This prosocial attitude, though virtuous, seems to have led us into collective ignorance, making us easy targets for those profiting from the knowledge we generate. I was largely unaware of the issue myself – until I signed a publishing agreement for my book. Long story short: the book will be out, maybe you will see it on the shelves, you may even buy it, but one thing is certain – none of the proceeds will reach anyone who actually contributed to writing it.
Why? Well, one reason is undoubtedly the academic system that sustains this unfair exchange. From the moment we begin our PhD education and throughout our academic careers, the goal is to conduct research worth sharing with the public. But regardless of what type of work we publish, it is common practice to forgo personal benefit. Not only that, we even accept the additional cost to make our work accessible. We do the research, write it up, submit it to a journal, review it, and then pay that journal so that more people can read it. It brings to mind the image of a cow paying for its milk to be distributed. Sounds ridiculous, doesn’t it?
It’s paradoxical that a highly educated group, representing the idea that knowledge is the key to success, allows their knowledge to be exploited. But the system is also to blame, as it both allows and pressures us into this ignorance. Many of us – and I publicly admit to this – do not fully understand the publishing agreements we sign, nor the adjustments we could make to them. Despite publishing being a large part of our job, we lack basic training in this area.
Another issue is that we’ve become passive, failing to seek support even when it’s available (for example, the university’s legal department can help you out). We keep blindly accepting the given terms and clicking that ‘sign here’ button, unaware of the culture we are perpetuating.
But I wonder, what would our position look like if we were all aware of our rights and assertively vocal about them – if we borrowed a little of that Gen Z spirit? I suspect that not only would we gain more respect for our work, but others would too. Maybe it’s worth a try.
Irena Bošković is assistant professor of Forensic and Legal Psychology.
This is an interesting opinion piece for multiple reasons. On one hand, dr. Boskovic raises pertinent issues about the exploitation of academics’ labor and the paradox of a highly educated group surrendering their rights. On the other hand, her argument falters in key areas, specifically regarding the responsibilities academics bear toward public funding and the implications of “not knowing” ones contractual rights. Allow me to expand on this.
Dr. Boskovic seems to imply that academics’ altruistic motivations partly explain their tolerance of exploitation, as if personal sacrifice was somehow inherently virtuous. However, when a great deal of research (at least in the academic sense, not R&D of companies), is funded by public or taxpayer money, this “altruism” no longer represents a purely personal choice. Academics, and their respective universities, (ought to) have an obligation to ensure that the products of publicly funded research remain accessible and beneficial to society, rather than allowing profits to flow to private publishers or corporations. By failing to establish fairer terms – be it due to a longstanding tradition or simply not wanting to rock the conventional boat – academics and their institutions may inadvertently divert public funded knowledge from public access – a problem that warrants a much greater critique. Unlike their US counterparts, European universities are most, if not all, funded by their respective governments to a large extent and therefore by everyone’s taxpaying money. As long as we keep it that way (and I truly believe we should strive to keep it that way for a plethora of reasons that don’t need to be expanded on here), those same universities are beholden to the public (even if they seem to have forgotten it).
As to the second major point of not knowing and/or understanding what one is signing, all one can say is “Ignorantia juris non excusat”. Maybe we have really become too callous, since we are being prompted with all the “I agree” and “I accept” buttons the moment we interact with our digital lives. Both the individual and the system have failed in this instance. Every single person has a responsibility to understand what they are signing. Some might say especially so when we are talking about contracts that potentially influence public access to goods, services or knowledge. It seems to me that dr. Boskovic smartly uses a self-reflective tone that might generate empathy, but that does not absolve academics of their duty to stay informed and proactive about the legal frameworks that govern their work. As they point out, there’s the university’s legal department, so why not ask? There’s also a great deal of knowledge one internet search away. The option of using one of many GPTs or LLMs (colloquially known as AI) we have at our disposal today is also a good way to flag anything out of the ordinary. Last but not least, in the Netherlands we have “Het Juridisch Loket” that offer a primary touch point on all legal matters.
In conclusion, I would say that dr. Boskovic raises an important critique but sidesteps the ethical obligations her and her academic peers owe to the public who funds their research. Ignorance of contractual obligations is not just a personal shortcoming but a breach of accountability to those whose taxes support the research enterprise.
Addressing the issue head-on would encourage the academics to balance their “altruism” with a responsibility to advocate for transparency and public accessibility in research.
Comments are closed.