From: Laura Quilter <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 10:05:48 -0400
Thanks, Jim. It's not really a sore spot for me -- luckily, the
evidence is quite clear and my reputation is untarnished.
I think I'm mostly miffed because I agree with you: Interrogating
corporate and business influence, and the neutrality of work that
benefits such interests -- this is important work that needs to be
done. And this was such a disappointingly sloppy job. So it has
tarnished the notion of research, without any actual pay-off, and it's
simultaneously tarnished an effort to do this kind of research. It's
enough to drive one to cynicism. But I truly don't feel personally
insulted. I just want people to know to read it very, very carefully,
with one or several grains of salt.
Laura
----------------------------------
Laura Quilter / [log in to unmask]
On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 9:40 PM, 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]
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 1:03 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>> From: "Jim O'Donnell" <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 18:04:21 -0700
>>>
>>> This is about two weeks old, but I'm just catching up and thought it relevant to liblicense:
>>>
>>> http://fortune.com/2017/07/11/google-paying-professors-policy-papers/
>>>
>>> What seems interesting and relevant here is that a variety of powerful influences now surround the academic eco-system, all seeking to shape (I almost said distort) either the work or the public perception of the work of academics to the advantage of the commercial provider.
>>>
>>> Now, I suppose we should be grateful that academic work thus shows its value to the world -- we're worth manipulating. (I once heard the CEO of a famous brand of wardrobe accessories describe the firm's comeback from the dead. He was glad when knockoffs started showing up at street markets because it meant the brand was worth knocking off again.) But that's hardly consoling.
>>>
>>> My point is just that the 'predatory publishers' argument, among others, makes sense not as a weird anomalous thing that happens in the world of OA but is part of a larger struggle over the meaning and value of what we do.
>>>
>>> Jim O'Donnell
>>> Arizona State University
|
