Knowledge Monopolies and Global Academic Publishing

Fiormonte, Domenico; Priego, Ernesto

doi:10.15200/winn.147220.00404

Cited by 6 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is worth noting at the outset that this is not a homogeneous group. There are academic publishers making close to 40% profit on billions of dollars of revenue and there are academic publishers that are one lawsuit away from bankruptcy (Monbiot 2011;Fiormonte and Priego 2016). There are subscription, hybrid, and pure-open-access publishers.…”

Section: Academic Publishersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Who is Actually Harmed by Predatory Publishers?

Eve

Priego²

2017

tripleC

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

'Predatory publishing' refers to conditions under which gold open access academic publishers claim to conduct peer review and charge for their publishing services but do not, in fact, actually perform such reviews. Most prominently exposed in recent years by Jeffrey Beall, the phenomenon garners much media attention. In this article, we acknowledge that such practices are deceptive but then examine, across a variety of stakeholder groups, what the harm is from such actions to each group of actors. We find that established publishers have a strong motivation to hype claims of predation as damaging to the scholarly and scientific endeavour while noting that, in fact, systems of peer review are themselves already acknowledged as deeply flawed. Keywords: Open Access, Scholarly Communications, Predatory Publishing, Evaluative Cultures, AcademiaAcknowledgement: The authors wish to thank Ross Mounce and David Prosser for helpful comments on the manuscript of this article. Parts of this article on the problems of peer review are derived from and share a narrative with a chapter by Eve that is currently under submission.

show abstract

Section: Academic Publishersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Who is Actually Harmed by Predatory Publishers?

Eve

Priego²

2017

tripleC

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Anyway, the developing geopolitical scenario is challenging the current knowledge and publishing monopolies (Fiormonte & Priego, 2016): Digital Humanities, for instance, started reacting to these unequal power relationships, questioning political representation and cultural diversity, encoding standards, digital infrastructures and linguistic hegemonies, to create a genuinely democratic and international scholarly community with more biocultural diversity (Fiormonte, 2017). As explained by Fiormonte et al (2022), it is necessary to decolonize the digital humanities so far troubled by a lack of perspectives beyond Westernized and Anglophone contexts and assumptions.…”

Section: Introduction: Global Diversity In New Knowledge Production A...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Designing Pluriverse Knowledge in Design Research: The Case of the 8th International Forum of Design as a Process

Formia,

Lupo,

Mehmeti

2023

Blucher Design Proceedings

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The global knowledge ecosystem is affected by ethnocentrism and witnesses Western monopolies of knowledge that built hegemonic structures and narratives. The paper proposes a vision that shifts from processes of knowledge power and control to processes of knowledge ownership and leadership through new international interactions based on increased accessibility and visibility in design publications. The idea of building a design network between Latin countries led to the foundation of the Latin Network for the Development of Design Processes. The 8 th International Forum Design as a Process represents a testbed for this new experimentation of community-led knowledge targeting the Latin Network and Global South countries. The research presents a new frame of knowledge accessibility based on different assessment values that acknowledge the intertwin of cultural identity and vernacular design, in favour of equity and inclusivity.

show abstract

“…Mutatis mutandis, a 'quality' South African scholar submitted their work to 'high-impact' journals and adopted the theoretical concerns, language, style and conventions of these journals in order to access the top tiers of academia. As Fiormonte and Priego (2016) These concerns were not new in South African music studies, nor to our shared understanding of the challenges and opportunities presented by language and writing in the postcolony. Six years before he published Nagmusiek (Muller 2014), a three-volume work predominantly written in Afrikaans, Muller reflected on the ongoing process of writing this book by detailing a painful splitting of registers, audiences, desires and scholarly responsibilities, culminating in the paradox that in order 'to stake out an authentic voice in a postcolonial South African position in a global discourse dominated by English', the line of communication with that global discourse needed to be shut down (Muller 2008).…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

Editing for change: From global bibliometrics to a decolonial aporetics of form in South African journal publishing

Froneman

Muller

2022

THE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The scholarly journal is an increasingly homogenised global institution marked by pro forma writing, standardised processes of review and production and uniform design aesthetics. Recognising that this model does not necessarily serve the interdisciplinary agenda of a small community of music scholars in South Africa, the journal South African Music Studies has resisted absorption into large corporate publishing houses. The importance of remaining independent became clear in 2015 and 2016 when the most important student revolts since 1976 forced the editors to reconsider the responsibility of the journal to publish content that responded in interesting and significant ways to the national #FeesMustFall crisis. This paper discusses some of the strategies followed by the editors to foreground – and indeed, to privilege – Africa-centred modes of writing and reasoning during this turbulent time. These decolonial strategies included reconceptualising the role of editor as a proactive figure and employing novel modes of structural and visual design. Not without its pitfalls, this editorial approach and its resultant controversies raised important legal questions about freedom of expression and about the scholarly journal as an institution of knowledge production and transformation in Africa.

show abstract

Knowledge Monopolies and Global Academic Publishing

Cited by 6 publications

References 8 publications

Who is Actually Harmed by Predatory Publishers?

Who is Actually Harmed by Predatory Publishers?

Designing Pluriverse Knowledge in Design Research: The Case of the 8th International Forum of Design as a Process

Editing for change: From global bibliometrics to a decolonial aporetics of form in South African journal publishing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About