The university should be the place demonstrating socioecological change, serving as a site of experimentation and praxis (see Dunlap et al., 2023). This, however, could not be further from the truth. Beside advancing technologies of digital, political and military control (Chatterjee & Maira, 2014), not to mention genetic dissection and animal vivisection—or some degree of this (Pellow, 2014)—universities fail to enact real examples of socioecological of renewability and sustainability. How come universities are not overflowing with agroecology, permaculture and forest gardens on and inside universities? How come universities are not self-generating their own electricity needs through wind, solar and other lower-carbon infrastructures? We, unfortunately, are witnessing the opposite at university campuses around the world.

https://www.grassrootsjpe.org/view/resource.php?resource=26

  • Kallioapina@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    133
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    This is also a big reason why I’m few weeks from submitting my masters for inspection, and 90% of my references/sources are from Annas Archive / Zlib. Our uni library, in supposedly rich nordic country Finland, just cant afford all the licenses. Luckily all our professors and researchers are in on the “secret”, but its just a fucking joke.

    Most of the world economy is on the same fucking joke. Just leeches upon leeches upon leeches… And so few people giving anything usefull to the world. I fucking try, but god damn these useless money leeches in the middle try to make it hard as possible. Fuck. So fucking angry, but what can I do but try to minimize the damages I do on my personal part.

  • qjkxbmwvz@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    60
    ·
    6 months ago

    If the research was conducted with public money, it should be freely accessible by the public, change my mind…

      • qjkxbmwvz@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        6 months ago

        Very cool. I know someone, in a fairly small but funded field, who had this sort of requirement — Elsevier had the relevant publication, but they couldn’t publish there due to access policies (or it was going to be painful to do so at any rate). So they started their own publication!

        I forgot the specifics, but it essentially uses arXiv as the backend, and there’s a (commercially available?) frontend that lets editors and reviewers do their thing. “Publishing” in this journal is essentially just endorsing an arXiv paper; so it’s open access by design.

        Really cool stuff. Their field is small enough that iirc they could kinda get critical mass to give Elsevier the finger and adopt this new platform. Warm fuzzy feeling thinking about it!

      • daddy32@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        6 months ago

        You forgot the part where this resulted in giving even more money to the publishers for the “Open access”. World is fucked.

  • gi1242@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    6 months ago

    so back in the day we needed publishers for distribution. now with the Internet, distribution is easy. but prices only went up

    associate editors and referees are unpaid volunteers. typesetting is also mainly done by the authors. but prices are high because the publisher wants to profit.

    there are quite a few high quality journals that are fairly priced and published by non profit publishers. these are the only journals authors should publish in …

  • umbrella@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    6 months ago

    also a lot of research work in brazil disallows you to get a second job. you are forced to live with the little money they pay you.

    its almost like they don’t want there to be research here.

  • shameless@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    6 months ago

    Given the times I’ve seen news articles and screenshots of poorly vetted published journals. Surely a free open source publisher managed by the academic community can’t be much worse? I also don’t know shit about the requirements to actually publish so this is probably a naive take

  • iAvicenna@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    6 months ago

    One should do a study about much these supposedly open access journals are profiting and who are their shareholders and what not

  • VeganPizza69 Ⓥ@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    6 months ago

    sighs from Eastern Europe

    You’d think that they’re using the money for prizes for reviewers or as scholarship prizes. What are they doing with all that money? Hosting a journal can’t be that expensive.

  • littleblue✨@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    6 months ago

    Please don’t give the overlords ideas. “Minimum wage” as a currency? Talk about dystopian present, damn.

  • BilboBargains@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    6 months ago

    Libgen and Scihub exist for this exact reason. How is it we’ve arrived at a situation where capitalists are deciding how knowledge is propagated?

  • BluesF@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    6 months ago

    Academic publishing seems like a problem that should be easy to solve. It’s a situation where greed is outright making the service worse for everyone, so it seems like a new journal that does things differently (e.g. by not charging researchers) could become wildly successful… So why doesn’t that happen? Are there barriers to creating new journals?