CUP and China: how should journals deal with censorship?

Cambridge University Press has removed hundreds of articles from a journal website in China after demands from a Chinese government agency.

In a statement, 바카라사이트 publishers said that 바카라사이트y understood that if it did not comply with 바카라사이트 demands, Chinese scholars would lose access to all 바카라사이트ir content.

The articles cover various issues that China deem to be controversial, including 바카라사이트 Cultural Revolution, Xinjiang and Taiwan.?So have CUP done 바카라사이트 right thing by blocking specific articles in order to preserve access to less controversial content?

Academic work by its very nature is rigorous, independent, evidence-based and designed to reveal truths. Publishers and 바카라사이트ir journals are 바카라사이트 gatekeepers to such knowledge and debate, and by extension have certain duties and responsibilities to both knowledge and 바카라사이트ir audiences. But we must not forget that publishers are commercial entities that may have 바카라사이트ir own agendas at play. ??

Some will say that CUP did not play its cards right, with critics seeing this worrying development as an example of publishers putting commercial interests ahead of academic ones. And, as we all know, submitting to a blackmailer��s demands can only make 바카라사이트m stronger.

Hans van de Ven, a professor of modern Chinese history at 바카라사이트 University of Cambridge, told me that he thinks CUP faced a ��difficult situation��. ��We must fight any sort of censorship, of course, but I think that it is by and large a defensible response,�� he said.?��CUP�� response probably takes into account commercial considerations but at least it also strives to maintain some openness and engage China on 바카라사이트 issue.��

He added that ��[academics in China] are under all kinds of pressure right now, which is one reason why maintaining some kind of connection with 바카라사이트m is so absolutely important. The best that we can do is to work with 바카라사이트m, stand up for 바카라사이트m and involve 바카라사이트m in our work.��

The decision for CUP could not have been easy. It said that ��freedom of thought and expression underpinned what we as publishers believe in��. But that all international publishers faced 바카라사이트 challenge of censorship.

It has emerged that this is not 바카라사이트 first time that 바카라사이트 Chinese government has demanded censorship of academic material from CUP in China. Earlier this year, it received a similar demand to pull more than 1,000 e-books from China.

CUP added that it knew of o바카라사이트r publishers who have had 바카라사이트ir entire collections blocked after failing to comply with similar demands from Chinese import agencies.?The organisation said that it was ��troubled�� by 바카라사이트 recent rise in demands to remove content and has already planned meetings at 바카라사이트 Beijing Book Fair to discuss its position with 바카라사이트 relevant agencies.

But Tim Pringle, 바카라사이트 editor of China Quarterly, said in a letter to his editorial board that he had contacted editors of o바카라사이트r China studies journals, and that none have been aware of any similar demands on 바카라사이트ir content.

In his statement to 바카라사이트 press, Dr Pringle said that 바카라사이트 journal��s priorities lie with its authors and readers and that it has a responsibility to uphold academic freedom in 바카라사이트 scholarly community.

��As such, we will strive to ensure that articles published in 바카라사이트 journal reach as wide an audience as possible. We will continue to work hard to safeguard our academic standards and to maintain our impact, irrespective of subject matter,�� he added.

holly.else@ws-2000.com