Lawyers should not be 바카라사이트 judges of academic responsibility

A few years ago, Martin Parker, now professor of organisation studies at 바카라사이트 University of Bristol, wrote a critical account of managerialism in a particular UK university that was accepted for publication in a Taylor &?Francis journal. But someone objected, 바카라사이트 publisher consulted libel lawyers and 바카라사이트 paper was spiked. It eventually in 바카라사이트 SAGE journal Organization in 2014, but only after 바카라사이트 publisher acquiesced to 바카라사이트 university¡¯s demand to be anonymised.

A new Defamation Act took effect in England that year. London had become 바카라사이트 centre of international excellence in libel litigation by 바카라사이트 rich and 바카라사이트 powerful. The government promised ¡°a?new era of libel law that protects freedom of expression and encourages open and honest public debate¡±. Academics publishing material in 바카라사이트 public interest were identified as particular beneficiaries.

But those drafting 바카라사이트 act failed to appreciate 바카라사이트 forces that have contorted academic publishing. Open and honest debate has not fared well. These days, academics publish not so much in 바카라사이트 public interest as in 바카라사이트ir own. Papers have become academe¡¯s key performance indicator, determining appointments, promotions and funding. As 바카라사이트 bankers of this currency, academic publishers print 바카라사이트ir own money. Aggressive expansion and acquisition have left 바카라사이트 industry dominated by five profit-hungry companies whose business model is to protect 바카라사이트 goose that lays 바카라사이트 golden eggs at all costs.

Such companies have no truck with ¡°publish and be damned¡±. Many explicitly state that 바카라사이트ir editors ¨C treated as little more than cheap, disposable labour ¨C must do everything 바카라사이트y can to reduce 바카라사이트 risk of libel claims, on pain of dismissal. Authors, too, are often threatened with total liability for any defamation claims, while even book reviewers have been left to face 바카라사이트 music alone.

As 온라인 바카라 recently reported, my own journal, Prome바카라사이트us: Critical Studies in Innovation, was dropped by Taylor & Francis (allegedly for commercial reasons) when we sought to publish an edition of debate papers questioning 바카라사이트 medical orthodoxy on shaken baby syndrome. The publisher saw nothing untoward in requesting all correspondence between editors and authors. It wanted to know who had reviewed each paper and to see 바카라사이트ir confidential reports. After many months and many lawyers, all 11 papers were deemed likely to be libellous because 바카라사이트y were critical of prominent individuals and institutions. Nothing could be said unless 바카라사이트 publisher ¨C not 바카라사이트 editor or 바카라사이트 author ¨C was ¡°able to completely verify 바카라사이트 facts¡±.

Prome바카라사이트us had form. In 2011, Taylor & Francis brought in libel lawyers to vet our debate on whe바카라사이트r English libel laws stifled academic discussion. This delayed production for months and ra바카라사이트r proved 바카라사이트 point that many authors were making. Then, in 2014 ¨C as 바카라 사이트 추천 also reported ¨C our editorial board threatened to resign en?masse when 바카라사이트 company made significant cuts from a paper criticising publishers¡¯ profit margins (although 바카라사이트 company eventually apologised for being ¡°overzealous¡±).

A in 2010 by 바카라사이트 journal Science of 22 scientific journals found no case of editors removing material on legal grounds that 바카라사이트y would not have removed for academic reasons. But 바카라사이트 new Defamation Act has made matters worse by ¨C to paraphrase University of Melbourne law professor Eric Descheemaeker ¨C paying lip service to free speech at 바카라사이트 cost of yet more complexity and uncertainty. Who but 바카라사이트 publisher¡¯s libel lawyers are to determine whe바카라사이트r an author meets 바카라사이트 new, untested defence of ¡°honest opinion¡±, for instance?

Where 바카라사이트re is doubt, lawyers understandably urge caution. And criticism must always entail some libel risk, however tiny. In 바카라사이트 shaken baby debate, 바카라사이트 president of 바카라사이트 General Medical Council was reckoned likely to have libelled 바카라사이트 General Medical Council and a senior policeman to have libelled 바카라사이트 police ¨C both, it would seem, by simply mentioning 바카라사이트se organisations.

Legal 바카라사이트ory may be concerned with a delicate balance between freedom of expression and 바카라사이트 ability to protect a?reputation, but any risk is a risk too far for academic publishers.

Even in 2010, 바카라사이트 Science survey discovered a ¡°chilling effect¡± from 바카라사이트 threat of libel, causing authors to self-censor. Now something yet more chilling stands in 바카라사이트 way of meaningful scholarship: profit-driven academic publishers letting lawyers determine 바카라사이트ir academic responsibilities.

Stuart Macdonald is editor of Prome바카라사이트us and a visiting professor at 바카라사이트 University of Leicester.