How should we confront attacks to higher education? This question is eminently tricky. Part of the complexity has to do with power: for many in academia, taking a position is simply a luxury they cannot afford. Another part is practical: who are we to confront, anyway? Much has been written about how neoliberalism has taken over our craft and its institutions. Alas, neoliberalism has no emailing address or conveniently located suggestion box we can use for practical mobilization.
There are, nevertheless, things that fall under our control. One relates directly to one aspect of the marketization of knowledge and its effects on our professions, that is, the way we relate to for-profit publishers and academic publishing more broadly. For some, there is scope for action at least in this very narrow, though significant, locale.
This is particularly important today, as it becomes clear that Theory & Society has been completely lost to a fringe group of para-sociologists. Springer Nature’s recent decision to overhaul the journal has led to a new editorial leadership of questionable intellectual quality, disciplinary fit, and (ironically) political openness. Now populated by scholars who have strong affinities to very peculiar operationalizations of “skepticism”, “contrarian views” and “viewpoint diversity”, the journal has lost its direction within the field and, arguably, the social sciences in general.
The evidence of this shift is now clear. At least two reviewers/authors have noted in recent days that the quality of editorial decisions has become direly questionable. The experiences of Julien Larregue and Hannah Wohl are concrete demonstrations. The new editorial team is clearly not suited to do their jobs. Their stubborn associations with dubious and ideological para-academic organizations and debunked research makes the odds of a positive change in their positions quite unlikely.
What to do with this situation? In addition to creating a new forum (much along the lines of what similarly happened when Wiley interfered with the Journal of Political Philosophy), we can withdraw our support towards the new Theory & Society‘s editorial efforts. We can steer students and colleagues away from submitting to the journal. We can decline to review. Yet this somehow seems insufficient. The core agent in this story–Springer Nature–will be largely unaffected. Every review we do for a Springer Nature journal lends credibility (and profits) to their social science portfolio. This is something we actually can control.
And so, I have asked for a complete divorce from Springer Nature. I may not be able to disrupt neoliberalism, but I am able to withhold by labor from one of its tiny elements. I can think twice about citing their journals. I can decline all invitations to review from the journals they own. This breakup is not because of me; it is entirely because of them. I know I can do this because I am in a lucky position. Not every scholar can follow the same strategy. But it is something that I can do and have: below I include my letter to Esther Otten, responsible for Springer Nature‘s social science portfolio, requesting I be excluded from any further requests to engage in review and services for their journals. Silly, perhaps. But maybe we need more of this silliness from those who can afford it.
Dear Esther Otten,
I apologize in advance for this email. I am not sure you are the best person to contact but I hope you will be able to answer my questions.
It is with a heavy heart that I have decided to sever all present and future relations with Springer Nature. After the unfortunate decision to transform what is arguably one of the few top theory journals in sociology, I find no other reasonable options. I have not taken this decision lightly. The replacement of the editorial leadership of Theory and Society with scholars that have manifested an imperative to radically transform the field in ways that are both contrary to sound science and acceptable practices of scholarly peer review has led me to lose all confidence in Springer Nature’s ability to perform its job. The loss of intellectual diversity among the editorial board (former students and collaborators of one of the main editors seem overrepresented; national and gender representation is notably skewed) merely adds to my concerns. A storied title, one that was unique in its scope and perspective, has shifted towards an anachronistic ideological fringe. The new statement of Aims and Scope recently published on Springer’s website lays this bare–which suggests Springer Nature is clearly amenable to these changes. This was not a change that sought to resolve important operational issues but a miscalculated overhaul to a prized and well-regarded journal value by many scholars in sociology. Given the tremendous lack of communication with those associated with the work of the journal, I simply have no confidence that this is an isolated event.
This leads to my questions: can I be removed from all existing and future databases held by Springer Nature for the purpose of peer review requests and other editorial matters? Can I please be guaranteed that I will not be contacted by any journal under Springer Nature’s portfolio with requests to review papers? Aside from communications related to contracts signed in the past assigning copyrights for published works, I do not wish to engage with any of Springer Nature’s journals. While I can always decline invitations to review, I am sure you understand that this entails a certain reputational and practical burden. It is my reading of both GDPR and California’s Privacy Rights Act that I have the right to request to not be contacted by entities associated to Springer Nature. I wish to exercise these rights until I have regained confidence in Springer Nature’s ability to direct its social science portfolio.
I am sorry this message does not strike a more positive note. If you are not the person I should address, I would be grateful if you could direct me to the appropriate office.
Sincerely,
Juan Pablo Pardo-Guerra
UC San Diego