Investing in publication: Researchers as "savage capitalists"

Abstract

The article by Kayal et al. (2021) constitutes an important reminder to the scientific community of some ethical shortcomings of today’s academic publishing system for which several solutions are proposed. In this short response, I discuss Latour’s portrayal of scientists as “savage capitalists” to relocate a part of these issues in the practices held by researchers themselves. By depicting scientists as capitalist agents publishing articles as investors awaiting returns in capital, I question the compatibility between the stated goal to transform today’s publishing system and a potential collective inertia rooted in personal and career goals. So-called “individual solutions” with deep collective and institutional roots are therefore calling for social momentum to effectively be activated; this vision could be translated into more specific goals for future research and actions.

Transformative choices towards a sustainable academic publishing system

“…We agree with Brun (2021) that individual scientists' behaviors contribute in big part to supporting the present academic publishing system, and that changes to a better system require shifting paradigm in personal and community targets. In this regard, Latour's (2003) comparison of researchers as capitalists investing in publications is judicious, although the general analogy of considering professional contributions as trust and reputation investments could easily be extended to performance metrics of any (or many) professions.…”

“…ethical consumption, Gregory- Smith et al 2013), researchers' behaviors are expectedly dynamic, evolving in time and with moods and circumstances, and spread across both ends of the spectrum: ranging from "savage capitalists" ceaselessly publishing to climb up the carrier ladder (Latour 2003), to more generously contributing personal capital and collaborating for better community outcomes. As argued in our article, shifting scientist leitmotivs towards profitable, common goals relies on improving the level of awareness on journal shortcomings and alternative solutions, and, as also highlighted in Brun (2021), reducing the attractiveness of reputed conventional journals (see also Rose-Wiles 2011, Walter and Mullins 2019). These changes necessitate transformative evolvements at all three levels of individual scientists, scientific communities, and publishers (Figure 2).…”