Die 5 Phasen der „Enshitifizierung“ des wissenschaftlichen Publizierens
https://theconversation.com/the-5-stages-of-the-enshittification-of-academic-publishing-269714
Die 5 Phasen der „Enshitifizierung“ des wissenschaftlichen Publizierens
https://theconversation.com/the-5-stages-of-the-enshittification-of-academic-publishing-269714
2 Kommentare
> When writer Cory Doctorow introduced the term enshittification in 2023, he captured a pattern many users had already noticed in their personal lives.
> The social media platforms, e-commerce sites and search engines they were using had noticeably deteriorated in quality. Many had begun to prioritise content from advertisers and other third parties. Profit became the main goal.
> Doctorow frames this decline as a death spiral: the online platforms once offered value to their users, but slowly shifted their focus to extracting value, with little regard for consequences.
> But [our recent research](https://doi.org/10.1177/13505084251399576), published in Organization, shows that enshittification isn’t just confined to the online world. In fact, it’s now visible in academic publishing and occurs in five stages. The same forces that hollow out digital platforms are shaping how a lot of research is produced, reviewed and published.
It’s a good article, but rather short and not that comprehensive. And the suggestions for change sound like PR policy-speak:
>Countering this trend demands interventions and the creation of alternatives. These include a reassessment of evaluation metrics, a reduced reliance on commercial publishers, and greater global equity in research.
>Some promising alternatives already exist. Cooperative publishing models, institutional repositories and policy initiatives such as the [Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment](https://www.coara.org/) all advocate for broader and more meaningful assessments of scholarly impact.
>Reclaiming academic publishing as a public good will require a return to not-for-profit models and sustainable open-access systems. Quality, accessibility and integrity need to be put ahead of profit.
>Change is needed to help protect the core purpose of academic research: to advance knowledge in the public interest.
Which is…fine…at least there’s an „advocacy group“, right? But it’s like saying, „We need to take the money out of politics.“ True statement, but when academic publishing is a $19 billion industry–are these publishers going to just become non-profits, give themselves all massive pay cuts?
I don’t want to be cynical, but it’s been like this for decades now, and the decline has only accelerated in the last decade.