Comments for Scholarly Standards at Risk

Comment on Oxford University Press, Hear Our Appeal by Mary Brown-Smith

Mary Brown-Smith — Tue, 24 Apr 2012 19:49:52 +0000

I am not trying to diminish your effort to bring more transparency. However, I don’t understand why they have to reveal his affiliation to any industry. Also, maybe he worked for Monsanto because he believes in genetically modified foods and not the other way round, i.e. he worked for Monsanto and hence he is writing this book. I haven’t read the book but as someone who is herself for sustainable food production, I would like to know what the other side of the argument. You are sounding highly alarmist and it seems like you are trying to silence the other side of the debate. Let us make up our own minds and at the end of the day it might even cement my position on the need to push for sustainable agriculture. In the larger scheme of things I find this absolute position on issues very problematic!

Comment on The Originators by Doug Gurian-Sherman

Doug Gurian-Sherman — Mon, 09 Apr 2012 18:23:36 +0000

I find Dave Wood’s comments off the mark for several reasons. First, and most important, the main critique is not about the content of the book in question, but the standards of publication that Oxford Press used in publishing it. This is an issue for the global academic community, not just the global South. Wood completely misses the main point of this protest.

Second, Wood complains that the authors of the petition are from developed countries, but neglects to mention that the author of the book in question is as well. If this somehow is a disqualifying characteristic, it would apply to the book in question. It also raises questions about Mr. Wood’s origins, which he does not disclose. But in any case, several of the authors of the petition have spent many years in the global South, and therefore have as much credibility as Mr. Wood on that basis.

Certainly, developing countries should make up their own “minds” about any of the issues discussed in the book. But that should also not stop discussion by all who are interested. And in practical terms, those who advocate the policies and technologies of the book in question–including major corporations and developed-country governments–are coercing and otherwise busy pushing their points of view onto developing countries.

Finally, as an agricultural scientist who has studied agroecology (and molecular biology) for many years, I disagree with Wood’s insinuation that agroecology suffers from the same problems as the OUP book. One of the main criticisms is the lack of references to support the arguments in the book. Agroecology, by contrast, is supported by a voluminous peer-reviewed literature. And much of that literature clearly shows that it can (and does) contribute to sustainable and highly productive agriculture.

Comment on The Originators by Dave Wood (@GightWood)

Dave Wood (@GightWood) — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 08:43:39 +0000

I have spent most of my working life as a scientist in tropical agricultural development. There is a presentational problem with any group of people in developed countries – as you are – making policy comments applied to other countries or, as in this case, trying to undermine the policy advice of others given in the Oxford University Press book. This problem arises from the vast agricultural exports from North America and – at least for many of you – residence in and funding support from North America. You will be seen as trying to stop developing countries advancing a modern, competitive, export driven agriculture that competes with North American exports. In effect, you can be charged as trans-national Luddites trying to hold back agricultural development elsewhere to the profit of your countries of residence.
More specifically, I note that several of you are major proponents of `agroecology’. I am currently writing a detailed critique of this topic for publication. I can give you advance notice that my findings are that agroecology suffers from almost exactly the weaknesses that you seem to have identified in the OU Press book. You are getting yourselves in a `Pots calling kettles black’ situation – best avoided.

Comment on Join with Us by itsonlyausername

itsonlyausername — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 04:15:46 +0000

When educating impressionable young students it is imperative that they receive balanced and truthful information devoid of political and corporate involvement. It may be seen as appropriate to throw money at a publishing company to encourage them to produce an academic tome about their particular field of business but it needs to be balanced.
Time to ditch these manipulators and be more selective of the authors you hire.

Comment on Join with Us by Tom Atlee

Tom Atlee — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 21:05:31 +0000

While I am heartily in favor of freedom of speech and advocacy without requiring everything to be balanced and footnoted, we need academia to maintain a backdrop of rational and evidential standards with minimal (or explicit) conflict of interest. Effective democracy – and simply good decision-making – depends on having that potent, discourse-elevating, truth-aligning force operating in the midst of our democratic culture.

Comment on Oxford University Press, Hear Our Appeal by JOHNY YOUSSEF

JOHNY YOUSSEF — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 16:43:38 +0000

IT IS A GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO JOIN EDUCATED PROFESSIONALS SUCH AS YOU ARE , IT IS DEPENDING ON YOU (SOCIETY OF VISIONARY ) THAT THE MARKET EVEN SOCIETIES AND EVOLUTIONS GREW UP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION OF CHANGES AND AS AN ARTICLE , IT IS ABSOLUTELY RIGHT AND PERFECT AND I AM IN.

Comment on Join with Us by Ellen Berrey

Ellen Berrey — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 16:22:00 +0000

Academic presses increasingly face market pressures. As a professor, I understand that academic presses now need to publish more books that reach a broader audience. However, rigorous, scholarly research can be written up and advertised in ways that reach more readers without degrading academic standards. With this shift in academic publishing, our most prestigious presses can only stay prestigious if they maintain high standards for their books. Oxford University Press, you can do better than this!

Dr. Ellen Berrey
SUNY-Buffalo

Comment on Join with Us by Nancy D. Moorehead

Nancy D. Moorehead — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 15:10:19 +0000

Thank you Frances and others for bringing to the forefront this agregious practice of Oxford University Press.

Nancy D. Moorehead
Cambridge, MA

Comment on Join with Us by Katherine Adams

Katherine Adams — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 00:58:33 +0000

Your failure to meet basic standards of scholarship in publishing is shocking. Oxford university Press, you should be ashamed of yourself. It looks as if you have been bought off. There is no other reason I can think of for this level of deliberate irresponsibility. I will now think twice and work to avoid buying ANY books published by Oxford University Press. You’ve lost my respect.

Katherine Adams
Brookline, MA

Comment on Join with Us by Patrick Mertens

Patrick Mertens — Thu, 15 Dec 2011 22:41:10 +0000

Thanks to Frances Moore Lappe