Discover more from Jill Walker Rettberg

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

6 thoughts on “quick links: open access at harvard, what “blogging” is, Korean bloggers, saying sorry

  1. ÿivind

    Your blogg is still going and vital. I saw you in Aftenposten some days ago. Great. And Jill’s pregnant. Even greater! Whish you all the best!

    ÿivind

  2. KDS

    Open access at Harvard: the only net effect is that researchers will be stimulated to archive their publications in open access archives, but it does not affect the general policies of journals or their pricing policies to libraries, except that perhaps journals might become even more expensive.

  3. Jill Walker Rettberg

    KDS, I think it makes a little more difference…

    • Each article archived in an open access archive is accessible to the billions of people, millions of scholars and students, who don’t have institutional subscriptions to expensive journals.
    • If more/the best/most/all universities require open access archiving, journals will no longer be able to get away with excessive copyright agreements forbidding scholars to distribute their own work to people who don’t have subscriptions to the journals. That will mean that even scholars at universities without the open access requirement will be able to distribute their work online.
    • Much of this research is publicly funded. It will thus be available to the people whose taxes funded it.

    I’d say those changes are very important.

  4. KDS

    Australia’s apology: to say “I’m sorry” is not to say “I’ll make up for it”. According to a related news story (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/02/14/2162558.htm) the Australian government seems to be spending more money on fighting reparations claims than on actually paying reparations.

  5. KDS

    Jill, you write “journals will no longer be able to get away with excessive copyright agreements”, challenging my claim that open access is not affecting the journal publishers’ ”general” policies and pricing. However, the publishers are now coming up with ”special” agreements. Look at [http://www.springer-sbm.com/index.php?id=291&backPID=131&swords=open%20access&L=0&tx_tnc_news=841&cHash=0a393e20fe Springer’s Open Choice] that allows free access but demands $3000 from your university for ”every” article.

  6. […] (Via Jill) […]

Leave A Comment

Recommended Posts

Academics in Norway: Sign this petition asking for research-based discussions of how to use AI in universities

I just signed a petition calling for Norwegian universities to use research expertise on AI when deciding how to implement it, rather than having decisions be made mostly administratively. ,  If you are a researcher in Norway, please read it and sign it if you agree – and share with anyone else who might be interested. The petition was written by three researchers at UiT: Maria Danielsen (a philosopher who completed her PhD in 2025 on AI and ethics, including discussions of art and working life), Knut Ørke (Norwegian as a second language), and Holger Pötzsch (a professor of media studies with many years of research on digital media, video games, disruption, and working life, among other topics).  This is not about preventing researchers from exploring AI methods in their research. It is about not uncritically accepting the hype that everyone must use AI everywhere without critical reflection. It is about not introducing Copilot as the default option in word processors, or training PhD candidates to believe they will fall behind if they do not use AI when writing articles, without proper academic discussion. Changes like these should be knowledge-based and discussed academically, not merely decided administratively, because they alter the epistemological foundations of research. Maria wrote to me a couple of months ago because she had read my opinion piece in Aftenposten in which I called for a strong brake on the use of language models in knowledge work. She was part of a committee tasked with developing UiT’s AI strategy and was concerned because there was so much hype and so few members of the committee with actual expertise in AI. I fully support the petition. There are probably some good uses for AI in research, but the uncritical, hype-driven insistence that we must simply adopt it everywhere is highly risky. There are many researchers in Norway with strong expertise in AI, language, ethics, working life, and culture. We must make use of this expertise. This is also partly about respect for research in the humanities, social sciences, psychology, and law. Introducing AI at universities and university colleges is not merely a technical issue, and perhaps not even primarily a technical one. It concerns much more: philosophy of science, methodological reflection, epistemology, writing, publishing, the working environment, and more. […]

screenshot of Grammarly - main text in the middle, names of experts on the left with reccomendations and on the right more info about the expert review feature
AI and algorithmic culture Teaching

Grammarly generated fake expert reviews “by” real scholars

Grammarly is a full on AI plagiarism machine now, generating text, citations (often irrelevant), “humanizing” the text to avoid AI checkers and so on. If you’re an author or scholar, they also have been impersonating and offering “feedback” in your name. Until yesterday, when they discontinued the Expert Review feature due to a class action lawsuit. Here are screenshots of how it worked.