Abstract

The article by Kayal et al. (2021) constitutes an important reminder to the scientific community of some ethical shortcomings of today’s academic publishing system for which several solutions are proposed. In this short response, I discuss Latour’s portrayal of scientists as “savage capitalists” to relocate a part of these issues in the practices held by researchers themselves. By depicting scientists as capitalist agents publishing articles as investors awaiting returns in capital, I question the compatibility between the stated goal to transform today’s publishing system and a potential collective inertia rooted in personal and career goals. So-called “individual solutions” with deep collective and institutional roots are therefore calling for social momentum to effectively be activated; this vision could be translated into more specific goals for future research and actions.

Highlights

  • At the same time, solutions are proposed and located at the levels of i) individual researchers, ii) scientific communities, and iii) publishers

  • Ethical shortcomings of academic publishing. As they call for a “sustainable academic publishing system”, Kayal et al (2021) criticize fundamental ethical shortcomings in the publication of research findings

  • In a 1993 book, the anthropologist and philosopher Bruno Latour published an article titled “Portrait d’un biologiste en capitaliste sauvage. [Portrait of a biologist as a savage capitalist]1” (Latour 2003: 100). He depicts the ascension in academia of “Pierre Kernowicz” 2, an apparently renowned French biologist based in the United States

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Solutions are proposed and located at the levels of i) individual researchers, ii) scientific communities, and iii) publishers. I aim to show, first, that understanding the capitalist dynamics internalized by researchers implies seeing publications as investments instead of mere “gifts” to publishers or readers. As they call for a “sustainable academic publishing system”, Kayal et al (2021) criticize fundamental ethical shortcomings in the publication of research findings.

Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.