There have been a number of surprises in the readings for this, Blog #3, regarding the main themes of:

1) definitions of periodicals (Wagstaff) (2011) (Journals, magazines, etc...)

2) evaluating the writer's voice by calculation of what type of reader is targeted (Weir) (2011)

3) the misuse of academic papers by "vanity-presses" - charitably put (Kolata, the NYT, 2013)

4) characteristics of predatory publishers (Eriksson & Hegesson) (probably first appeared in 2018)

________________________

 

At first, my reaction was ornery. "How could they!" - They, meaning fly-by-night publishers, pilfering the papers of would-be professors, in order to sell them a list of goods. Inverse Robin Hoods - robbing the poor student, in order to whisk the money away by a nefarious "dotted-line" clause. OY! No one wants to be treated poorly - it doesn't take a lot of experience in the "real-world" to learn about vanity-publishers, who'll be delighted to "publish" your book for an exorbitant fee. Which means they might typeset, proof-read, print and design your book - only to charge hefty commissions for a book they know won't even cover its printing costs. And then, they'll offer to buy back the book at 10 cents on the dollar to whoever will buy it - with few questions asked. In a "publish or perish" world, that type of pressure is inevitable, and hope buoys our wallet for yet another thrust and parry against outrageous (loss of) fortune. However, this goes way beyond vanity-presses. 

But let's first take a quick overview at what's happened to the world through digital media the past two decades:

* With the ascent of Facebook and Google (the sponsor of the present blog!), these firms and many others claim rights to anything that's merely TYPED into the print field - even if it's been deleted. And - despite copious protests - anyone can copy the material through fair use clauses etched into the user agreement.

* Because of the declining profitability in the sales of CDs and "brick and mortar" shops, online distributors have pulverized the incomes of virtually all musical artists. Deezer and Spotify pay practically nothing to their artists, and one needs to be happy with a fraction of a penny for having sold a song - which the industry heartily mislabels a "download", but is in essence simple streaming service. You've had your music downloaded 10,000 times last year? Then you can hope to gross $100. Which you'll split with your agent.

* Due to the lack of comprehensive intellectual rights (and/or their enforcement) in China, virtually anyone can (and often does) copy anything of audio and video content posted online, and then "sinafy" it - in order to monetize it for a Chinese audience. (Remember, there are 100 MILLION piano players in China - would anyone like to try to sell them a Beethoven recording? Good luck.)

*Any online article - even from the most respected news source or academic authority - will be occasionally rewritten, leaving a Pandora's box open as to future research - with so many articles facing constant revision, regardless of how subtle, how will we know what the original article was. Paper doesn't change. Online text doesn't remain (in the sense books and periodicals do) - the cons can easily outweigh the pros.

* The present U.S. government is inundating the world with false advertising. It was discovered that the present president is responsible for the most false CoVID-19 propaganda, figuring in 38% of false claims in the US. With this war on the truth - to the essence of life vs. death - the misuse of academic research is indeed a faint blip on a world screen.

So, to be honest, are we really surprised that the falsification - the theft, ignorance of intellectual property agreements, and the "surprise" fees hoisted upon academics all too willing to have their work recognized - has finally reached the core of deepest research? Caveat Lector.

~ Alex Jacobowitz ~