ArticlePDF Available

Open Access to Criminal Justice Scholarship: A Matter of Social Justice

Authors:

Abstract

The paper argues that criminal justice scholarship disseminated through the traditional journal subscription model is not consistent with social justice. Adoption of "open access" principles in publishing benefits both authors and readers through broader and more egalitarian dissemination of criminal justice literature. Moreover, when viewed in light of social justice theory, open access is a more just method of scholarly communication. After providing a brief outline of the history and basic aspects of open access, the paper uses the framework of the social justice theories of John Rawls and David Miller to argue why open access is more just than traditional subscription models of publishing and why criminal justice scholars and their associations must consider the importance of supporting open access initiatives and promoting the dissemination of scholarship as widely as possible if they are concerned about attaining justice for criminal justice scholarly literature. Open access to the repository version at: http://libres.uncg.edu/ir/asu/listing.aspx?styp=ti&id=2715
Open Access to Criminal Justice
Scholarship: A Matter of Social Justice
Authors: Allan Scherlen; Matthew Robinson
Published in: Journal of Criminal Justice Education, Volume 19, Issue 1 March 2008 ,
pages 54 - 74
The original published version was published by Taylor & Francis and can be accessed at
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/10511253.asp.
Abstract
The paper argues that criminal justice scholarship disseminated through the traditional
journal subscription model is not consistent with social justice. Adoption of "open
access" principles in publishing benefits both authors and readers through broader and
more egalitarian dissemination of criminal justice literature. Moreover, when viewed in
light of social justice theory, open access is a more just method of scholarly
communication. After providing a brief outline of the history and basic aspects of open
access, the paper uses the framework of the social justice theories of John Rawls and
David Miller to argue why open access is more just than traditional subscription models
of publishing and why criminal justice scholars and their associations must consider the
importance of supporting open access initiatives and promoting the dissemination of
scholarship as widely as possible if they are concerned about attaining justice for criminal
justice scholarly literature.
Introduction
The discipline of criminal justice concerns itself first and foremost with issues of
"justice," but ironically the process for the dissemination of scholarship within the
discipline of criminal justice is inconsistent with theories of social justice articulated by
justice theorists, John Rawls and David Miller. Currently, criminal justice societies, like
those of most other academic disciplines, publish articles in journals that have been
outsourced to large corporations which maintain a profit by limiting access to scholarship
through ever-inflating subscription barriers. Traditional models of disseminating
knowledge through subscriptions served scholarship well through the twentieth century
but are now limiting the potential for authors' impact and readers' access.
Since the advent of the Internet, the ways scholars create and share academic research
have rapidly changed. Throughout the late 1990s and into the 21st century, scholars in
various fields began to realize that they could create an academic journal and distribute it
on the web for a minimal cost, while others found that they could post their published
papers on their own websites. Meanwhile, commercial publishers discovered that the
power of digital technologies allowed them to turn academic journal publishing into a
profitable business. The traditional paper journal was rapidly becoming obsolete in the
face of online innovations, while new methods for digitally sharing journal articles,
research data, and other findings were promising to better serve the advancement of
knowledge and to benefit both authors and readers more effectively.
Developments in new knowledge sharing technologies coupled with concern over the
alarming inflation rate of journal subscription prices over the last 20 years led to a variety
of innovations that have come to be referred to as "open access." These initiatives have
dealt in one way or another with freeing reader's access to academic research literature
from financial obstacles of the traditional subscription model of journal publishing, so
anyone who has access to the Internet can access scholarship. Three major manifestations
of "open access" that have emerged are: free open access academic journals, free access
to the back files of some subscription journals, and permissions by subscription journals
for authors to self archive on a website or in an e-repository.
Many criminal justice scholars and practitioners may be unaware of this growing
development in scholarly communication that is changing how we think about sharing
research and revolutionizing our traditional notions of academic publishing. Scholars,
publishers, and organizations within criminal justice must now become aware and
address the issues around open access for at least two reasons. First, it will benefit them
with more online readers and more professional impact; second, it will benefit students,
practitioners in the field and less fortunate researchers around the world who cannot
afford to pay for subscription access to cutting edge, criminal justice journal literature. It
is thus natural that, since justice is at the core of what criminal justice scholars pursue,
they and their supporting associations address the justice of opening access to their own
literature.
In this paper, we introduce the open access movement and discuss its implications for
social justice. After examining two contemporary statements by major social justice
thinkers, we then argue that limiting access to information by criminal justice societies is
inconsistent with these theories of social justice. Conversely, we argue that the open
access movement is consistent with social justice.
What Is Open Access?
Background - Corporate Journal Publishing and the Internet
The origin of open access can be traced both to the advent of the Internet providing the
means of more easily and widely disseminating scholarly information and to a reaction to
the rising cost of subscription journals, especially in the areas of science, technology, and
medicine.
Since the 1960s, the number of journals available for a given discipline has steadily
increased. For example, in 1960, the discipline of economics was served by
approximately 30 journals (almost all of which were produced by scholarly associations).
By 1980, there were 120 titles (half of which were published by corporate publishers),
and by 2000 the number had risen to over 300 (two-thirds of which were corporate
published) (Willinsky 2006). Today, a handful of corporate publishers produce a growing
portion of academic literature. For example, as of December 2006, three publishers -
Reed Elsevier (with over 2,000 journal titles), Taylor & Francis (with over 1,000 titles)
and Springer (with over 1,700) - controlled about 60 percent of the research indexed in
ISI Web of Science citation index (Willinsky 2006). Expanding the list of the largest
journal publishers, we should add John Wiley (which recently acquired Blackwell for
1.08 billion dollars and can now boast a combined catalog of 1,250 journals).
1
Since the mid-1990s, subscription prices for journals published by corporate publishers,
especially in the areas of science, technology, and medicine, have been inflating at
alarming rates. For example, McCabe (2002) reports that between 1988 and 1998, the
subscription cost of biomedical journals published by corporate publishers increased by
224 percent, compared to 129 percent for journals from nonprofit publishers. From 1986
to 2002, the Consumer Price Index rose 64 percent, while journal prices rose 227 percent.
Thus, a typical research library spent 227 percent more on journals in 2002 than in 1986,
but the number of titles purchased increased by only 6 percent.
2
Journal inflation
continues to increase at a rate of 6-12 percent annually, and this has to some degree been
responsible for the 6 percent decrease in the purchase of books by research libraries
between 1986 and 2002.
3
A number of university libraries post the cost of their most expensive journals. Cornell
University did a study of the rising cost of journals back in 1998 and found that
subscriptions to the 312 research journals studied were as high as $5,000 a year.
4
In 1997,
Yale noted 27 journal titles that cost over $4,000. The following subscription prices were
among the most expensive journals to which they subscribed: Journal of Physics at
$22,497, Brain Research at $14,919, and Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology at
$7,398.
5
The average subscription price that a university library paid for an academic
journal in 2005 was $484.97.
6
In criminal justice and criminology, respectively, the national associations of record are
the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences (ACJS) and the American Society of
Criminology (ASC). Each provides journals to their members as part of the cost of
membership. For ACJS, that cost is $75, and for ASC, the cost is $90. ACJS provides
two journals through Routledge Journals - Justice Quarterly and the Journal of Criminal
Justice Education. The 2006 institution subscription rate for Justice Quarterly was $482.
7
The 2006 institution subscription rate for the Journal of Criminal Justice Education was
$372.
8
ASC provides two journals through Blackwell Publishing - Criminology and
Criminology & Public Policy. The 2006 institution subscription rate for Criminology was
$240, which includes a subscription to Criminology & Public Policy.
9
One must keep in mind that though the cost of academic journals continues to inflate into
the three, four, and even five digits, the cost of much of the research upon which the
articles are based was born by grant funding agencies, authors' home institutions, and
authors themselves. The labor for peer review of submitted articles is also generally done
gratis by academicians in the field.
There are over 24,000 peer-reviewed research journals in the world across the disciplines,
publishing well over 2.5 million articles a year (Harnad et al. 2004
). But since library
budgets are limited, they can afford only a small fraction of those journals each year. Yet,
Harnad warns that we must be careful not to suggest open access as a solution to the
problem of dealing with rapidly rising subscription costs, the so-called "serials crisis."
There will continue to be a gap between the volume of literature available and the
financial ability of libraries to acquire as much as they would like. As Harnad and
colleagues (2004
) have noted, there is a difference between "the journal-affordability
problem" and the "article-access/impact problem." The latter problem is a by-product of
the proliferation of journal titles and the serials crisis. The article-access/impact problem
states that since so few of the 2.5 million articles published every year can be accessed by
many people, the impact of those articles is diminished. Open access promises to provide
more access to this growing body of literature to those who need immediate access to it.
The evolution in scholarly publishing, in which a few corporate publishers have come to
dominate the journal publishing world with ever inflating subscription prices, is further
complicated by bundled deals where libraries are increasingly under pressure to contract
for collections of publishers' titles rather than individual titles. This trend is becoming
economically unsustainable. The result of such a corporate model ultimately is that
library institutions' budgets are strained, library resources for other materials must be cut,
and researchers and students have diminishing access to relevant scholarship.
Those who look to interlibrary loan (ILL) as an alternative to the inflating cost of
electronic journals are discovering this window in many cases to be closing. The decision
by academic journal publishers to migrate from paper to electronic format has diminished
the ability of institutions that cannot afford the cost of subscription to borrow them from
other institutions through traditional ILL mechanisms because many electronic journal
license agreements can restrict subscribers' rights to lend copies to other institutions
(Chou and Zhou 2005).
Defining and Differentiating Open Access
Though open access has come to represent a spectrum of means to provide free access to
scholarly literature, the basic principles were codified by definitive statements made by
three influential proclamations: the Budapest (February 2002), Bethesda (June 2003) and
Berlin (October 2003) definitions. Essentially, open access, paraphrasing the Budapest
statement, is defined as free availability of scholarly literature on the public Internet,
permitting anyone to read, download, copy, distribute, or print the full text without
restrictions (other than to give authors control over the integrity of their work and the
right to be properly acknowledged and cited).
10
While the Budapest definition of open access may represent the pure ideal, there are
many variations on the theme. In addition to the growing list of peer-reviewed, freely
available academic journals on the Internet, other developments have occurred in the
spirit of open access. These include, for example: the willingness of a growing number of
publishers to provide free access to all or portions of their back issues; publications which
provide selected articles of each issue for free; and publications which offer authors the
option of paying a fee to make their scholarship open access in an otherwise subscription
only journal. Even initiatives to produce low cost, low priced journals - though not
strictly open access - have been put forward as at least being in the spirit of "open
access."
Discussions around open access are often fraught with fear and anger over what some
perceive as attempts to destroy the peer review system, discard the protections of
copyright or to make scholarship less rigorous. Proponents of open access will argue that
they are not asking for research literature to be placed in the public domain or even to
reform copyright law. Nor are they asking that all scholarship (e.g., books) be open
access. They also are not appealing to do away with peer-review or academic
associations. On the contrary, these could both be reinvigorated by the broad acceptance
of, support for, and involvement in open access by academic associations. Open access is
instead based on the assertion that the traditional model of academic journal publishing
be modified or augmented so that scholarship will be more accessible to wider audiences.
The call for open access, it must be understood, is not a call to shun subscription
publishers or for libraries to cancel their journals. In fact, ironically, it can be argued that
one of the greatest contributors to open access is the giant publishing conglomerate, Reed
Elsevier. Not only does Reed Elsevier allow its authors to post the final versions of
papers on websites and e-repositories, it also provides free electronic access to the
citations and abstracts of its 2000+ journals. Along with a number of other publishers,
Elsevier has also agreed to make its journals open access to a list of institutions and
countries in some the most impoverished areas of the world.
11
Though this effort is to be
lauded, only a fraction of those in developing countries in need of access to current
scholarship, unfortunately, are reached through these assistance efforts.
Open Access Journals
The most direct and purest form of open access is the so-called "gold path," scholarship
published in an open access journal, freely available to readers on the Internet. Financial
support for such journals may entirely come from an academic institution or a scholarly
or professional association. In the case of Science, Technology, and Medicine (STM)
open access journals, funding often is also acquired by asking that a portion of the
research grant funding be directed toward publishing costs. The goal of open access is to
shift thinking away from charging readers toward considering the dissemination of
scholarship as part of the cost of research that should be included in funding requests
from research grant agencies and/or one's departmental funding requests similar to how
professional travel funds are allocated.
The Public Library of Science journals, PLoS Biology and PLoS Medicine, are perhaps
the most widely known open access journals, having quickly garnered respect in their
disciplines along with a flurry of press coverage at their inception. More than 2,500 open-
access journals in wide-ranging fields are currently listed in the Directory of Open Access
Journals (DOAJ) which indexes open access journals on the web.
12
A search of the
DOAJ database, freely available online, will reveal that among the 2,500 open access
journals indexed, a small but growing number of peer-reviewed open access journals in
criminal justice have already become available on the web.
13
Open access journals
perform peer-review and then make the resulting approved scholarship free to the world.
New open access journal benefit from open source, journal management systems, such as
Open Journal Systems (OJS), and from organizations, such as SPARC, that provide
advisory service for new open access journals.
14
Open Access Archives
Since the early 1990s, researchers in physics have shared their research freely online
through arXiv.org before publication. Open digital archives such as arXiv.org, PubMed
Central, and a rapidly growing number of institution-based e-repositories enable authors
to ensure their works are available for fellow researchers and the public, and thus assure a
free flow of scholarly communication. Depositing one's scholarship in a properly
designed e-repository rather than on a personal website assures that the scholarship will
have a persistent address (URL) over the long term and have searchable metadata
(conforming to universal standards across repositories), and that the scholarship will be
properly preserved and accessible to the entire world in the future. Today, over 90
percent of academic journal publishers permit authors some form of self-archiving.
15
Since the great majority of academic journals now permit self-archiving by their authors
either on the author's website or in the author's institutional e-repository (IR), much of the
responsibility for making journal literature open access has been shifted to the authors.
By depositing a digital copy of scholarship on a website or in an IR, they can make the
item accessible to anyone who searches the web using Google or a special repository
search engine such as OAIster.org.
The number of universities around the United States and in other countries implementing
institutional repositories is rapidly growing every year. In a survey distributed to 123
American Research Libraries (ARL) members in January 2006, 43 percent of the
respondents said they have an operational IR, and 35 percent said they are planning to
implement one by 2007 (Bailey 2006
). Studies clearly show that authors' research impact
(that is, the amount to which their scholarship is read, used, and cited by others in their
own research and applications) is dramatically increased by making the scholarship open
access through the act of depositing the research in an electronic institutional repository
(Harnad et al. 2004
).
The US National Institutes of Health (NIH) Public Access Policy in recent years has
directed that its funded researchers deposit their final peer-reviewed manuscripts in
PubMed Central, NIH's online digital archive. NIH also permits grant funds to be used to
pay journal publication fees. The US Congress is also taking a growing interest in
ensuring access to federally funded research. For example, on May 2, Sen. John Cornyn,
R-Texas, introduced the bipartisan Federal Research Public Access Act of 2006
(FRPAA) which would require that research supported by major government funding
agencies (with research budgets of more than $100 million) be made freely available
online within 6 months of publication. This legislation is pending as of this writing.
16
There is a growing alliance of citizens in the United States seeking to have tax-funded
research openly available to the public after publication.
17
This access would primarily be
accomplished though archiving the research in freely accessible e-repositories.
Open Access and the Public Good
In addition to citizen concern for access to taxpayer-funded research that is blocked by
subscription tolls, there is a growing consensus among scholars across disciplines in
favor of providing open access to as much scholarly communication as possible, not only
because it is the best means of disseminating the knowledge of a discipline and advancing
research but also because it benefits the public good. Opening access to scholarship for
users around the world promises to benefit people in numerous ways.
Open access, for example, permits a doctor doing research in Malawi to find the latest
medical research and for the rest of the world to read the research they publish in a
journal of that region. Open access allows a county official writing a proposal for a
change in jail policies in a rural county in the United States to find current academic
discussion on the topic. Open access permits a professor who does not happen to work in
a well-funded institution to have ready access to the scholarship they need now rather
than waiting for an interlibrary loan or hoping an email to the author will result in a copy.
Open access results in better-informed citizens, better-informed patients, more currently
informed scholars, and more academic equality for researchers around the world. Thus,
opening access to academic journal literature is key to promoting a more just system of
scholarly communication in all the disciplines. We now turn to an examination of
theories of justice and an application of these theories to the justice issue of opening
access to criminal justice scholarship in particular.
What Is Social Justice?
Social justice is generally equated with the notion of equality or equal opportunity in
society. Although equality is undeniably part of social justice, the meaning of social
justice is actually much broader. Further, "equal opportunity" and similar phrases such as
"personal responsibility" have been used to diminish the prospective for realizing social
justice by justifying enormous inequalities in modern society (Berry 2005
). The most
recent theories of and scholarly statements about social justice illustrate the complex
nature of the concept.
Two of the most prominent statements about social justice, each of which posits its own
theory of social justice, are John Rawls' (2003
) Justice as Fairness and David Miller's
(2003) Principles of Social Justice. While neither of these theories can be considered an
exhaustive treatment of the subject matter, each offers a complex theory of social justice
that illustrates its broad meaning. Both conceptions of social justice are similar, so there
is significant overlap between the main ideas of the theorists; this is likely due to the fact
that they are founded on like principles and based on previously posited theories from
significant historical political philosophers (Brighouse 2005).
John Rawls' "Justice as Fairness"
Beginning with John Rawls, his theory of social justice is referred to as "justice as
fairness." Rawls (2003) set out to sketch a theory of social justice that would answer the
questions: "once we view a democratic society as a fair system of social cooperation
between citizens regarded as free and equal, what principles are most appropriate to it?"
and " which principles are most appropriate for a democratic society that not only
professes but wants to take seriously that citizens are free and equal, and tries to realize
that idea in its main institutions?"
18
Rawls' theory of "justice as fairness," aimed at answering the above questions, can be
summarized with two primary principles. They are:
1. Each person has the same indefensible claim to a fully adequate scheme of equal
basic liberties, which scheme is compatible with the same scheme of liberties for
all
19
; and
2. Social and economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions: first, they are to be
attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of
opportunity
20
; and second, they are to be to the greatest benefit of the least-
advantaged members of society
21
(Rawls 2003:42-43).
According to Rawls, these principles are ordered, meaning the first principle (the "equal
liberties principle") should be achieved before efforts to achieve the second principle are
attempted. Further, the first part of the second principle (the "equal opportunity
principle") precedes the second part (the "difference principle"). The ordering of the
principles suggests that, to Rawls, equality is the most important element of social justice.
Equality means a fair distribution of each of the capacities needed "to be normal and fully
cooperating members of society over a complete life" (Rawls 2003
:18).
Just because Rawls' conception of social justice values equality, this does not mean that
equal outcomes will be achieved in society, or that they even can be. In fact, Rawls'
second principle asserts that inequalities in society are acceptable as long as they meet
two conditions. First, as per the "equal opportunity principle," inequalities are acceptable
if every person in society has a reasonable chance of obtaining the positions that lead to
the inequalities. An example would be equal opportunity to achieve any job. Rawls
(2003
:43) specifies that "fair equality of opportunity" requires "not merely that public
offices and social positions open in the formal sense, but that all should have a fair
chance to attain them."
Second, as per the "difference principle," inequalities in society must be organized so that
they are to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged members of society. After
explaining that today's economic inequalities are simply not acceptable, Rawls (2003:59-
60) explains the difference principle this way: "To say that inequalities in income and
wealth are to be arranged for the greatest benefit of the least advantaged simply means
that we are to compare schemes of cooperation by seeing how well off the least
advantaged are under each scheme, and then to select the scheme under which the least
advantaged are better off than they are under any other scheme."
By the least advantaged, Rawls is referring to those who lack what he calls "primary
goods" (Rawls 2003:53). Primary goods, according to Rawls, include
things needed and required by persons seen in the light of the political conception of
persons, as citizens who are fully cooperating members of society, and not merely as
human beings apart from any normative conception. These goods are things citizens need
as free and equal persons living a complete life; they are not things it is simply rational to
want or desire, or to prefer or even to crave. (Rawls 2003:58)
Such goods include:
the basic rights and liberties: freedom of thought and liberty of conscience, etc.;
freedom of movement and free choice of occupation against a background of
diverse opportunities, which opportunities allow the pursuit of a variety of ends
and give effect to decisions to revise and alter them;
powers and prerogatives of office and position of authority and responsibility;
income and wealth, understood as all-purpose means (having an exchange value)
generally needed to achieve a wide range of ends whatever they may be; and
the social bases of self-respect, understood as those aspects of basic institutions
normally essential if citizens are to have a lively sense of their worth as persons
and to be able to advance their ends with self-confidence (Rawls 2003:58-59).
It should also be noted that Rawls (2003:13) acknowledges the importance of "human
rights" as well. He writes: "A just world order is perhaps best seen as a society of
peoples, each people maintaining a well-ordered and decent political (domestic) regime,
not necessarily democratic but fully respecting basic human rights." Human rights are
expansive and include rights in the following areas: general freedom; dignity; life;
liberty; security; equality before the law; fair and public hearings by independent and
impartial tribunals; presumption of innocence until proven guilty; freedom of movement
and residence; right to seek and gain asylum from persecution; right to a nationality; the
right to marry and have a family; right to own property; freedom of thought, conscience
and religion; freedom of opinion and expression; freedom of peaceful assembly and
association; the right to participate in government; the right to social security; the right to
work by free choice and to have protection against unemployment; the right to equal pay
for equal work; the right to rest and leisure; the right to an adequate standard of living,
including "food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and
the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old
age "; the right to education; the right to participate in the community and "to enjoy the
arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits"; the right to the "protection of
the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic
production of which [one] is the author." Additionally, people enjoy freedom from
slavery or servitude; torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment;
discrimination; arbitrary arrest, detention, or exile; arbitrary interference with privacy;
among many others.
22
Those rights that we have emphasized relate to open access of knowledge and
scholarship. Since Rawls emphasizes human rights in his theory of justice as fairness, and
since some of the human rights relate to access to knowledge and benefits of scholarship,
Rawls' theory of justice as fairness is directly relevant to issues of open access.
We can use Rawls' theory of "justice as fairness" to determine if any process or outcome
is consistent with social justice. When a process or outcome does not comport with any of
Rawls' principles, we can conclude that it is not consistent with social justice. That is,
something is not consistent with Rawls' conception of social justice if it interferes with
any person's indefensible claims to equal basic liberties (the "equal liberties principle");
or if inequalities in society are not attached to offices and positions open to all under
conditions of fair equality of opportunity (the "equal opportunity principle"); or if
inequalities in society are not arranged to the greatest benefit of the least-advantaged
members of society (the "difference principle").
David Miller's "Pluralistic Theory of Social Justice"
David Miller's theory comprises a wider range of concepts than that of John Rawls. The
theory is pluralistic or circumstantial because different parts of his conception of social
justice are more or less relevant depending on the circumstances (Miller 2003
:62-63).
To Miller, social justice deals with the distribution of good and bad in society, and more
specifically with how these things should be distributed within society.
23
Miller (2003:1)
explains that when "we attack some policy or some state of affairs as socially unjust, we
are claiming that a person, or more usually a category of persons, enjoys fewer
advantages than that person or group of persons ought to enjoy (or bears more of the
burdens than they ought to bear), given how other members of the society in question are
fairing."
Given this conception of social justice, it is not surprising that Miller's theory focuses on
the concepts of need, desert, and equality. Need is a claim that one is lacking is basic
necessities and is being harmed or is in danger of being harmed and/or that one's capacity
to function is being impeded (Miller 2003
:207, 210). Desert is a claim that one has
earned reward based on performance, that superior performance should attract superior
recognition (Miller 2003:134, 141). Equality refers to the social ideal that society regards
and treats its citizens as equals, and that benefits such as certain rights should be
distributed equally (Miller 2003:232).
Miller's (2003:25) theory asserts that whether need, desert, or equality takes precedence
depends on which "mode of human relationship" is being considered. This is because "we
can best understand which demands of justice someone can make of us by looking first at
the particular nature of relationship." A "mode of human relationship" refers to the
different kinds of relationships that people have with one another.
Miller (2003:26) specifies three basic modes of human relationships, including the
solidaristic community, instrumental associations, and citizenship. A solidaristic
community "exists when people share a common identity as members of a relatively
stable group with a common ethos" (e.g., family relations). In this mode of human
relationships, the principle of distribution according to need is most relevant:
Each member is expected to contribute to relieving the needs of others in proportion to
ability, the extent of liability depending upon how close the ties of community are in each
case Needs will be understood in terms of the general ethos of the community. Each
community embodies, implicitly or explicitly, a sense of the standards that an adequate
human life must meet, and it is in terms of this benchmark that the much-contested
distinction between needs, which are matters of justice, and mere wants is drawn. (Miller
2003:27)
Instrumental associations exist when "people relate to one another in a utilitarian manner;
each has aims and purposes that can best be realized by collaboration with others" (e.g.,
economic relations). In this mode of human relationships, the principle of distribution
according to desert is most relevant:
Each person comes to the association as a free agent with a set of skills and talents that he
deploys to advance its goals. Justice is done when he receives back by way of reward an
equivalent to the contribution he makes. A person's deserts, in other words, are fixed by
the aims and purposes of the association to which she belongs; these provide the
measuring rod in terms of which relative contributions can be judged. (Miller 2003
:28).
Finally, citizenship refers to "members of a political society" in "modern liberal
democracies" who
are related not just through their communities and their instrumental associations but also
as fellow citizens. Anyone who is a full member of such a society is understood to be the
bearer of a set of rights and obligations that together define the status of citizen.
In this mode of human relationship, the principle of distribution according to equality is
most relevant because everyone in the society is deemed equal in terms of certain rights
(Miller 2003
:30).
Because of the citizenship mode, rights play a significant role in Miller's theory of social
justice as they also did in Rawls' theory. Miller (2003:13) explains that
a central element in any theory of justice will be an account of the basic rights of citizens,
which will include rights to various concrete liberties, such as freedom of movement and
freedom of speech an extensive sphere of basic liberty is built into the requirements of
social justice itself.
As noted in the discussion of John Rawls, the meaning human rights is well understood,
and includes rights in dozens of areas, including several related to open access to
knowledge and scholarship.
Miller does not build a theory of social justice that requires one to emphasize either need,
desert, or equality over the others; rather, he presents a theory whereby the three are in
balance with one another. Because people's views about justice are pluralistic and "very
often people decide what a fair distribution consists of by balancing claims of one kind
against claims of another," it follows that "the social context in which the distribution has
to be made - or more precisely how that context is perceived by those making the
judgment - will determine which principle stands out as the relevant principle of justice"
(Miller 2003:63).
A significant issue, though, is which should take precedence when there are conflicting
demands and expectations for processes that aim to accommodate need, desert, and
equality, as well as for outcomes that satisfy need, desert, and equality. Miller prioritizes
need above desert, and desert above equality, although he also points out that at times,
desert can take precedence over need (as in the case where the needy are not seen as
deserving) (Miller 2003:76-78). Miller is careful to point out that "[m]erit of any sort
should only be allowed to govern the distribution of a certain range of goods and
services, and in particular not those goods and services that people regard as necessities,
such as health care" (Miller 2003:200, emphasis added). To the degree that access to
knowledge is such a necessity, claims based on need ought to take priority over claims
based on desert.
We can use Miller's pluralistic theory of social justice to determine if any process or
outcome is consistent with social justice. When a process or outcome does not comport
with any of Millers' principles, we can conclude that it is not consistent with social
justice. That is, something is not consistent with Miller's conception of social justice if it
interferes with one's necessities or hurts one's capacity to function, if it interferes with
claims based on desert, or if it impedes equal opportunity or treatment.
How Current Criminal Justice Publishing Is
Inconsistent with Social Justice
In this section of the paper, we utilize Rawls' and Miller's theories to determine if current
publishing agreements in criminal justice are consistent with social justice. Here, we
show how publishing in the criminal justice discipline is inconsistent with the Rawls'
equal liberties principle, equal opportunity principle, and difference principle. Further, we
illustrate how criminal justice publishing is inconsistent with Miller's principles of need,
desert, and equality. We conclude by showing how open access publishing is more
consistent with social justice.
Equal Liberties Principle
With regard to the relationship between open access and Rawls' equal liberties principle,
international law suggests that all human beings have a right to knowledge. Further,
human beings and societies have an equal right to benefit from advances in knowledge.
And finally, all individuals have the right to benefit from their own work.
Some of these rights are stated in at least three separate documents: (1) the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights; (2) the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights; and (3) the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights.
Starting with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19 states: "Everyone
has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold
opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas
through any media and regardless of frontiers" (emphasis added). Further, Article 27.1
reads: "Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community,
to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits" (United Nations
1997c, emphasis added). Similar wording is found in Article 19.2 of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Article 19.3 of that document shows clearly that restrictions on this right merely for
economic gain are not acceptable:
The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special
duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these
shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary: For respect of the rights or
reputations of others; For the protection of national security or of public order, or of
public health or morals. (United Nations 1997a
, emphasis added)
Additionally, Article 13.1 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and
Cultural Rights states: "The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of
everyone to education. They agree that education shall be directed to the full
development of the human personality and the sense of its dignity, and shall strengthen
the respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. They further agree that education
shall enable all persons to participate effectively in a free society, promote
understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations and all racial, ethnic or
religious groups, and further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of
peace" (emphasis added). Article 13.2 adds that education should be free to all and
generally available and accessible to all (United Nations 1997b, emphasis added).
Another article, Article 15.1 goes on to explain:
The States Parties to the present covenant recognize the right of everyone: To take part in
cultural life; To enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications; To benefit
from the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific,
literary or artistic production of which he is the author. (emphasis added).
Finally, Articles 15.2-15.4 read: "The steps to be taken by the States Parties to the present
Covenant to achieve the full realization of this right shall include those necessary for the
conservation, the development and the diffusion of science and culture" (United Nations
1997b, emphasis added).
From the above passages, it is clear the restricting access to knowledge is not consistent
with the equal liberties principle. A more just arrangement would allow greater access to
scholarship in order to assure the protection of the liberty of knowledge.
Equal Opportunity Principle
Similar to the argument above with regard to the equal liberties principle, all human
beings are owed an equal opportunity to access scholarship. Restricting access to
knowledge by limiting access to scholarship interferes with the realization of Rawls'
principle of equal opportunity.
The passages of international law cited above make it clear not only that do human
beings enjoy the right to knowledge in all its forms, but also that this right is an equal
right. The assertions found within the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well as
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that everyone has the right to
freedom of opinion and expression (including seeking, receiving and imparting
information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers) and a right to equal
education exemplifies the importance of equality.
From the above passages, it is clear the restricting access to knowledge is not consistent
with Rawls' equal liberties principle. A more just arrangement would allow greater access
to equal opportunities in order to assure the protection of equal rights to knowledge.
Difference Principle
With regard to Rawls' difference principle, inequalities in access to information are
clearly not to the benefit of the least advantaged. In fact, inequalities in access widen the
gap between those who have access to information and those who do not, for the reason
that some are permitted to further advance while some are not. This is true at the
individual level, group level, community level, organization level, and society level. That
is, differential access to information harms disadvantaged individuals, the groups and
organizations to which they belong, the communities from which they come, and the
societies of which they are members.
The fact that publishing agreements benefit the well off - large, wealthy corporations - is
not consistent with Rawls' difference principle. Nor is the inequality acceptable because
the inequality is not explained by any differential claim based on merit or desert. Large
corporate journal publishers have not done anything to earn the right to distribute
knowledge created by the scholarly pursuits of individual authors, who would seem to
have the most sound merit- and desert-based claims to reward. Additionally, large
corporate journal publishers have not earned the right to limit access to this knowledge.
Finally, state and federal governments, who fund scholarship of individual authors
through salaries, benefits, and grants, deserve access to the scholarship produced by
authors.
Current publishing arrangements in criminal justice do the most harm to those who are
already least advantaged. The least advantaged include those suffering from criminal
victimization at the hands of common street criminals and elite individuals and
corporations, as well as the mostly reactive and failing agencies of criminal justice
(Robinson 2005; Shelden 2000). If criminologists and criminal justicians are to actually
impact policy through their scientific work, it must be made accessible to all, especially
to those who can most benefit from their work (e.g., policy-makers and the masses who
elect them into power). The normal game and expectation of publishing for the sake of
publishing must be challenged if our research is ever going to impact real-world policy.
Current criminal justice publishing arrangements are inconsistent with Rawls' difference
principle.
Need
Given the general purposes of science, access to knowledge assists people with their own
personal and professional advancement and thus the ability to satisfy their basic needs.
An example is higher education which allows its participants to better meet their own
needs. Differential access to education, which includes access to knowledge, interferes
with people's basic abilities to satisfy their needs and is thus inconsistent with Miller's
principle of need.
At the society level, with advancement of individual citizens comes a greater enjoyment
of benefits by a larger segment of the population. Thus, differential access to information
harms societies by interfering with the ability of societies to advance. Ultimately, this
leads to the maintenance of significant gaps between first- and third-world countries.
In terms of research into crime and responses to it, differential access to knowledge
generated by experts assures that the needs of some will not be met as readily as others.
Restricting access to criminal justice scholarship interferes with the ability of criminal
justice agencies and their employees to adjust, rethink, and retool their existing policies,
as well as to create new and more effective ones. Thus, current criminal justice
publishing arrangements are inconsistent with Miller's principle of need.
Desert
As noted above, all human beings deserve access to knowledge. Thus, any interference
with this right is unjust. Publishing arrangements that restrict access to information
people deserve by way of being human beings as well as citizens is not consistent with
social justice. Criminal justice publishing agreements interfere with Miller's principle of
desert.
Further, international law shows that scholars in all fields (including criminal justice)
have earned the right to access the knowledge they create as well as that being created by
others in their fields. The current publication approach in criminal justice makes such
access impossible, as authors often must assign copyrights to publishing giants that limits
the use of and access to their own work. Further, we all suffer from not being able to
access articles and other works unless we subscribe to certain journals and pay fees to do
so. None of this is consistent with social justice. Scholars, as the creators of the
knowledge published in our associations' journals, deserve the right to publish their work
freely, to access it later without restriction, and to make their work as widely available as
possible through self-archiving.
Beyond this, authors are not benefiting financially from their work by assigning
copyrights to large corporations. Instead, large corporations are benefiting - not because
of claims rooted in differential desert or merit - but instead from their already prominent
place in society. This is also inconsistent with Miller's principle of desert. While large
journals publishers assist with the dissemination of scholarship to large audiences - a
practice beneficial to academic societies as well as society in general - any restrictions on
the accessibility of this scholarship are inconsistent with social justice.
Equality
As suggested above, access to knowledge in the current approach is arranged in an
unequal fashion. Subscription policies are unequal in terms of who benefits from them,
and societal inequality is being widened by them. These are violations of Miller's equality
principle.
People of the United States, as citizens, enjoy certain equal rights. And as human beings,
we enjoy other rights as well, including those found in the international agreements
discussed above. Citizens in other countries have these same human rights. Current
criminal justice publishing rules and procedures violate these rights and are thus
violations of Miller's equality principle.
Finally, related to each of the above principles, limited access to knowledge assures that
our work will have less influence on real-world policy. Even those few journals that have
been created in order to explicitly be policy-relevant are not widely read by policy-
makers, in part because they are not accessible to them. One outcome of this limited
access is a continuation of criminal justice policy being created for ideological and
philosophical reasons rather than being impacted and directed by scientific evidence. This
assures further suffering for members of society at the hands of both criminals and
criminal justice agencies, for current criminal justice practices do not significantly reduce
criminal victimization nor do they often achieve justice (Reiman 2006; Robinson 2005;
Shelden 2000).
How Open Access Is Consistent with Social Justice
The open access movement - online open access journals and author self-archiving - is
more consistent with the conceptions of social justice by Rawls and Miller. Because open
access does not interfere with any person's indefensible claims to equal basic liberties
(the "equal liberties principle"), it is consistent with social justice. Further, open access
does not violate the "equal opportunity principle" and in fact assures for greater equality
of access to information. We also believe that open access is to the greatest benefit of the
least-advantaged and thus is consistent with the "difference principle." That is, open
access publishing aims to benefit all equally, which over time, will assist the least
advantaged in catching up to the most well-off in society (who have long benefitted from
greater access to knowledge in all areas of life).
Additionally, open access does not interfere with anyone's necessities and does not hurt
anyone's capacity to function. Open access also does not interfere with desert (but instead
rewards it to a higher degree) and does not impede equal opportunity or treatment.
Therefore, open access is consistent with social justice.
Beyond not violating the principles of social justice posited by Rawls and Miller, open
access advances the principles of justice found in these scholars' theories of social justice.
It does this by promoting (in both theory and practice) liberty, opportunity, and equality
of access to information for all, as well as proper reward for individuals who produce
scholarship. It is also better able to meet the needs of citizens for information, as well as
meet appropriate claims of merit by scholars who deserve it. Open access also is
consistent with the international laws the US has signed and to which it is bound.
Conclusion
In this paper, we outlined the open access movement, introduced two main theories of
social justice, and applied the main principles from the theories of social justice to the
modus operandi of criminal justice publishing. By doing so, we determined the specific
ways in which current criminal justice publishing practices are inconsistent with social
justice. Our main finding was that publishing in the criminal justice discipline is
inconsistent with John Rawls' equal liberties principle, equal opportunity principle, and
difference principle, as well as David Miller's principles of need, desert, and equality.
Finally, we concluded that open access publishing is more consistent with social justice.
It is a crucial time in the evolution of publishing for criminal justice associations. We, as
criminal justice scholars concerned with practicing justice ourselves, have the
opportunity to set an example for other disciplines in the area of open access. This can
entail moving toward opening access to our own journals as much as possible, educating
association members on open access alternatives, and making articles already published
in subscription-based journals open access by encouraging our members to self-archive
them in e-repositories.
References
1. Bailey, C. W. (2006) Spec Kit 292; institutional repositories, July 2006
Association of Research Libraries , Washington, DC
2. Berry, B. (2005) Why social justice matters Polity Press , Cambridge, MA
3. Brighouse, H. (2005) Justice (key concepts) Polity Press , Cambridge, MA
4. Chou, M. and Zhou, O. (2005) Licensing: the impact of licenses on library
collections.. The Acquisitions Librarian 17:(33/34) , pp. 7-23.
5. Davis, P. M. - Revised December 5, 2005. Retrieved February 16, 2007, from
http://people.cornell.edu/pages/pmd8/prices.pdf
6. - "The Economics of Publishing," University of California Office of Scholarly
Communication Website. Retrieved February 2007, from
http://osc.universityofcalifornia.edu/facts/econ_of_publishing.html
7. Harnad, S. (2004) The access/impact problem and the green and gold roads to
open access.. Serials Review 30 , pp. 310-314.
8. Harnad, S. and Brody, T. (2004) Comparing the impact of open access (OA) vs.
non-OA articles in the same journal.. D-Lib Magazine 10:(6 June 2004) -
Retrieved 16 February 2007, from
http://www.dlib.org/dlib/june04/harnad/06harnad.html
9. Lenzini, R. (2006) - Information Today, posted on 27 November 2006.
Retrieved 18 February 2007 from
http://newsbreaks.infotoday.com/nbreader.asp?ArticleID=18698
10. McCabe, M. J. (2002) - ARL Bimonthly report 207
11. Miller, D. (2003) Principles of social justice Harvard University Press ,
Boston
12. Rawls, J. (2003) Justice as fairness: A restatement (2nd rev. ed.), Belknap
Press , Boston
13. Reiman, J. (2006) The rich get richer and the poor get prison: Ideology, class,
and criminal justice (8th ed.), Allyn & Bacon , Boston
14. Robinson, M. (2005) Justice blind? Ideals and realities of American criminal
justice (2nd ed.), Prentice Hall , Upper Saddle River, NJ
15. Shelden, R. (2000) Controlling the dangerous classes: A critical introduction
to the history of criminal justice Allyn & Bacon , Boston
16. United Nations (1997a) - Retrieved 16 February 2007, from
http://www.hrweb.org/legal/undocs.html
17. United Nations (1997b) - Retrieved 16 February 2007, from
http://www.hrweb.org/legal/undocs.html
18. United Nations (1997c) - Retrieved 16 February 2007, from
http://www.hrweb.org/legal/undocs.html
19. Willinsky, J. (2006) The access principle; the case for open access to
research and scholarship MIT Press , Cambridge, MA
Notes
1. See Lenzini 2006.
2. See the "The Economics of Publishing," University of California Office of Scholarly
Communication Website. Retrieved February 2007, from
http://osc.universityofcalifornia.edu/facts/econ_of_publishing.html
3. See the American College and Research Libraries "Scholarly Communications
Toolkit" for more information on journal inflation.
http://www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlissues/scholarlycomm/scholarlycommunicationtoolkit/fac
ulty/facultyeconomics.cfm
4. "$3,000-a-year journal subscriptions endanger major sources of research information,
Cornell panel says," Cornell News. February 24, 1999. Retrieved February 18, 2007,
from http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Feb99/JournalPrices.bpf.html
5. Kline Science Library MOST EXPENSIVE JOURNALS. Retrieved February 15,
2007, from http://www.library.yale.edu/scilib/ksljrnlexp98.html
6. EBSCO Information Services, produced a chart that shows price fluctuations for 2000-
2005 for typical library lists invoiced in US dollars. Retrieved February 19, 2007, from
http://www-us.ebsco.com/home/printsubs/priceoverview.pdf
7. Taylor & Francis (2007). Journal details, Justice Quarterly. Retrieved 17 February
2007, from http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/journal.asp?issn=0741-8825&linktype=rates
8. Taylor & Francis (2007). Journal details, Journal of Criminal Justice Education.
Retrieved 17 February 2007, from
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/journal.asp?issn=1051-1253&linktype=rates
9. Blackwell Publishing (2007). Criminology. Retrieved 17 February 2007, from
http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/subs.asp?ref=0011-1384&site=1
10. A key web-based reference source was created and is maintained by Peter Suber. It
provides a thorough "guide to the terminology, acronyms, initiatives, standards,
technologies, and players in the open-access or free online scholarship (FOS) movement"
is the Guide to the Open Access Movement
(http://www.earlham.edu/peters/fos/guide.htm
). For another excellent source of basic
information on open access initiatives and changes in scholarly communication, see the
"Create Change" website (http://www.createchange.org/)developed by the Association of
Research Libraries (ARL) and SPARC (Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources
Coalition) which is supported by the Association of College and Research Libraries
(ACRL), all retrieved 18 February 2007.
11. The Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers reported that sixty
percent of publishers participate in some form of assistance program to aid developing
countries. Willinsky 2006:78).
12. The Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) (http://www.doaj.org/)freely
available on the web, is maintained by Lund University Libraries. It is the most important
directory of open-access journals, and currently contains over 2,500 journals. The aim of
the DOAJ is to "increase the visibility and ease of use of open access scientific and
scholarly journals thereby promoting their increased usage and impact." It "aims to be
comprehensive and cover all open access scientific and scholarly journals that use a
quality control system to guarantee the content."
13. A keyword search in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) for journals
related to criminal justice excluding the term law conducted in January 2007 revealed the
following 12 open-access journals in criminal justice: (1) African Journal of Criminology
and Justice Studies, (2) Applied Psychology in Criminal Justice, (3) Champ Penal
(French/English), (4) Edwardsville Journal of Sociology, (5) ERCES Online Quarterly
Review, (6) International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences, (7) Journal for Crime,
Conflict and Media Culture, (8) Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture, (9)
Law, Social Justice & Global Development, (10) Revista CENIPEC (Spanish (11) Revista
Española de Investigación Criminológica (Spanish), and (12) War Crimes, Genocide and
Crimes Against Humanity.
14. SPARC, the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition,
http://www.arl.org/sparc/ is "an alliance of universities, research libraries, and
organizations. The coalition was an initiative of the Association of Research Libraries
(ARL) started in 1997 to be a constructive response to market dysfunctions in the
scholarly communication system"
15. See the SHERPA database of individual publishers' policies on permissible self-
archiving at http://romeo.eprints.org/
16. See description of the Federal Research Public Access Act of 2006 (FRPAA) Bill at
http://cornyn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Home.SiteMap
17. A major organization is this struggle is the The Alliance for Taxpayer Access which
is described on their website as: "A diverse and growing alliance of organizations
representing taxpayers, patients, physicians, researchers, and institutions that support
open public access to taxpayer-funded research." See http://www.taxpayeraccess.org/
(retrieved February 20, 2007)
18. Rawls (2003:5-6) develops his theory for a democratic system of government, and he
assumes that society comprises a fair system of social cooperation between free and equal
citizens. He also assumes that society is well organized and regulated by a public
perception of justice. Further, he assumes that society is guided by rules and procedures
that are publicly recognized and agreed to, that the rules specify fair terms of cooperation
and are rooted in the notion of reciprocity or mutuality so that each person has a chance
to promote their own advantage or good. Thus, his theory is aimed at determining the
"political conception of justice for specifying the fair terms of cooperation between
citizens regarded as fair and equal and as both reasonable and rational (Rawls, 2003:7-8).
19. This can be called the "equal liberties principle."
20. This can be called the "equal opportunity principle."
21. Rawls calls this the "difference principle."
22. For other examples, see the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights, Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, and other
similar documents. "A Summary of Agreements on Human Rights." Retrieved 5 January
2007, from http://www.hrweb.org/legal/undocs.html
23. Miller (2003:4-6) develops his theory for a democratic system of government, and he
assumes that society is a living organism comprised of individuals, groups, and so forth
who believe in social justice because it specifies the institutional arrangements that allow
for full contributions by and well-being of members of the society. Further, his theory
assumes a bounded society with members; that there are specific institutions to which the
principles of social justice apply; and that the state is the agency capable of changing
structures when necessary.
... Feminists have long supported unrestricted access to knowledge as a tool for reducing disparities and providing people with information relevant to their lived experiences (e.g., Harding, 1991). The open provision of scientific information disrupts systems of power and control and would particularly benefit those historically prevented from accessing and contributing to institutionalized bodies of knowledge (Craig et al., 2011;Scherlen & Robinson, 2008). An alliance between feminist psychologists and open science advocates could thus serve to dismantle traditional power imbalances pertaining to the dissemination of scholarly knowledge. ...
... Openness publicly puts forth the scientific process, allowing for critique, collaboration, replication, further investigation, and overall scientific progress, increasing individual accountability and the potential for science to be selfcorrecting (Nosek & Bar-Anan, 2012; see also . Further, it makes scholarly literature freely available on the internet (Scherlen & Robinson, 2008) and may improve the quality of research reporting in the scientific literature. Perhaps knowing that one's work will be made available to the public eye may inspire researchers to become more thorough and candid notetakers, organizers, and reporters. ...
Article
Full-text available
Feminist researchers have long embraced the challenging, dismantling, and reimagining of psychology, though their contributions to transforming psychological science remain largely overlooked in the mainstream open science movement. In this article, we reconcile feminist psychology and open science. We propose that feminist theory can be leveraged to address central questions of the open science movement, and the potential for methodological synergy is promising. We signal the availability of feminist scholarship that can augment aspects of open science discourse. We also review the most compelling strategies for open science that can be harnessed by academic feminist psychologists. Drawing upon best practices in feminist psychology and open science, we address the following: generalizability (what are the contextual boundaries of results?), representation (who is included in research?), reflexivity (how can researchers reflect on who they are?), collaboration (are collaborative goals met within feminist psychology?), and dissemination (how should we give science away?). Throughout each section, we recommend using feminist tools when engaging with open science, and we recommend some open science practices for conducting research with feminist goals.
... [47,48]). OA is posited as boosting return on investment [70] and as a solution to inequity to information access in regions [71][72][73][74][75][76] and disciplines, especially to improve public participation in conversations related to social challenges like health, education and agriculture [77][78][79][80][81][82]. Yet, similar to Open Science more broadly, OA is also not a 'movement with a coherent ideological basis' [83]. ...
Article
Full-text available
Open Science holds the promise to make scientific endeavours more inclusive, participatory, understandable, accessible and re-usable for large audiences. However, making processes open will not per se drive wide reuse or participation unless also accompanied by the capacity (in terms of knowledge, skills, financial resources, technological readiness and motivation) to do so. These capacities vary considerably across regions, institutions and demographics. Those advantaged by such factors will remain potentially privileged, putting Open Science's agenda of inclusivity at risk of propagating conditions of ‘cumulative advantage’. With this paper, we systematically scope existing research addressing the question: ‘What evidence and discourse exists in the literature about the ways in which dynamics and structures of inequality could persist or be exacerbated in the transition to Open Science, across disciplines, regions and demographics?’ Aiming to synthesize findings, identify gaps in the literature and inform future research and policy, our results identify threats to equity associated with all aspects of Open Science, including Open Access, Open and FAIR Data, Open Methods, Open Evaluation, Citizen Science, as well as its interfaces with society, industry and policy. Key threats include: stratifications of publishing due to the exclusionary nature of the author-pays model of Open Access; potential widening of the digital divide due to the infrastructure-dependent, highly situated nature of open data practices; risks of diminishing qualitative methodologies as ‘reproducibility’ becomes synonymous with quality; new risks of bias and exclusion in means of transparent evaluation; and crucial asymmetries in the Open Science relationships with industry and the public, which privileges the former and fails to fully include the latter.
... From this perspective, ensuring wider access to research findings is an issue of social justice (Scherlen & Robinson, 2008) -restricting access to institutions that can afford journal subscriptions systematically priviledges researchers who already have substantial structural advantages over those in the global south or who work outside research-intensive institutions. Bohannon (2016 p 509) gives the example of a student in a middle-income country writing a PhD project proposal: ...
Article
Criminology produces policy-relevant research and criminologists often seek to influence practice, but most criminological research is confined to expensive subscription journals. This disadvantages researchers in the global south, policy makers and practitioners who have the skills to use research findings but do not have journal subscriptions. Open access seeks to increase availability of research, but take-up among criminologists has been low. This study used a sample of 12,541 articles published in criminology journals between 2017 and 2019 to estimate the proportion of articles available via different types of open access. Overall 22% of research was available to non-subscribers, about half that found in other disciplines, even though authors had the right to make articles open without payment in at least 95% of cases. Open access was even less common in many leading journals and among researchers in the United States. Open access has the potential to increase access to research for those outside academia, but few scholars exercise their existing rights to distribute freely the submitted or accepted versions of their articles online. Policies to incentivise authors to make research open access where possible are needed unlock the benefits of greater access to criminological research.
... A social justice perspective is connected 5! ! ! with notions such as equal rights, liberty, and diversity (Scherlen & Robinson, 2008). Cochran-Smith (2004) defined social justice as: ...
Thesis
Full-text available
The number of Saudi female leaders in elite leadership positions in higher education is minimal when compared to their male counterparts. Despite the academic support and integration of Saudi women into male dominated spaces, Saudi women leaders are still under-represented in their involvement in Saudi's higher educational leadership. The primary purpose of this study is to better understand Saudi women's lived experiences in leadership in higher education. This qualitative study was designed to explore challenges that Saudi women leaders face in higher education, and to understand the factors contributing to the significant under-representation of women leaders in higher education. A sample of 15 female faculty members and administrators at a selected Saudi public university were interviewed about participants' career path and their journey to leadership in higher education. This research was motivated by two major research questions: 1) What are the challenges that Saudi women experience as faculty and administrators in higher education in Saudi Arabia? 2) What factors have contributed to the successes that Saudi women leaders experience as faculty and administrators in higher education? Findings of this study indicated that Saudi female leaders face large number of professional challenges: women's lack of authority, their marginalization, and their lack of experience and training, while societal and personal challenges ranked last. Findings also demonstrated that a majority of the participants argue that factors impeding Saudi women ascension to leadership include oppressive gender stereotyping, gender discrimination, glass ceiling, and history of Saudi women's education. This study confirms that effective family support and mentoring experiences were instrumental in enabling participants to achieve their current positions and succeed in their professions. Based on the findings of the study, Saudi higher education should bring more Saudi female leaders into top leadership roles in higher education because this is a determining factor for empowering women in the higher educational realm of leadership.
... Social justice is generally equated with the notion of equality or equal opportunity in society. Although equality is undeniably part of social justice, the meaning of social justice is actually much broader (Scherlen and Robinson 2008). Further, "equal opportunity" and similar phrases such as "personal responsibility" have been used to diminish the prospective for realizing social justice by justifying enormous inequalities in modern society (Berry 2005). ...
Chapter
Full-text available
Even though enhancement of students’ understanding of social justice is thought to contribute to good citizenship, contextualising social justice in science education remains challenging for teachers because social justice is not conventionally a common feature of science teaching and learning. A separate issue in science education concerns a vast body of work on nature of science (NOS) elated to understanding of and about science. Understanding NOS is thought to contribute to scientific literacy as well as citizenship. Although social justice and NOS literatures share similar themes such as citizenship goals, the precise intersection of these literatures remains relatively understudied. In this chapter, we present an argument about how contemporary conceptualizations of NOS as well as NOS instruction might be used to promote goals related to social justice. In so doing, we aim to contribute to NOS literature by drawing on theories of social justice grounded in political philosophy. We trace the potential overlap of social justice and NOS concepts and draw out example recommendations for curriculum statements and practical teaching as well as practical teaching and learning approaches. Overall, we advocate the promotion of educational goals related to social justice through NOS instruction.
... For some, openness is seen as a mode of resistance to the issues propagated by the rise of neoliberal capitalism in the academy [6] and a tool for social justice [7]. However, the proliferation of 'open' research data management policies in response to a range of concerns around data integrity, the 'reproducibility crisis', and enhancing the utility of research data to optimise its inherent value. ...
Preprint
The terms 'open' and 'openness' are widely used across the current higher education environment particularly in the areas of repository services and scholarly communications. Open-access licensing and open-source licensing are two prevalent manifestations of open culture within higher education research environments. As theoretical ideals, open-licensing models aim at openness and academic freedom. But operating as they do within the context of global neoliberalism, to what extent are these models constructed by, sustained by, and co-opted by neoliberalism? In this paper, we interrogate the use of open-licensing within scholarly communications and within the larger societal context of neoliberalism. Through synthesis of various sources, we will examine how open access licensing models have been constrained by neoliberal or otherwise corporate agendas, how open access and open scholarship have been reframed within discourses of compliance, how open-source software models and software are co-opted by politico-economic forces, and how the language of 'openness' is widely misused in higher education and repository services circles to drive agendas that run counter to actually increasing openness. We will finish by suggesting ways to resist this trend and use open-licensing models to resist neoliberal agendas in open scholarship.
... OA is not only a matter of social justice [63,64] but also tends to maximize social welfare [65,66], in accordance with the view that scientific information is an economic public good [67] and brings about positive externalities [68]. Nonetheless, the literature has already expressed the concern that moving from the reader-pays model to a landscape where authors (or sponsors) bear the costs could impair the quality level of journals, while subscription fees act as an incentive to preserve a high level of content quality. ...
Article
Full-text available
This paper addresses the topic of the article processing charges (APCs) that are paid when publishing articles using the open access (OA) option. Building on the Elsevier OA price list, company balance sheet figures, and ScienceDirect data, tentative answers to three questions are outlined using a Monte Carlo approach to deal with the uncertainty inherent in the inputs. The first question refers to the level of APCs from the market perspective, under the hypothesis that all the articles published in Elsevier journals exploit the OA model so that the subscription to ScienceDirect becomes worthless. The second question is how much Elsevier should charge for publishing all the articles under the OA model, assuming the profit margin reduces and adheres to the market benchmark. The third issue is how many articles would have to be accepted, in an OA-only publishing landscape, so that the publisher benefits from the same revenue and profit margin as in the recent past. The results point to high APCs, nearly twice the current level, being required to preserve the publisher’s profit margin. Otherwise, by relaxing that constraint, a downward shift of APCs can be expected so they would tend to get close to current values. Accordingly, the article acceptance rate could be likely to grow from 26–27% to about 35–55%.
Chapter
Full-text available
In this chapter the authors reveal the complex landscape of access to knowledge within the context of the neoliberal demand for productivity. In the first story, Susan reveals her personal epiphany about the restrictions on access to research knowledge due to publishing paywalls. Next, Omri tells about the devaluation of local knowledge that must be published in English as the language of academic globalization. In the final story, Tamar discusses the dilemmas faced in publishing her own book, exposing two aspects of knowledge inaccessibility: the expensive prices of books published by prestigious academic publishers and the devaluation of academic work when choosing more accessible popular or internet venues. She concludes by highlighting the perpetuation across time of various barriers to knowledge in academic settings.
Article
The academic practitioner divide and strategies to close that gap have been important lines of inquiry in the fields of public administration and public affairs. This study contributes to that significant body of work by reporting results from two surveys of faculty in NASPAA accredited programs and of practitioners affiliated with the International City/County Management Association (ICMA). These surveys tapped into the perceptions of both groups of respondents about five categories of strategies (e.g., knowledge sharing, technological strategies) aimed at reducing the divide. The overarching objective of this research is to examine if respondent status as faculty or practitioner had an impact on their perception of these strategies. Results from a multivariate analysis of variance indicate that both faculty and practitioners accord significantly different levels of importance to three of the five categories. Open-ended responses yielded additional insights. Implications of this research and its findings for public affairs education are discussed.
Article
Criminology produces policy-relevant research and criminologists often seek to influence practice, but most criminological research is confined to expensive subscription journals. This disadvantages researchers in the global south, policy makers and practitioners who have the skills to use research findings but do not have journal subscriptions. Open access seeks to increase availability of research, but take-up among criminologists has been low. This study used a sample of 12,541 articles published in criminology journals between 2017 and 2019 to estimate the proportion of articles available via different types of open access. Overall 22% of research was available to non-subscribers, about half that found in other disciplines, even though authors had the right to make articles open without payment in at least 95% of cases. Open access was even less common in many leading journals and among researchers in the United States. Open access has the potential to increase access to research for those outside academia, but few scholars exercise their existing rights to distribute freely the submitted or accepted versions of their articles online. Policies to incentivise authors to make research open access where possible are needed unlock the benefits of greater access to criminological research.
Article
Full-text available
The research access/impact problem arises because journal articles are not accessible to all of their would-be users; hence, they are losing potential research impact. The solution is to make all articles Open Access (OA; i.e., accessible online, free for all). OA articles have significantly higher citation impact than non-OA articles. There are two roads to OA: the “golden” road (publish your article in an OA journal) and the “green” road (publish your article in a non-OA journal but also self-archive it in an OA archive). Only 5% of journals are gold, but over 90% are already green (i.e., they have given their authors the green light to self-archive); yet only about 10–20% of articles have been self-archived. To reach 100% OA, self-archiving needs to be mandated by researchers' employers and funders, as the United Kingdom and the United States have recently recommended, and universities need to implement that mandate.
Article
The increasing popularity of digital information has brought great convenience to library patrons. It has, however, posed challenges to libraries in achieving their major missions, i.e., preservation and dissemination of information. The underlying reasons for this phenomenon are dichotomous: the restrictions imposed by electronic information licensing agreements and unreliability of digital content. During the transition from a traditional library to a digital one, libraries spend more to acquire both print and digital resources simultaneously. This dual format mode puts more pressure upon libraries' shrinking acquisition budget. Digital content providers have turned the digital content from sale to lease through licensing, and the licensing terms usually restrict libraries in delivering effective and efficient virtual library services to users. For the collective good of society, the only real solution will be the digital First Sale Doctrine established for library exemption.
Article
The way to test the impact advantage of Open Access (OA) is not to compare the citation impact factors of OA and non-OA journals but to compare the citation counts of individual OA and non-OA articles appearing in the same (non-OA) journals. Such ongoing comparisons are revealing dramatic citation advantages for OA.
Justice blind? Ideals and realities of American criminal justice
  • M Robinson
Robinson, M. 2005. Justice blind? Ideals and realities of American criminal justice (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Spec Kit 292; institutional repositories DC: Association of Research Libraries Why social justice matters Justice (key concepts)
  • C W Bailey
Bailey, C. W. 2006. Spec Kit 292; institutional repositories, July 2006. Washington, DC: Association of Research Libraries. Berry, B. 2005. Why social justice matters. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press. Brighouse, H. 2005. Justice (key concepts). Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.