Crack Open the Make Believe: Counterfeit, Publication Ethics, and the Global South

M. Jacob
{"title":"Crack Open the Make Believe: Counterfeit, Publication Ethics, and the Global South","authors":"M. Jacob","doi":"10.7551/mitpress/11087.003.0024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"concept of “counterfeit.” The research context of my short intervention draws on ethnographic and archival work, engaging the question of how people experience but also imagine legality/illegality. Since 2010, as part of my interest in the category of “publication ethics,” I have been conducting ethnographic observations of the quarterly forum of the global charity Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). My research also looks at how the category of “research misconduct” has taken form in the context of disciplinary adjudication by regulators (Jacob, 2014, 2016a) and of modern patterns of documentation more generally (Jacob, 2017). In brief, I am as much interested if not more in institutional watchdogs of academic misconduct than I am in alleged perpetrators of academic misconduct. Pausing over the mutually exclusive dichotomy of real versus counterfeit journals, my short intervention approaches the idea of counterfeit by way of making three points in relation to public harm and denunciation, the idea of the authentic, and watchdogs. Through these anchor points, I hope we can better see the eruption of counterfeit scientific journals as more inexorable than strange or outrageous. The idea here is not to justify the counterfeit of academic journals by claiming that counterfeit exists elsewhere; it is also not to exoticize or, worse, romanticize counterfeiters. Rather it is to examine it on its own terms, from the point of view of its craft, and to highlight dexterity as one of its most underexplored aspects. As James Siegel has beautifully shown in his ethnography of counterfeiters in contemporary Indonesia (Siegel, 1998), there exists a certain power in making fake university certificates, or fake divorce certificates, and so on. Aside from being about the financial profit it brings, it is a power for crafting “a sort of authority for one’s self” or “one’s own rubber stamp” and for attesting to one’s creative abilities. Given the transformations of scientific research and publishing over the last thirty years, described extensively in 19 Crack Open the Make Believe: Counterfeit, Publication Ethics, and the Global South","PeriodicalId":186262,"journal":{"name":"Gaming the Metrics","volume":"3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gaming the Metrics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11087.003.0024","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

concept of “counterfeit.” The research context of my short intervention draws on ethnographic and archival work, engaging the question of how people experience but also imagine legality/illegality. Since 2010, as part of my interest in the category of “publication ethics,” I have been conducting ethnographic observations of the quarterly forum of the global charity Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). My research also looks at how the category of “research misconduct” has taken form in the context of disciplinary adjudication by regulators (Jacob, 2014, 2016a) and of modern patterns of documentation more generally (Jacob, 2017). In brief, I am as much interested if not more in institutional watchdogs of academic misconduct than I am in alleged perpetrators of academic misconduct. Pausing over the mutually exclusive dichotomy of real versus counterfeit journals, my short intervention approaches the idea of counterfeit by way of making three points in relation to public harm and denunciation, the idea of the authentic, and watchdogs. Through these anchor points, I hope we can better see the eruption of counterfeit scientific journals as more inexorable than strange or outrageous. The idea here is not to justify the counterfeit of academic journals by claiming that counterfeit exists elsewhere; it is also not to exoticize or, worse, romanticize counterfeiters. Rather it is to examine it on its own terms, from the point of view of its craft, and to highlight dexterity as one of its most underexplored aspects. As James Siegel has beautifully shown in his ethnography of counterfeiters in contemporary Indonesia (Siegel, 1998), there exists a certain power in making fake university certificates, or fake divorce certificates, and so on. Aside from being about the financial profit it brings, it is a power for crafting “a sort of authority for one’s self” or “one’s own rubber stamp” and for attesting to one’s creative abilities. Given the transformations of scientific research and publishing over the last thirty years, described extensively in 19 Crack Open the Make Believe: Counterfeit, Publication Ethics, and the Global South
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
《打开谎言:伪造、出版道德和全球南方》
“假冒”的概念。我的简短干预的研究背景借鉴了民族志和档案工作,涉及人们如何体验和想象合法性/非法性的问题。自2010年以来,作为我对“出版伦理”类别的兴趣的一部分,我一直在对全球慈善出版伦理委员会(COPE)的季度论坛进行民族志观察。我的研究还着眼于“研究不端行为”的类别是如何在监管机构的纪律裁决背景下形成的(Jacob, 2014, 2016a),以及更普遍的现代文件模式(Jacob, 2017)。简而言之,我对学术不端行为的机构监管机构的兴趣,如果不是比我对所谓的学术不端行为的肇事者更感兴趣的话。在真实与伪造期刊的相互排斥的二分法上暂停,我的简短干预通过提出与公众伤害和谴责有关的三点来接近伪造的概念,真实的概念,以及监管机构。通过这些锚点,我希望我们能更好地看到,假冒科学期刊的爆发是不可阻挡的,而不是奇怪或令人发指的。这里的想法不是通过声称其他地方存在伪造来证明学术期刊的伪造;它也不是要把造假者异国化,或者更糟的是,把造假者浪漫化。相反,它是检查它自己的条款,从其工艺的角度来看,并强调灵巧作为其最未被探索的方面之一。正如詹姆斯·西格尔(James Siegel)在其关于当代印尼造假者的人种志(Siegel, 1998)中漂亮地展示的那样,伪造大学证书或离婚证书等存在一定的权力。除了它带来的经济利益外,它还是一种为自己打造“一种权威”或“自己的橡皮图章”的力量,也是一种证明自己创造能力的力量。鉴于过去三十年来科学研究和出版的转变,在19撕开谎言:假冒,出版道德和全球南方中进行了广泛的描述
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Transformation of the Scientific Paper: From Knowledge to Accounting Unit Ghost-Managing and Gaming Pharmaceutical Knowledge Beyond and Before Metrics Fake Archives: The Search for Openness in Scholarly Communication Platforms Playing and Being Played by the Research Impact Game
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1