1/7 Academic publishers have now licensed their authors' content for use in AI without an opt out for the authors; these companies make big money and rely on authors and reviewers for mostly free (or severely underpaid) labor. thebookseller.com/news/wiley-set…
2/7 Law reviews are oft criticized for a lack of peer review, but one great thing about them is that they don't exploit authors like other academic publishers. Law reviews make content widely available, and for free. Other journals often put academic work behind a paywall.
3/7 Peer review relies on the good will of academics to review (often for free or a pittance). Shouldn't publishers be doing this, since they are making so much money? Articles are then put behind paywalls.
4/7 It seems that in today's digital age, academics are being exploited by journals. They'd be better off just creating their own system of publishing since it's their content and their peer review.
5/7 Law review publishing seems exemplary in this regard. Although we authors don't get paid for content, our articles are free and most law review contracts leave the copyright with the author and don't restrict distribution very much.
6/7 I am fine with not getting paid because my work is freely distributed and I retain rights in my work. I wouldn't be fine with other academic journals that put work behind a paywall and make tons of money creating deals like this with AI companies or charging for works.
7/7 These journals coast on their reputations, but academics could reclaim their power and create their own journals and do the work for themselves. Are these large publishing companies really still needed in today's digital age?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
