, Geopolitics of the academy, Predatory publishing, Publication cultures,
Publishing oligopoly, Scientific publishing
Paper type Conceptual paper
Introduction
Misconduct and outright fraud appear to be increasingly reported phenomena in science
production and communication (Beall, 2016; Hvistendahl, 2013). Questionable practices
in scholarly publishing are now subject to intentional experiments and “sting operations”
(e.g. Djuric, 2015; Sorokowski et al.,2017) and commentaries even refer to anemerging world
of “fake academia”(see Carey, 2016). The rapid yet uneven proliferation of a “scientific
underworld”comprises various “services”and dubious publication practices. They range
from the operations of academic book mills such as Lambert Academic Publishing,
ghostwriting, authorship trafficking, plagiarism and predatory journal publishers
exploiting the golden open-access (OA) model (Beall, 2012). Beall argues that by
compromising rigorous peer review “[p]redatory journals are threatening the credibility of
science. By faking or neglecting peer review, they pollute the scholarly record with fringe or
junk science”(2016, p. 326). At the same time, and without much attention, respectable
academic publishers and quality assurance providers have in recent years acquired
oligopolisticand near-monopolist status,respectively. Our analysis will showthat rather than
examining these seemingly different issues (scientific underworld/predatory publishing vs
established publishers/quality assurance providers) as conflicting in principle, it is more
appropriate to explore them as related and to an extent constitutive of each other.
Our argument thus proceeds as follows.
Aslib Journal of Information
Management
Vol. 69 No. 5, 2017
pp. 516-528
© Emerald PublishingLimited
2050-3806
DOI 10.1108/AJIM-01-2017-0013
Received 8 January 2017
Revised 19 April 2017
20 June 2017
Accepted 28 June 2017
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/2050-3806.htm
516
AJIM
69,5
To continue reading
Request your trial