Bad stuff going down at the American Sociological Association
Academic publishers and professional societies are being criticized for opposing rules that would make taxpayer-funded research immediately free to read, arguing such mandates threaten the subscription revenues they claim are needed to support peer review. Commenters counter that peer reviewers are largely unpaid, see these organizations as rent-seeking gatekeepers rather than guardians of quality, and insist that publicly funded work should be public from the outset. The debate broadens into concerns about perverse incentives in academia, the opacity and self-preserving behavior of academic administrations, and the tension between legal structures, ethics, and the public interest.
Open access vs. ASA’s position
- Thread centers on ASA’s opposition to a U.S. policy requiring immediate open access to federally funded research (ending the 12‑month embargo).
- Many argue publicly funded research should be publicly available without delay; paywalls make taxpayers “pay twice.”
- Several see ASA’s stance as protecting a threatened revenue stream rather than scientific integrity, and describe this as rational but misaligned with public interest.
- Some note this is part of a broader conflict between centralized, society‑controlled publishing and open science.
Value and business model of journals and societies
- Numerous comments label scientific journals and societies as rent‑seeking “cartels” or parasites that extract money from universities and governments while relying on unpaid labor.
- Financials cited: ASA publication profit largely funds administration and governance.
- Skeptics ask what real utility these organizations now provide: distribution is trivial online, validation is weak, and incentives distort research priorities.
- A minority defends societies as useful heuristics of trust for non‑experts and science journalists, providing a reputational floor that preprint servers currently lack.
Peer review and alternative models
- Widely noted that peer reviewers are unpaid; claims that paywalls are needed to fund peer review are viewed as misleading.
- Several propose arXiv/OpenReview/easyChair‑style systems with open, ongoing review, better linking of data, code, and follow‑up work.
- Debate over anonymous vs. open reviews: anonymity can reduce reputational pressure and protect critics of famous figures, but secrecy hides important clarifications from readers.
Incentives, misconduct, and academic governance
- Discussion expands to systemic issues: grant overheads, admin growth, prestige chasing, and weak enforcement against plagiarism or fraud.
- Some distinguish between working academics (truth‑seeking) and an administrative class focused on revenue, donors, and image.
- Others argue academia is more opaque and harder to scrutinize than business or government.
Public funding, foreign access, and security
- One concern: open access would also benefit rival states.
- Multiple replies dismiss this, noting paywalls don’t hinder capable adversaries; truly sensitive work is classified and not journal‑published.
Law, ethics, and institutional trust
- Side debate on laws vs. ethics: laws seen by some as expressions of dominant political interests rather than principled compromises.
- Broader frustration with hypocrisy across institutions (academia, religion, politics) and calls for more “creative destruction” of entrenched organizations.