OA isn’t free, it costs folks like you and me

John V. Bryans
{"title":"OA isn’t free, it costs folks like you and me","authors":"John V. Bryans","doi":"10.5206/elip.v5i1.14524","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Despite the framing of open access (OA) as a progressive movement that challenges neoliberalism and champions the public good, academic labour is often left out of these analyses (Eve, 2017). In a bid to liberate academic labour from the neoliberal hands of commercial publishing, advocates of OA have argued that making scholarly work “free” can help to establish an academic commons (de Rosnay, 2021). However initiatives to mandate OA in academia like “Plan S” set the stage for academic labourers to be compelled to give up rights to their intellectual property (Frantzvag & Stromme, 2019). In this essay I argue that the broad acceptance of OA as the liberatory savior of academic publishing is misguided, as it obscures the right-wing libertarian roots of the movement and would see academics voluntarily alienate themselves from their labour (Golumbia, 2016). Drawing on Golumbia’s (2016) Marxist reading of the political economy of OA, I argue that devaluing academic labour by characterizing it as unproductive and immaterial negates the abstract labour that produces scholarly works. Undoubtedly, libraries have an important role to play in the OA “revolution” (Burns, 2018), although not as assenting boosters but as critical voices that advocate for the rights of workers.   ","PeriodicalId":368365,"journal":{"name":"Emerging Library & Information Perspectives","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Emerging Library & Information Perspectives","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5206/elip.v5i1.14524","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Despite the framing of open access (OA) as a progressive movement that challenges neoliberalism and champions the public good, academic labour is often left out of these analyses (Eve, 2017). In a bid to liberate academic labour from the neoliberal hands of commercial publishing, advocates of OA have argued that making scholarly work “free” can help to establish an academic commons (de Rosnay, 2021). However initiatives to mandate OA in academia like “Plan S” set the stage for academic labourers to be compelled to give up rights to their intellectual property (Frantzvag & Stromme, 2019). In this essay I argue that the broad acceptance of OA as the liberatory savior of academic publishing is misguided, as it obscures the right-wing libertarian roots of the movement and would see academics voluntarily alienate themselves from their labour (Golumbia, 2016). Drawing on Golumbia’s (2016) Marxist reading of the political economy of OA, I argue that devaluing academic labour by characterizing it as unproductive and immaterial negates the abstract labour that produces scholarly works. Undoubtedly, libraries have an important role to play in the OA “revolution” (Burns, 2018), although not as assenting boosters but as critical voices that advocate for the rights of workers.   
OA不是免费的,它需要像你我这样的人付出代价
尽管开放获取(OA)是一项挑战新自由主义和捍卫公共利益的进步运动,但学术劳动往往被排除在这些分析之外(Eve, 2017)。为了将学术劳动从商业出版的新自由主义手中解放出来,OA的倡导者认为,使学术工作“免费”可以帮助建立一个学术公地(de Rosnay, 2021)。然而,像“S计划”这样在学术界强制实施OA的举措,为学术劳动者被迫放弃其知识产权奠定了基础(Frantzvag & Stromme, 2019)。在这篇文章中,我认为广泛接受开放获取作为学术出版的解放救星是错误的,因为它模糊了右翼自由主义运动的根源,并且会看到学者自愿疏远自己的劳动(Golumbia, 2016)。根据Golumbia(2016)对OA政治经济学的马克思主义解读,我认为通过将学术劳动描述为非生产性和非物质性来贬低学术劳动,否定了产生学术作品的抽象劳动。毫无疑问,图书馆在开放获取“革命”中扮演着重要的角色(Burns, 2018),尽管不是作为赞成的推动者,而是作为倡导工人权利的批评声音。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信