Fighting the Academic Publishers Gets You Fired
September 11, 2015
Academic publishers, such as Springer and Elsevier, have a monopoly on academic publishing and they do not want to lose their grasp. In the Slashdot science forum, a report from The Guardian was posted “Paywalled Science Journals Under Fire Again” describing how the academic publishers won a battle in Australia.
The Medical Journal of Australia (MJA) fired their editor Professor Stephen Leeder, when he expressed his displeasure over the journal outsourcing its functions to Elsevier. Leeder might have lost his job, but he will speak at a symposium at the State Library of NSW about ways academic communities can fight against the commoditization of knowledge.
What is concerning is that academic publishers are more interested in turning a profit than expanding humanity’s knowledge base:
“Alex Holcombe, an associate professor of psychology who will also be presenting at the symposium, said the business model of some of the major academic publishers was more profitable than owning a gold mine. Some of the 1,600 titles published by Elsevier charged institutions more than $19,000 for an annual subscription to just one journal. The Springer group, which publishes more than 2,000 titles, charges more than $21,000 for access to some of its titles. ‘The mining giant Rio Tinto has a profit margin of about 23%,’ Holcombe said. ‘Elsevier consistently comes in at around 37%. Open access publishing is catching on, but it requires researchers to pay up to $3000 to get a single open access article published.’”
Where does the pursuit of knowledge actually take place if researchers are at the mercy of academic publishers? One might say that researchers could publish their work for free on the Web, but remember that anyone can do that. Being published under a reputable banner adds to study’s authenticity and also helps it get used to support other research. The problem lies in the fact that big academic publishers limit who accesses their content to subscription holders and often those subscriptions are too expensive for the average researcher to afford on their own. Researchers want to have access to more academic content, but it is being locked down.
Whitney Grace, September 11, 2015
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, publisher of the CyberOSINT monograph
Google Has a Problem: A Monopoly on Data, Not Traffic, Data
April 20, 2015
Leave it to the complainers in the UK to accuse Google of having a monopoly on data. Navigate to “Google Dominates Search. But the Real Problem Is Its Monopoly on Data.” Note that there are some outfits in the UK which have quite a bit of data too. The difference is that Google appears to be free, and the UK outfit is sort out of the spotlight.
The write up jumps from the allegations under consideration by the European Commission about Google’s search results. The write up states:
Were Google a manufacturer, say, a monopoly such as it has over internet search would never be allowed. But three factors conspire to Google’s advantage. Firstly, digital services, however ubiquitous, seem less tangible and therefore do not appear so obvious a threat to commercial pluralism, innovation and to consumer interests.
Okay, no monopolies allowed. No kilt wool combines. No champagne controls in quirky France. No centralization of Mercedes Benz parts. I understand.
To its credit, the Guardian points out that an alternative to Google is just a click away. The reality is different. Ask a shrink about habits. I highlighted this paragraph:
The wider problem is that Google has become the ultimate monopolist of the information age. Information is a source of power, and nothing in the EU’s case does anything significant to touch that power.
Good point. So isn’t the war over? Research that question in Qwant.
Stephen E Arnold, April 20, 2015
Google Altered Search Results?!
April 8, 2015
If you know anything about search results, search engine optimization, and search algorithms, you probably wondered if Google ever changed its search results so they would be favor one search result over another. Google already alters results with Google AdWords, the Right to Forgotten, and removing results if they break rules.
The FTC revealed via The Wall Street Journal that Google has been altering its search results for profit: “Inside The US Antitrust Probe Of Google.” The FTC found that Google was using its monopoly on search to harm Internet users and its rivals. FTC recommended a lawsuit be brought against Google for three of its practices. The FTC voted to end the investigation in 2013, which is strange, but they did so because they had competing recommendations.
Google continues to stand by its own innocence, citing that the case closed two years ago and that people continue to use its services. There is one big thing that the Wall Street Journal points out:
“On one issue—whether Google used anticompetitive tactics for its search engine—the competition staff recommended against a lawsuit, although it said Google’s actions resulted in “significant harm” to rivals. In three other areas, the report found evidence the company used its monopoly behavior to help its own business and hurt its rivals.”
Can this be considered part of their “do not evil” bylaw?
Whitney Grace, April 8, 2015
Stephen E Arnold, Publisher of CyberOSINT at www.xenky.com
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
