From: Richard Poynder <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2017 21:31:18 +0100

I agree that there are a variety of powerful influences now
surrounding the academic eco-system. I also think that fake news and
predatory publishing are both consequences of a larger set of social
changes, and I wrote something on this theme here:

http://bit.ly/2taOuoL

A recent post in The Scholarly Kitchen also explored some of these
larger issues:

https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2017/07/24/trouble-hand-mobile-devices-perpetuate-weak-business-models/

Richard Poynder



On 28 July 2017 at 02:40, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> From: "Jim O'Donnell" <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 18:33:19 -0700
>
> Laura, thank you for this very interesting and important message.  I can well understand the frustration and indeed injustice that you have experienced and I'm sorry to rub it in, so to speak.
>
> And yet in an odd way, you confirm my original posting.  Just the fact that we're having this back and forth confirms that "we academics" now live in a space where this whole constellation of external influences and pulls -- some entirely legitimate and honorable, some questionable, some downright dishonest -- are in play.  And it's not that this is brand new:  it's been building since at least World War II.  We're probably not in the best position to tell whether this last few years will look like a tipping point 100 years from now, but for example, Google Ngram first detects the phrase "corporatization of the university" in 1993, tripling in frequency from 1995 to 1996, and tripling again from 1996 to 2000 -- and at that point Google Ngram data stop.  The curve hasn't turned down, I'm sure.
>
> So with apologies for rubbing a sore spot, I'll stay with my first observation, that the issues that usually rile this list have as one distinctive feature that they're not distinctive to libraries or publishers but are part of a larger set of social changes.  Seeking to mitigate their effects in one domain is worthy and important, but better to know that what we're dealing with is not just affecting that one domain.
>
> With best wishes,
> Jim O'Donnell
> ASU
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 5:28 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> From: Laura Quilter <[log in to unmask]>
>> Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2017 21:18:47 -0400
>>
>> You should know that this dataset is deeply flawed, and that many of us who were cited in the database did not actually receive Google funding in any way. A number of us have submitted requests for retraction or correction, and to my knowledge they have not yet done so.
>>
>> Here's an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education that discusses just a few of the issues that were presented. http://www.chronicle.com/article/Scholars-Cry-Foul-at-Their/240635
>>
>> Among other things, the entity that did this report won't reveal its own funding, but we do know that Oracle (one of Google's competitors in various litigations) is one of their bankrollers, and presumably the commissioner of this particular report.
>>
>> I'd be happy to talk about my own inclusion in the database if anyone wants to discuss it (short answer: I have never received Google funding) but their methodology was deeply flawed in multiple ways. I very much would like some corporate accountability research, but unfortunately this effort is (from what it appears to me) more of a rival-funded industry hit piece than a scholarly or activist look at this issue.
>>
>> Laura
>>
>> ----------------------------------
>> Laura Quilter / [log in to unmask]