Dissemination in a Digital Era

If research dissemination is the process of sharing information and knowledge to as wide an audience as possible, then the ease of use and reach of the web 2.0 should be a natural fit. Unfortunately, this has not necessarily been the case and the reasons lie in a complicated web of economics, copyright, and the "allocation of academic capital" (Lariviere, Haustein & Mongeon, 2015).

Menachem Wecker, in his article Should you Share Your Research on Academia.edu, gives a very pro-arguement for the use of this social media site for self-publishing and the dissemination of research. He likens its use to that of Linkedin as a professionals' social networking site but with more added benefits.  He describes it as a "pared-down social network (that) lets users connect with colleagues, post their own publications, and track the readership of their work - all without having to dig through photographs of people's cats and reactions to whatever is on TV" (Wecker, 2014). Its popularity among academics for the ease of disseminating research has large publishers, such as Elsevier, pushing back against the site and demanding "take-downs" based on copyrights infringements (Wecker, 2014).

I was not surprised by Elsevier's reaction to Academia.edu and its take-down campaign. |This publisher is reacting to protect its market share/profit and open access to research is a threat to its business model... at least that is what I thought!

In contrast, Lariviere, Haustein and Mongeon (2015) in their article The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers in the Digital Era, show through their research how the digital era has created five super-powers in journal publishing. In particular, between 1973 to 2013,  "Reed-Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Springer, and Taylor & Francis increased their share of the published output... combined, the top five most prolific publishers account for more than 50% of all papers published in 2013" (Lariviere, Haustein & Mongeon, 2015). These publishing houses are actually increasing their profits each year rather than decreasing. This research finding is a revelation for me and begs the question of why and how? And, if their profits are increasing, what is the motive behind their take-down campaign against Academia.edu and other similar open access sites?

The authors of this article ask a similar question in their conclusion when they ponder "What is it that they provide that is so essential to the scientific community that we collectively agree to devote an increasingly large proportion of our universities budgets to them?" (Lariviere, Haustein & Mongeon, 2015). One reason they speculate is that it has to do with what they call the "allocation of academic capital", which is (1) the need for young academics to publish in respectable/recognizable journals in order to gain tenure; (2) the need for older academics to publish in order to maintain tenure and/or grants; and (3) the effects of bibliometric indicators that calculate the number of published articles based solely on established journals (Lariviere, Haustein & Mongeon, 2015).

Does anyone else see this as a cat chasing its own tail?

References:
Larivière V, Haustein S, Mongeon P (2015) The oligopoly of academic publishers in the digital era. PLoS ONE 10(6): e0127502. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0127502
Wecker, M. (2014, Feb. 20). Should you share your research on Academia.edu? [Weblog post]. Retrieved from https://chroniclevitae.com/news/345-should-you-share-your-research-on-academia-edu