Scholars must get used to openness, too

What is going on here is nothing less than protectionism applied to publicly funded research

Share

A month ago the firmament of new media lost one of its most luminous and infuriating stars when Aaron Swartz committed suicide at the age of 26.

There was much speculation about the reasons, but his fans blamed the multiple charges of fraud and information theft brought against him by the US Federal Attorney.

As part of his campaign to open up the often closed domain of academic research, Swartz had used an alias to access the electronic network of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he downloaded much of a database with academic journals. He gave it back. But it was the relentless way in which MIT, the American academic old world’s temple to new technology, pursued its case – or so his supporters felt – that drove the computer whiz to his grave.

The reverberations are still being felt. A petition calling for the removal of the lead prosecutor has just passed the 25,000 threshold that requires a response from the US administration. MIT has launched an internal investigation. Some academics have posted research papers online by way of memorial tributes. And the case highlights, as the WikiLeaks saga did before it, the question of where legitimate political protest stops and crime begins.

Strangely, though, this case has been treated primarily as a US phenomenon, even though, like anything touching information in the internet age, it is global – both in the sense that it cannot be contained by national boundaries, and in the sense that something of the sort could happen anywhere. In both respects, these are early skirmishes in what could become an all-out war over access to academic work, and it so happens that the first real engagement could take place here in Britain.

The opening volley was fired last summer, when Dame Janet Finch signed off a report on “Accessibility, sustainability, excellence: how to expand access to research publications”. But a battle came into prospect only last month when the universities minister, David Willetts, announced that he was accepting her central recommendation about open access and that this thorough shake-up of academic publishing was to be implemented within the year.

Now it would be possible to make some unkind remarks here about the glacial pace at which academia moves – contrasted, as scholars would see it, with the ephemeral nature of the media – which would only perpetuate the hostile stereotypes on either side. The risk, though, is that an argument about timing obscures the principle at the heart of the proposals. Which is that research conducted at British universities at the taxpayers’ expense should be accessible online to anyone who wants to see it for any reason. That includes universities, companies and individuals, anywhere.

What your average British taxpayer might deem only logical and right, however – so much so indeed as to pose questions about why this is not standard practice already – has thrown the academic world into turmoil. Alarm, even panic, stalk the ivory tower. At the start of the year, the president and past president of the Royal Historical Society penned a joint letter to members under the unusually direct heading, “open access publishing”. Among the many others trying to fend off the proposals is the Council for the Defence of British Universities, which numbers Sir David Attenborough and Richard Dawkins in its ranks.

Their arguments, set out with ostensible sweet reason by the RHS presidents, are that academic publishing as currently constituted guarantees high standards; that any change affecting costs and benefits needs a lead time far longer than the one year proposed, and that the change would unreasonably restrict academics in their choice of where to publish.

The professors do not deny that the publishing process can be improved. Access to academic journals of all kinds is hugely expensive, and the internet has not reduced the costs as much as hoped because checking and editing are still needed. They defend to the hilt the practice of “peer review” according to which specialists validate research in their own field and argue that if, as proposed, universities take responsibility for posting their research online, publication could become subject to internal politics.

Behind all this, though, it is possible to detect a large number of special interests. The financial ones are easy to understand, including lost fees from subscriptions, possible lost revenue from spin-offs and perhaps lost royalties for books. But the suggestion that “peer review” is anything like perfect or without favouritism will be greeted with the hollow laughter it deserves.

A particularly weak strand in their argument is their attempt to draw a distinction between science and the arts. Of course, they say, scientific research should be opened up –and to an extent already has been – because of the potential benefits. But research in the humanities is quite different and longer-term. What is going on here is nothing less than protectionism applied to work that has been publicly funded, coupled with a barely disguised contempt for the lay audience. Deep down, it seems, they fear casting their pearls before… well, proles.

The RHS and the Institute of Historical Research are holding an open meeting next month to discuss their response to the proposed changes further. They will doubtless hear a litany of reasons why the humanities’ research we have paid for should remain behind prohibitive paywalls or elite academic log-ins, lest the uninitiated get the wrong idea. If they are really interested in furthering the cause of knowledge, they should reverse tracks, and fast. It’s just a pity that Aaron Swartz won’t be flying in to lead the protest.

m.dejevsky@independent.co.uk

React Now

Latest stories from i100
Have you tried new the Independent Digital Edition apps?
iJobs Job Widget
iJobs General

Recruitment Genius: Business Manager

£32000 - £40000 per annum: Recruitment Genius: A Business Manager is required ...

Recruitment Genius: Operations Manager

£45000 - £55000 per annum: Recruitment Genius: This is an exciting opportunity...

Recruitment Genius: Panel & Cabinet Wireman

£20000 per annum: Recruitment Genius: Panel Wireman required for small electro...

Recruitment Genius: Electronics Test Engineer

£25000 - £27000 per annum: Recruitment Genius: An SME based in East Cheshire, ...

Day In a Page

Read Next
Newspaper stands have been criticised by the Child Eyes campaign  

There were more reader complaints this year – but, then again, there were more readers

Will Gore
 

People drink to shut out pain and stress. Arresting them won’t help

Deborah Coughlin
A timely reminder of the bloody anniversary we all forgot

A timely reminder of the bloody anniversary we all forgot

Who remembers that this week we enter the 150th anniversary year of the end of the American Civil War, asks Robert Fisk
Downfall of Dustin 'Screech' Diamond, the 'Saved By The Bell' star charged with bar stabbing

Scarred by the bell

The downfall of the TV star charged with bar stabbing
Why 2014 was a year of technological let-downs

Why 2014 was a year of technological let-downs

Security breaches and overhyped start-ups dominated a year in which very little changed (save the size of your phone)
Cuba's golf revolution: But will the revolutionary nation take 'bourgeois' game to its heart?

Will revolutionary Cuba take 'bourgeois' golf to its heart?

Fidel Castro ridiculed the game – but now investment in leisure resort projects is welcome
Ed Richards: Parting view of Ofcom chief. . . we hate jokes on the disabled

Ed Richards: Parting view of Ofcom chief. . . we hate jokes on the disabled

Bad language once got TV viewers irate, inciting calls to broadcasting switchboards. But now there is a worse offender, says retiring head of the media watchdog
War with Isis: The West needs more than a White Knight

The West needs more than a White Knight

Despite billions spent on weapons, the US has not been able to counter Isis's gruesome tactics, says Patrick Cockburn
Return to Helmand: Private Davey Graham recalls the day he was shot by the Taliban

'The day I was shot by the Taliban'

Private Davey Graham was shot five times during an ambush in 2007 - it was the first, controversial photograph to show the dangers our soldiers faced in Helmand province
Revealed: the best and worst airlines for delays

Revealed: the best and worst airlines for delays

Many flyers are failing to claim compensation to which they are entitled, a new survey has found
The stories that defined 2014: From the Scottish independence referendum to the Ice Bucket Challenge, our writers voice their opinions

The stories that defined 2014

From the Scottish independence referendum to the Ice Bucket Challenge, our writers voice their opinions
Stoke-on-Trent becomes first British city to be classified as 'disaster resilient' by the United Nations

Disaster looming? Now you know where to head...

Which British city has become the first to be awarded special 'resilience' status by the UN?
Finally, a diet that works: Californian pastor's wildly popular Daniel Plan has seen his congregation greatly reduced

Finally, a diet that works

Californian pastor's wildly popular Daniel Plan has seen his congregation greatly reduced
Say it with... lyrics: The power of song was never greater, according to our internet searches

Say it with... lyrics

The power of song was never greater, according to our internet searches
Professor Danielle George: On a mission to bring back the art of 'thinkering'

The joys of 'thinkering'

Professor Danielle George on why we have to nurture tomorrow's scientists today
Monique Roffey: The author on father figures, the nation's narcissism and New Year reflections

Monique Roffey interview

The author on father figures, the nation's narcissism and New Year reflections
Introducing my anti-heroes of 2014

Introducing my anti-heroes of 2014

Their outrageousness and originality makes the world a bit more interesting, says Ellen E Jones