Science Communication and Open Access: The Critique of the Political Economy of Capitalist Academic Publishers as Ideology Critique

Abstract

Starting from a theoretical and methodological foundation of an academic ideology critique, the production, distribution and valorisation of science communication will be analysed in exemplary fashion. The focus is on the criticism of publishing houses’ business models in the sphere of open Access publishing. These models are propagated and implemented by science and politics. Thus, academic publications continue to be traded as commodities. The existing relationships of power and domination are thereby reproduced. In contrast, the emancipatory potential of non-commercial science communication based on the digitalisation of production and distribution is shown.

Communication Research, the Geopolitics of Knowledge and Publishing in High-Impact Journals: The Chronicle of a Commodification Process Foretold

“…At this late juncture, we cannot address this issue comprehensively, but we can offer some food for thought. For instance, with his critical analysis of publishing house business models in the sphere of OA publishing, Manfred Knoche (2020) has highlighted the fact that, notwithstanding the benefits of the OA publishing option, when it does not include a critique of the commodification of knowledge, it results in the reproduction of the existing relationships of power and domination in the academic publishing world. In the words of Knoche, therefore, "Through commodification, the publishing houses that are declared as renowned 'brands' not only obtain the intellectual property rights of academics as creators in order to valorise capital, but also control the organisation of academic quality management by selectively controlling access to the publication market" (2020,522).…”

Towards an Inclusive Agenda of Open Science for Communication Research: A Latin American approach

“…As Poell, Nieborg, Van Dijck (2019) state, platforms are not neutral, value-free places where objective content is deposited; their architecture and design contain embedded meanings and values.. This is how a hegemonic perspective of OS is aligned with platform capitalism (Mirowski, 2018;Srnicek, 2017;Knoche & Fuchs, 2020), a molding process analogous to the "sharing economy" embodied by companies such as Uber and Airbnb. Put differently, such a process illustrates a reappropriation of a democratic lexicon for neoliberal purposes (Pasquale, 2016;Scholz, 2016).…”

“…An alternative viewpoint focuses on the political rather than the strictly methodological character of OS. It stresses the uneven production, distribution, and access to scientific knowledge worldwide (Delfanti, 2013;Knoche & Fuchs, 2020). This perspective understands science as a social phenomenon that is not immune to language, culture, and power asymmetries (Suzina, 2021), as well as emphasizes diversity as a core feature of knowledge production.…”

The political economy of academic publishing: On the commodification of a public good

“…While we share the critical stance towards this process (e.g. [ 12 ]) we use the terms “market” and “goods” because we aim to examine the financial flows in the field of academic publishing. Against the background of what was labelled an economization of science or academic capitalism [ 32 , 33 ] a new form of internal stratification centered around journal impact factors and citations gained ground.…”

“…Yet, recent trends of OA are also seen ambivalent by some scholars (e.g. [ 12 ]). While on the one hand radical OA options (“OA without publishers”) could potentially challenge or even abolish power structures in science communication, these authors claim that current OA practices strictly follow the capitalist logic of commodification of academic products.…”