Publishers are increasingly charging authors fees to put their accepted manuscripts in #openaccess repositories. SPARC supports recommendations from Confederation of Open Access Repositories (COAR) on how authors, funders, institutions & libraries can respond. https://coar-repositories.org/news-updates/unfair-publisher-fees-for-deposit-into-repositories-highlight-the-need-for-authors-to-exercise-their-rights/
Jeff Pooley
Research associate at Annerberg Penn & co-director of mediastudies.press. Curious about media studies, history of social science, scholarly communication, and the sociology of academic life.
Jeff Pooley boosted:
The Copyright Office's Public Records System (CPRS) is now live, and I've updated our Deep Backfile pages, and our copyright renewal documentation, to link to and reflect the new system, and describe how to use it.
Our updated guide on how to search for #copyright renewals: https://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/renewals.html
Our updated "Determining copyright status of serial issues" guide: https://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/cce/decisions.html
And our new first serials renewals inventory: https://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/cce/firstperiod.html
Corrections & suggestions welcome!
Jeff Pooley boosted:
Q: What’s more hilarious than a predatory website turning my article into an #AI generated podcast without my consent?
A: The fact that the article BEGAN as a podcast made by me & @DrPinkeee
So basically glaciers were melted to turn our podcast into a worse podcast. #academicChatter #winning
Jeff Pooley boosted:
I know this is just a press release, but it's worth keeping in mind that GetFTR is hostile tech designed by the biggest commercial publishers so they can maintain control of the scholarly record.
https://www.researchinformation.info/analysis-opinion/making-access-work/
Jeff Pooley boosted:
This is a core system app interrupting you, promoting a sale by a movie-ticketing company, to push you to go see the platform vendor’s new movie.
Why not just pop up random ads all the time, always creating new channels that everyone’s opted-into by default so you can never keep up with opting out of them all?
Oh wait, that’s already what happens.
Apple’s as bad as everyone else. They don’t respect their customers — we’re fodder.
They truly have no standards anymore.
https://mastodon.social/@caseyliss/114738626109660386
Jeff Pooley boosted:
The Royal Society of Chemistry (#RSC) just issued a vague and puzzling statement about its plans.
https://www.rsc.org/news/our-evolving-approach-to-open-access
It once planned to convert all its journals to #OpenAccess by 2028. By which it apparently meant #APC-based OA. But after talking with customers in different parts of the world, it learned that some regions "are not yet ready for fully OA." By which it means APC-based OA. "The resounding message we heard over and over is that one size cannot fit all." By which it means that not all can pay APCs.
"It became clear that we needed to adapt our vision for openness to account for a landscape that is increasing in complexity and no longer coalescing around a single direction for open research." As if the global landscape had ever coalesced around support for APCs.
But RSC is still committed to some kind of transition to OA. "We are now shaping our future OA approach to support authors in ways that suit them best in a local context."
If it plans to support no-APC forms of OA, it carefully avoids saying so. It never mentions #GreenOA and never endorses #DiamondOA. (It mentions one diamond OA initiative in Africa, but it's not an RSC initiative.)
I'm guessing that it plans to rely on locally customized #ReadAndPublish agreements. (I've argued that all such agreements use APCs in disguise.) But if so, why not say so? If it has other models in mind for regions "not ready" for APC-based OA, why not say what they are?
Jeff Pooley boosted:
"Ambiguous one-word journal titles are a MDPI trademark (“Foods”, “Plants”). In the spirit of “if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em”, Springer Nature has launched a series of journals, the “Discover” series, with near-identical names (Discover Food, Discover Plants).
(...) You can try it yourself in our “Guess Who Is Who” mini-game (...)
Why? How? And let’s ask the most important question of all: who will this benefit? It’s certainly not the authors."
Not sure how I missed this excellent, taxonomically satisfying overview of OA business models, published last year in @UKSGofficial Insights https://www.jeffpooley.com/2025/05/classifying-open-access-business-models/
Jeff Pooley boosted:
Consider submitting a book proposal to mediastudies.press, in our annual proposal window (June 1 to July 31). We are a nonprofit, no-fee, scholarled publisher supported by libraries https://www.mediastudies.press/proposals
Jeff Pooley boosted:
This was a fun and engaging conversation -- the first session of at least two -- among Bob McChesney's friends and colleagues talking about his research, why it's especially relevant today, and how we can build on it and carry it forward. Many thanks to Toby Miller for organizing and hosting this remembrance of Bob on his always must-listen podcast.
https://culturalstudies.podbean.com/e/bennett-pickard-douglas-williams-delli-carpini-gross-bob-mcchesney/
Jeff Pooley boosted:
@ethanz this is so thoughtful, thanks for writing it Ethan!
Along similar lines, I've been lately reading Brooke Duffy's work on authenticity expectations are gendered, and how authenticity becomes a trap for women especially, and coded language for misogyny.
Your article doesn't name gender specifically, but it's clear you're thinking about this too, given the examples you cited.
Jeff Pooley boosted:
Temporary restraining order blocking evisceration of IMLS. Truly the best May Day gift.
https://www.wordsandmoney.com/court-temporarily-blocks-imls-destruction/
Jeff Pooley boosted:
The April History of Media Studies newsletter is out, with updates about the journal, new bibliography additions, and CFPs! https://buttondown.email/hms/archive/history-of-media-studies-newsletter-april-2025
Jeff Pooley boosted:
US economic inequality.Thom Hartmann :
"In the 44 years since Ronald Reagan began trading campaign contributions for favorable regulatory and tax treatment, fully $50 trillion has been extracted from the American middle class and deposited instead in the money bins of the morbidly rich. We’ve gone from two-thirds of us being in the middle class in 1980 to around 47% of us today.
It’s a level of wealth transfer facilitated by SCOTUS-legalized corruption that Putin and Orbán can only dream of "
Jeff Pooley boosted:
📢 We are really excited to announce the speakers, journals, and presses participating in this year's ROAC conference “Radical Open Access III: From Openness to Social Justice Activism”, happening on 10 and 11 April 2025 online and at the Milstein Room, Cambridge University Library (UK).
Speakers: Élisabeth Arsenault, Sarah-Anne Arsenault, Lucy Barnes, Simon Batterbury, Marc Herbst, Rupert Gatti, Angela Okune, Charmaine Pereira, Jeff Pooley, Ela Przybyło, Magalí Rabasa, Ash Sharma, Stevphen Shukaitis, Lauren Smith, Alessandra Tosi, Vincent van Gerven Oei
Journals & Presses: darkmatter, ÉSBC, Feral Feminisms, Feminist Africa, Journal of Political Ecology, Journal of Radical Librarianship, mediastudies.press, Minor Compositions, Open Book Publishers, punctum books, The Journal of Aesthetics & Protest.
@journalofpoliticalecology @mediadotpress @OpenBookPublish
More details, and registration via https://radicaloa.postdigitalcultures.org/conferences/radicaloa3/
Jeff Pooley boosted:
Of course Elsevier's "enhanced pdf viewer" tracks where you click, view, if you hide the page, etc. and then transmits a big base64 blob of events along with ID from University proxy when you leave. I'm sure straight to SciVal for sale.
Is this the way we want science to work?
Jeff Pooley boosted:
My bad no doubt, but I’ve only heard today about the SK article that criticizes https://katinamagazine.org/content/article/main-section/2024/how-open-investing-will-transform-library-collections and I see that the comment section is already closed. What I wanted to say is that the SK piece misrepresents our point. The point is not “open investments at the expense of local needs”, but “open investments because these are the best value for money for local needs (and on top of that benefit others as well)”.
Jeff Pooley boosted:
#Google #AI researchers were formerly like university researchers in this respect: They published their research when it was ready and without regard to corporate interests. For example, see the landmark 2017 paper introducing the transformer technology now in use by all major #LLM tools, including those from Google rivals.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.03762
More here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attention_Is_All_You_Need
But that's changing. Google's AI researchers may now only publish their findings after an embargo and corporate approval.
https://arstechnica.com/ai/2025/04/deepmind-is-holding-back-release-of-ai-research-to-give-google-an-edge/
“'I cannot imagine us putting out the transformer papers for general use now,' said one current researcher…The new review processes [has] contributed to some departures. 'If you can’t publish, it’s a career killer if you’re a researcher,' said a former researcher."
Jeff Pooley boosted:
Susanne Langer’s luminous theory of metaphor—a new essay by Sue Curry Jansen and me, in @aeonmagazine https://psyche.co/ideas/for-this-neglected-philosopher-metaphors-make-life-an-adventure
Jeff Pooley boosted:
I just published a blog post arguing that the reform movements for research assessment and scientific publishing need to better align their agendas. This is crucial for the success of both movements.
Client Info
Server: https://mastodon.social
Version: 2025.04
Repository: https://github.com/cyevgeniy/lmst