Can the principle of the ‘right to be forgotten’ be applied to academic publishing? Probe from the perspective of personal rights, archival science, open science and post‐publication peer review

Abstract

In this paper, we reflect on how the principle of the ‘right to be forgotten’ (RTBF), specifically the right to erasure as enshrined in Article 17 (and to some extent Art. 19 and Art. 21) of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR; Regulation (EU) 2016/679), or the right to delete undesirable, unflattering or reputation‐damaging archived records of oneself from search engines or databases, might apply to academic publishing. In particular, we focus on archival (library and information) science, post‐publication peer review, and reflect on whether RTBF is compatible with open science principles. Even though RTBF became enshrined in EU law in 2018, its trans‐Atlantic export to the United States faces resistance because it is seen as being incompatible with First Amendment rights. We ponder the pertinence of the debate regarding local versus global applicability of RTBF when considering the transnational nature of some collaborative research. Although RTBF applies broadly to search engines such as Google, we question whether authors have this right and also whether publishers are subjected to this law with respect to science databases, or even ‘local’ (i.e., publisher‐controlled) archives, especially in the light of retractions or withdrawals, in which data and files are removed from a preprint or journal's website or, in extreme cases, where all or most bibliometric information is scrubbed clean, as in the case of ‘silent retractions’. We extend our reflections further to appreciate whether authors or editors are entitled to RTBF in extreme instances of misconduct or fraud. The fundamental right to privacy and personal choice, as is suggested by (or enshrined in) RTBF, is not—in our view—compatible with several principles related to the integrity of data and information, or even their preservation, and may be diametrically opposed, depending on the situation. We encourage wider debate on this budding pertinent issue as a fundamental aspect of academic rights and freedoms.

Articles, software, data: An Open Science ethological study

“…To end up this section, we observe the raising of some new issues concerning open access in ROs. One of these issues concerns the "right to be forgotten" and academic publishing in an Open Science framework [85]. As mentioned there, the European Union (EU) adopted the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in 2016 [25].…”

“…As mentioned there, the European Union (EU) adopted the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in 2016 [25]. Its Article 17 deals with the Right to erasure ('right to be forgotten') (see also Articles 19 and 21), and [85] reflects on how this right is compatible with Open Science principles and questions about the pertinence of the debate regarding its local versus global applicability when considering the transnational nature of some collaborative research. The second issue we mention here is related to the economic cost of open access and the potential problems for less favored communities [59,75,94], yielding different problems regarding potential inequities, or inclusion/exclusion problems.…”