Empire and Scholarly Communications. Multinational Monopolies of Knowledge and the Global South
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Poster presented at The 22nd International Conference on Electronic Publishing, Toronto, Canada, Saturday, June 23 2018. Due to the constraints of the poster format not every reference has been included- the poster is the result of a ruthless synthesis of qualitative work based on a variety of previous research. Every attempt was made to date any figures-- they were correct at the time of collating the data, but naturally it is likely to change. The bibliography below lists the main works that enabled the summary we have presented in abridged form in the poster itself. Bibliography: Alperin, JP., Babini, D., Fischman, G. (eds.) 2014. Open access indicators and scholarly communications in Latin America (Buenos Aires: CLACSO, First edtion). Available in full text on the Web Virtual Library of CLACSO: www.biblioteca.clacso.edu.ar. Bosman, J., Bruno, I., Chapman, C., Greshake Tzovaras, B., Jacobs, N., Kramer, B., . . . Veksler, L. 2017. The Scholarly Commons - principles and practices to guide research communication. Available at: https: //osf.io/6c2xt/. Eve, M. 2016. Referring Elsevier/RELX to the Competition and Markets Authority. Martin Eve 3 December. Available at: https://www.martineve.com/2016/12/03/referring-elsevierRELX-to-the-competition- and-markets-authority/. Eve, M.P. and Priego, E. (2017). Who is actually harmed by predatory publishers? TripleC, 15(2), pp. 755–770. http://openaccess.city.ac.uk/18007/ Fiormonte, D. 2017. Digital Humanities and the Geopolitics of Knowledge. Digital Studies/Le champ num ́erique, 7(1). Available at: https://doi.org/10.16995/dscn.274. Fiormonte, E. & Priego, E., 2016. Knowledge Monopolies and Global Academic Publishing. The Winnower. Available at: https://doi.org/10.15200/winn.147220.00404. Graham, et al, M., 2011. Visualizing the uneven geographies of knowledge production and circulation. Global Higher Education, 14.9. Available at: https://globalhighered.wordpress.com/2011/09/14/visualizing- the-uneven-geographies-of-knowledge-production-and-circulation/. Hathcock, A., 2016. Making the Local Global: The Colonialism of Scholarly Communication. At the Inter- section. Available at: https://aprilhathcock.wordpress.com/2016/09/27/making-the-local-global- the-colonialism-of-scholarly-communication/. Hennessy, K., 2012. From Intangible Expression to Digital Cultural Heritage (Chapter 3) - Safeguarding Intangible Cultural Heritage. In M. Stefano, P. Davis, & G. Corsane (Eds.), Safeguarding Intangible Cultural Heritage (pp. 33-46). Innis, H. A. (2008). The Bias of Communication. Second edition with a new introduction by Alexander John Watson, Toronto, University of Toronto Press. Innis, H. A. (2007) [1950]. Empire and Communications. Toronto: Dundurn Press. Available openly via the Gutenberg Project at https://www.gutenberg.ca/ebooks/innis-empire/innis-empire-00-h.html. Lawson, S., Gray, J., Mauri, M., (2016). Opening the Black Box of Scholarly Communication Funding: A Public Data Infrastructure for Financial Flows in Academic Publishing. Open Library of Humanities. 2(1), p.e10. DOI: http://doi.org/10.16995/olh.72 Larivière, V., Haustein, S., Mongeon, P. (2015). The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers in the Digital Era. PLoS ONE 10(6). http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127502 Kurin, R., 2007. Safeguarding Intangible Cultural Heritage: Key Factors in Implementing the 2003 Con- vention. International Journal of Intangible Heritage, 2. Available at: http://pacificasiaobservatory. inclusivemuseum.org/files/2011/10/Kurin_IJIH-Vol2-1.pdf. Logan, C.J., 2017. We can shift academic culture through publishing choices. F1000Research, 6. Available at: https://f1000research.com/articles/6-518/v2. Monbiot, G. (2011). “Academic publishers make Murdoch look like a socialist”, The Guardian, Monday 29 August 2011. Available at https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/aug/29/academic-publishers-murdoch-socialist Moore, S., Neylon C., Eve, MP, O’Donnell, D., Pattinson, D. (2016). “Excellence R Us: University Research and the Fetishisation of Excellence.” figshare. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.3413821.v1 Posada, A. & Chen, G., 2017. Publishers increasingly in control of scholarly infrastructure and this is why we should care. The Knowledge Gap: Geopolitics of Academic Production. Available at: http://knowledgegap. org/index.php/sub-projects/rent-seeking-and-financialization-of-the-academic-publishing-industry/ preliminary-findings/. Priego, E., McKiernan, E., Posada, A., Hartley, R., Rodríguez-ortega, N., Fiormonte, D., Gil, A., et al.. (2017), “Scholarly Publishing, Freedom of Information and Academic Self-Determination: The UNAM-Elsevier Case”, City, University of London, 25 November, available at: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.5632657.v1 . UNESCO, 2003. Text of the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage - intangible heritage - Culture Sector - UNESCO. Available at: https://ich.unesco.org/en/convention. UNESCO, 2017. Overview of OA in Latin America and the Caribbean | United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Available at: http://www.unesco.org/new/en/communication-and- information/portals-and-platforms/goap/access-by-region/latin-america-and-the-caribbean/.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".