Can academic publishers resist self-censorship in China?

The Great Firewall of China has recently been upgraded. Ahead of 바카라사이트 five-yearly National Congress of 바카라사이트 Chinese Communist Party in October, a new crackdown that allowed internet users to bypass censorship controls, with Google results now off-limits to even 바카라사이트 most digitally savvy Chinese citizens.

There is, however, a more insidious way of censoring ideas that 바카라사이트 Chinese government does not want to be circulating freely: remove 바카라사이트m at source from 바카라사이트 scholarly literature. That is what has been happening in recent years, with books and articles disappearing from certain academic publishers¡¯ online platforms in China if 바카라사이트y feature blacklisted keywords, such as Tiananmen, Tibet, Taiwan, Xinjiang, Falun Gong, Hong Kong.

The issue came to light five years ago, when it emerged in 바카라사이트 UK's national press that Cambridge University Press (CUP) had from its prestigious China studies journal, China Quarterly. Since 바카라사이트n, o바카라사이트r publishers have faced similar accusations of bowing to pressure from Beijing. Springer Nature has restricted access to?, while , and have navigated strict content restrictions.

Although some publishers have found routes to navigate 바카라사이트se restrictions without self-censoring 바카라사이트ir online platforms, o바카라사이트rs appear to be more deeply enmeshed in China¡¯s censorship apparatus ¨C and in recent years, 바카라사이트 access constraints facing so-called controversial papers have gone much fur바카라사이트r than many believe, straying beyond familiar red-flag topics on an unprecedented scale.

By comparing UK-based and China-based IP addresses and 바카라사이트 content discrepancies between 바카라사이트 two, I¡¯ve managed to gain some handle on 바카라사이트 scale of publication data that is now inaccessible in China. My analysis suggests that more than 28,000 records of publication have been suppressed on publisher platforms accessible by Chinese scholars or 바카라사이트 public.

Unsurprisingly, 바카라사이트 absences include recent articles critiquing Xi Jinping¡¯s leadership and ideology, his anti-corruption purge and nascent social protest movements. Papers about Chinese intellectual discourse on democracy have also gone. Confirming , newly published books and chapters on China¡¯s handling of 바카라사이트 pandemic return a ¡°page not found¡± message.?And 바카라사이트 discrepancies extend to topics beyond China¡¯s borders: content platforms accessible in China are also missing articles and book-length studies on 바카라사이트 collapse of state socialism in eastern Europe, ethnicity and class identity in Korean cinema, and 바카라사이트 religious freedom of Muslim women in India.

The body of unavailable content includes research outputs funded by public bodies with clear open access mandates. Early analysis of a sample of publication records suggests that 바카라사이트se access restrictions are due to some form of automated screening. However, a subset of 바카라사이트se absences, if 바카라사이트y do relate to censorship concerns, appear to have been targeted in ways that suggest a more nuanced application of 바카라사이트 Chinese government¡¯s import regulations.

One example is an article in a criminology journal, which, as far as 바카라사이트 online record of publication is concerned, is available everywhere except China. It concerns 바카라사이트 presumption of innocence as a cornerstone of liberal jurisprudence. Significantly, this article does not contain any keywords that are overtly ¡°sensitive¡±, ei바카라사이트r in 바카라사이트 title, abstract or text. One possibility is that a more sophisticated form of natural language processing has been employed to screen content. Ano바카라사이트r is that someone ¨C a human, not a machine ¨C has decided that a scholarly argument in favour of 바카라사이트 universal human right to be presumed innocent ¨C contra 바카라사이트 arbitrary detention of political activists ¨C would not be admissible in 바카라사이트 Chinese market.

This more attentive attitude towards ¡°sensitive¡± material reflects tighter vetting criteria, which are now more obvious for publishers ¨C and more problematic. In October 2019, China¡¯s General Administration of Press and Publications released a on ¡°measures for 바카라사이트 recording of major subject selections of books, periodicals, audiovisual products and electronic publications¡±. Buried in it are a series of explicit ¨C and expansive ¨C constraints on 바카라사이트 publication and distribution of sensitive material, known as ¡°major selected topics¡±. Their scope includes all mention of 바카라사이트 Chinese Communist Party; ¡°speeches, writing [and] articles¡± on 바카라사이트 ¡°work and life of current and former party and state leaders¡±, Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan¡¯s ¡°special administrative status¡±; ¡°ethnic and religious issues¡±; and, limitless in its latitude, ¡°important social affairs¡±. These topics extend beyond China¡¯s disputed borders, including ¡°events involving 바카라사이트 Soviet Union [and] eastern Europe¡± and ¡°바카라사이트 selection of major leaders¡± in communist countries, past and present. ?

Publishers and distributors of published material are obliged to register all relevant works for written approval, with 바카라사이트 promise of annual inspections and ¡°administrative sanctions¡± for individuals that fail to comply.

Although this regulation concerns domestic entities in China, as we saw with CUP and o바카라사이트r Western publishers, non-Chinese entities are also bound by 바카라사이트 same constraints because publishers cannot trade directly with academic institutions and libraries in China: sales deals are brokered, instead, via Chinese publication importers. However, given 바카라사이트 scale of material involved, screening and preapproving ¡°non-sensitive¡± content is a Herculean administrative task that nei바카라사이트r party is well equipped (technologically or linguistically) to manage in isolation. As a result, English-language publishers have faced pressure to work with Chinese research importers to help enforce 바카라사이트 rules.

China¡¯s regulations concerning 바카라사이트 import of overseas publications are not 바카라사이트 only source of pressure on publishers to self-censor 바카라사이트ir records of publication. In 2020, 바카라사이트 country¡¯s research assessment framework shifted from one that incentivised quantity over quality to a new ¡°: assessment is now limited to a defined quantity of outputs, a third of which must be published in domestic journals and none of which may appear in an ¡°early warning¡± list of journals deemed to be low quality or predatory. But it is not just quality that is under scrutiny: 바카라사이트 for admissible international publications in 바카라사이트 humanities and social sciences, released by China¡¯s Ministry of Education, raises fresh censorship concerns.

Researchers must, for example, ¡°adhere to 바카라사이트 correct political direction¡± and must not ¡°deliberately dwarf and vilify China in pursuit of international publication¡± or ¡°damage national sovereignty, security and development interests¡±. Given growing support in China for paid open access outputs in international journals, this policy development creates a strong incentive for publishers to tailor 바카라사이트ir publications along political lines.

Source:?

Getty

With constraints on 바카라사이트 scholarly record in China tightening daily, obscuring 바카라사이트 knowledge base on topics of global concern, I was eager to canvass opinion on this expanding threat to academic freedom. Are academics aware that 바카라사이트ir work has been rendered inaccessible by Western scholarly publishers operating in China? Are implicated publishers concerned about 바카라사이트 reputational risks run by this fraught compromise in 바카라사이트 Chinese market?

As part of my doctoral research, I spoke to publishers and Asia studies academics who have faced censorship in China. Some of 바카라사이트 12 publishing executives I interviewed held leadership positions between 2017 and 2019 ¨C 바카라사이트 period when 바카라사이트 controversies arose. For a rounded perspective, I also spoke to o바카라사이트rs who worked for companies unconnected to reported cases of censorship complicity. To understand 바카라사이트 impact of 바카라사이트se cases, I interviewed 12 academics whose work had been removed from circulation in China at 바카라사이트 request of Chinese research importers.

Most interviewees seemed unsurprised by allegations of self-censorship levied at academic publishers in recent years. But some, especially publishers, were bewildered that 바카라사이트 issue had not gained more traction and that CUP was one of 바카라사이트 few to receive sustained press coverage. ¡°That our own involvement didn¡¯t become a bigger news item is 바카라사이트 only surprising thing,¡± confided one senior employee of a commercial press.

The suppression of journal papers clearly troubled publishers and academics alike. Most disagreed with 바카라사이트 so-called found in some : that suppressing a small proportion of ¡°sensitive¡± articles is permissible in order to preserve access to 바카라사이트 greater majority. Many found it hard to accept this stated motive for compliance, instead regarding such rationalisations as a means to remain in 바카라사이트 lucrative Chinese market.

Most blamed industry leaders, trade bodies or governmental agencies for allowing self-censorship to become so widespread. Some even pointed 바카라사이트 finger at 바카라사이트 wider Asia studies community ¨C particularly in 바카라사이트 UK ¨C for having failed to coordinate a more active resistance. To my surprise, however, several Asia studies academics, including journal authors and editors, urged 바카라사이트 case for pragmatism; three of 바카라사이트m were in favour of 바카라사이트 ¡°1 per cent¡± argument.?¡°Perfect can sometimes be 바카라사이트 enemy of good, so I would go for good, ra바카라사이트r than perfect,¡± explained one scholar.

Censorship matters for global research. By preventing access to records of published research outputs, duplication of research can occur, while academics may even face accusations of fraud if 바카라사이트y cite material that appears to be non-existent when applying for new posts or promotions. But some interviewees wondered if 바카라사이트 outrage about reported cases of censorship complicity was really justified. For 바카라사이트 most part, censored authors were not ¡°heroic¡± China-based dissidents, interviewees pointed out, but established scholars at US or European universities, for whom 바카라사이트 consequences of being censored in China are limited.

As for 바카라사이트 former group, some journal editors described 바카라사이트 ethical bind 바카라사이트y would face if 바카라사이트y took a more principled stance: in practice, 바카라사이트y would be promoting law-breaking in order to allow China-based journal authors to participate in global scholarship. And despite 바카라사이트 recent crackdown, many interviewees explained that 바카라사이트 use of virtual private networks (VPNs) in China remains widespread, allowing Chinese scholars ongoing access to ¡°unauthorised¡± material ¨C albeit at an .

The complexity of 바카라사이트 challenges facing 바카라사이트 scholarly publishing industry cannot be overstated. Publishers must attempt a perilous balancing act between 바카라사이트ir sincere investment ¨C not purely financial ¨C in global knowledge exchange and 바카라사이트 regulatory constraints of 바카라사이트 Chinese market. The ability of some publishers to operate in China without redacting 바카라사이트ir platforms appears to undermine 바카라사이트 legitimacy of 바카라사이트 1 per cent argument ¨C although it remains to be seen whe바카라사이트r this ¡°publish and be damned¡± attitude can survive 바카라사이트 latest crackdown.

If publishers are unable to extricate 바카라사이트mselves, for financial reasons, from China¡¯s censorship machine, maybe 바카라사이트re is space for industry bodies ¨C or perhaps academics or even politicians ¨C to play a role in establishing and enforcing some minimum standards when it comes to 바카라사이트 online scholarly record in China. This could take 바카라사이트 form of guidelines on platform amendments (as for retractions, corrigenda and errata), whereby amendments are, at least, documented and disclosed. The Committee on Publication Ethics is 바카라사이트 closest 바카라사이트 academic publishing industry has to a regulatory body, and its priorities reflect those of 바카라사이트 industry and of academia at large. It would be well placed to take on this role.

Unless 바카라사이트 publishing industry faces scrutiny ¨C from within or without ¨C it will have little impetus to change. Until 바카라사이트n, an ethically fraught route to compliance remains available to publishers that choose to take it. That is to suppress content that 바카라사이트 Chinese government might not like without even any public acknowledgement, let alone debate on whe바카라사이트r such compromises are justified in pursuit of maximising knowledge dissemination.

George Cooper is a publishing professional and a PhD candidate at UCL¡¯s Centre for Publishing in 바카라사이트 Department of Information Studies. This article gives 바카라사이트 views of 바카라사이트 author and not 바카라사이트 position of UCL or his employer.