This week we will look at CENSORSHIP as it may play out through COPYRIGHT LAWS tied to Trans Pacific Trade Pact. We all know copyright theft overseas is huge---Hollywood or the music industry wants to profit from records and movies that are copied and sold with impunity. The problem comes from our ability to access journalism and what media outlets will be allowed to be freely accessed in the future. Knowing we are already facing a kind of censoring in how servers are being programmed to block some sites as dangerous---we are seeing that broaden. I now cannot open many international sites I have for these few decades.
Americans have for centuries been allowed to subscribe to a magazine or journal and copy or share articles. The movement of magazines and newspapers online came with that freedom to share articles. If you notice some are now not allowing a share---some are not allowing people to copy. This is especially true of academic research articles---government documents----once open because Federal, state, and local revenue backs those articles. I am even finding government articles being released in coding that many computers will not accept. There are many ways to keep citizens from accessing information these days.
So, if we can see the creep of censorship and exclusivity in the information we all have accessed through modern times---then as the article below states we MUST BE VERY, VERY CONCERNED over Trans Pacific Trade Pact's strong detailing of copyright and patent laws. As this article states---what looks to be legitimate concern by Hollywood or music industry in protecting sales can as well expand this censorship by making service providers too weary over copyright infringements.
April 25, 2014
Trans Pacific Partnership Provokes Fear Of Internet Censorship
The Trans Pacific Partnership(TPP) has prompted fears of internet censorship and the creation of “internet police” on a global scale. The TPP has been billed as a “free trade agreement” similar to the NAFTA initiative of 1994.
Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/1226094/trans-pacific-partnership-provokes-fear-of-internet-censorship/#qupr5eKKj6w5lljh.99
Electronic Frontier Foundation had this to say about the TPP and internet censorship:
“TPP raises significant concerns about citizens’ freedom of expression, due process, innovation, the future of the Internet’s global infrastructure, and the right of sovereign nations to develop policies and laws that best meet their domestic priorities.”
Senator Ron Wyden was among those who staunchly oppose the Trans Pacific Partnership deal and addressed the lack of information about the plan being shared with Congress.
A host of internet freedom groups are also coming out in opposition to the TPP. The stopthesecrecy.net website began circulating a petition to thwart the Trans Pacific Partnership and has more than two million signatures. The petition and largely the internet freedom movement itself, is being led by OpenMedia, a Canada-based organization. The group wants safeguards put into place in order to keep cyber space free from censorship. Reddit and Avaaz are also involved in the initiative to stop the TPP mandates from taking effect.
OpenMedia Executive Director Steve Anderson had this to say about the TPP deal and how it will impact free speech on the internet:
“If the TPP’s censorship plan goes through, it will force ISPs to act as “Internet Police” monitoring our Internet use, censoring content, and removing whole websites. A deal this extreme would never pass with the whole world watching – that’s why U.S. lobbyists and bureaucrats are using these closed-door meetings to try to ram it through. Our projection will shine a light on this secretive and extreme agreement, sending decision-makers a clear message that we expect to take part in decisions that affect our daily lives.”
Stop the Great Firewall of America
By REBECCA MacKINNONNOV. 15, 2011 New York Times
China operates the world’s most elaborate and opaque system of Internet censorship. But Congress, under pressure to take action against the theft of intellectual property, is considering misguided legislation that would strengthen China’s Great Firewall and even bring major features of it to America.
The legislation — the Protect IP Act, which has been introduced in the Senate, and a House version known as the Stop Online Piracy Act — have an impressive array of well-financed backers, including the United States Chamber of Commerce, the Motion Picture Association of America, the American Federation of Musicians, the Directors Guild of America, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and the Screen Actors Guild. The bills aim not to censor political or religious speech as China does, but to protect American intellectual property. Alarm at the infringement of creative works through the Internet is justifiable. The solutions offered by the legislation, however, threaten to inflict collateral damage on democratic discourse and dissent both at home and around the world.
The bills would empower the attorney general to create a blacklist of sites to be blocked by Internet service providers, search engines, payment providers and advertising networks, all without a court hearing or a trial. The House version goes further, allowing private companies to sue service providers for even briefly and unknowingly hosting content that infringes on copyright — a sharp change from current law, which protects the service providers from civil liability if they remove the problematic content immediately upon notification. The intention is not the same as China’s Great Firewall, a nationwide system of Web censorship, but the practical effect could be similar.
Abuses under existing American law serve as troubling predictors for the kinds of abuse by private actors that the House bill would make possible. Take, for example, the cease-and-desist letters that Diebold, a maker of voting machines, sent in 2003, demanding that Internet service providers shut down Web sites that had published internal company e-mails about problems with the company’s voting machines. The letter cited copyright violations, and most of the service providers took down the content without question, despite the strong case to be made that the material was speech protected under the First Amendment.
The House bill would also emulate China’s system of corporate “self-discipline,” making companies liable for users’ actions. The burden would be on the Web site operator to prove that the site was not being used for copyright infringement. The effect on user-generated sites like YouTube would be chilling.
YouTube, Twitter and Facebook have played an important role in political movements from Tahrir Square to Zuccotti Park. At present, social networking services are protected by a “safe harbor” provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which grants Web sites immunity from prosecution as long as they act in good faith to take down infringing content as soon as rights-holders point it out to them. The House bill would destroy that immunity, putting the onus on YouTube to vet videos in advance or risk legal action. It would put Twitter in a similar position to that of its Chinese cousin, Weibo, which reportedly employs around 1,000 people to monitor and censor user content and keep the company in good standing with authorities.
Compliance with the Stop Online Piracy Act would require huge overhead spending by Internet companies for staff and technologies dedicated to monitoring users and censoring any infringing material from being posted or transmitted. This in turn would create daunting financial burdens and legal risks for start-up companies, making it much harder for brilliant young entrepreneurs with limited resources to create small and innovative Internet companies that empower citizens and change the world.
Adding to the threat to free speech, recent academic research on global Internet censorship has found that in countries where heavy legal liability is imposed on companies, employees tasked with day-to-day censorship jobs have a strong incentive to play it safe and over-censor — even in the case of content whose legality might stand a good chance of holding up in a court of law. Why invite legal hassle when you can just hit “delete”?
The potential for abuse of power through digital networks — upon which we as citizens now depend for nearly everything, including our politics — is one of the most insidious threats to democracy in the Internet age. We live in a time of tremendous political polarization. Public trust in both government and corporations is low, and deservedly so. This is no time for politicians and industry lobbyists in Washington to be devising new Internet censorship mechanisms, adding new opportunities for abuse of corporate and government power over online speech. While American intellectual property deserves protection, that protection must be won and defended in a manner that does not stifle innovation, erode due process under the law, and weaken the protection of political and civil rights on the Internet.
As this article states the ability to be kicked off the internet for violation of some of these policies is huge. With no avenue for redress when this may happen unjustly we can see a freeze on how citizens communicate and share information not only in the US but around the world. As requirements for internet service providers to police copyright and patents so too will that price for access rise. We already know rate increases are coming as high-speed internet consolidation is creating monopolies---we know it is cheaper to select users according to the kinds of activities that would not lead to copyright or patent infringement. They always make cost prohibitively expensive for behaviors they want to curb. If we know mainstream media is only hiring a 5% to the 1% who report what they are told ---the independent journalists are now being told they are not real journalists and they will be labelled as dangerous sites. We are seeing it in third world nations as internet censorship is strong---and we will see TPP bring more of that censorship to the US for the same reasons.
When the news of China's abuse of labor and environment was allowed to escape the nation a few decades ago allowing the world to understand what global corporate factories were like---people researching these issues saw how censorship in those third world nations eliminated all internet discussions on those topics.
'Throughout this week in Ottawa, negotiators worked to ink a binding international agreement behind closed doors, which experts say could block web content, invade your privacy, and make your Internet more expensive'.
Steve E. Anderson Become a fan
Founder and Executive Director, OpenMedia.ca
The TPP Censorship Circus Could Change The Way We Use The Internet Forever
Posted: 07/10/2014 5:40 pm EDT Updated: 09/09/2014 5:59 am EDT
The bureaucrats and industry lobbyists negotiating the Trans-Pacific Partnership have gone to great lengths to keep their plans a secret before, but this takes the cake. After scheduling the next round of bargaining for Vancouver, negotiators quietly made a last minute switch to Ottawa with only a week to go before the round began.
The TPP is an international agreement involving Canada and 11 other countries, involving 40 per cent of the global economy, that threatens to censor free expression online amongst other concerns spanning environmental protections, jobs, public health, and even our democratic rights.
Throughout this week in Ottawa, negotiators worked to ink a binding international agreement behind closed doors, which experts say could block web content, invade your privacy, and make your Internet more expensive.
In today's world where digital innovation is driven by the ability to access and leverage the open Internet, the TPP proposes regressive Internet regulations that would be imposed on 12 countries party to the agreement (including Canada) by unaccountable U.S. conglomerates, with little to no meaningful consultation with the public.
Canadians, and citizens across the globe, will be denied the democratic right of sovereign countries to make their own laws, and everyday users of the Internet will be the ones who suffer most.
Even our own representatives in Parliament are being kept in dark. Last year, NDP trade critic Don Davies argued it was unacceptable that U.S. representatives have been allowed access to the TPP text, but Canadian legislators, including MPs from the governing party, have been excluded from previewing the deal.
Despite the secrecy, we know that major changes are in store for Internet users if the agreement is ratified, and that negotiators and Trade Minister Ed Fast are doing their best to keep citizen and small business voices locked out. In fact, in late 2012, the Canadian government mistakenly included OpenMedia on an email containing a non-disclosure agreement for insider lobbyists, asking them to keep secret the information they learn about the negotiations.
What we do know from leaked documents is that this agreement is not about trade, but rather about expanding the rights of Big Media conglomerates who are pushing for extreme Internet censorship powers.
Consequences of this heavy-handedness range from criminalizing small-scale alleged copyright infringement, like uploading a home video with a popular song playing in the background, to blocking web content, and even quite literally kicking people -- and entire families -- off the web simply for being accused of breaking copyright rules, without any evidence or due process.
During the Auckland round of negotiations in 2012, an OpenMedia rep travelled to meet with decision-makers, and presented them with an iPad streaming citizen comments about the TPP making our Internet more expensive, restricted and surveilled. During this visit, we also challenged Canada's chief negotiator to take a stand and commit to upholding Canadian law in the TPP, but she refused to do so.
After repeated attempts to have citizen stakeholder engagement taken seriously by negotiators and Trade Ministers, we decided to make our own trans-pacific partnership - one comprised of web users, innovators and organizations with the shared goal of an open and accessible Internet.
Thousands of citizens and over 30 major organizations from across the Pacific Region have already joined together in the Our Fair Deal Coalition that aims to put a stop to regressive rules for sharing and collaborating online. This spring, our partnership helped launch the Stop the Secrecy campaign, that saw 3.1 million people speak out against TPP secrecy.
Sadly, rather than open the process to public input, Canadian officials have increased the secrecy of these meetings by preventing public consultations and refusing to even disclose the location of the meetings until the last minute.
Citizens need to look at two goals of internet usage by 1% Wall Street global pols---first, they need all high-speed internet capacity directed to global corporations, Wall Street banking, and NSA security structures and are going to push more and more Americans from ordinary internet access. They will create programming that cannot be opened ---they will broaden payment packages to individual services raising those rates, or like Apple they will send out new products every other year and make them too expensive for most.
Secondly, the 1% and their 2% are returning to days of Medieval when 99% of people had no access to information and formal educations. This is why research is becoming proprietary---it is why research journals we used to be able to read sitting in a university library saw prices climb---then libraries said they needed those subscriptions online----and now we are seeing a move towards universities not having access to that research now that it is being patented. NASA for example is being outsourced and privatized ---think of all those images. Then think if all that becomes proprietary how much knowledge and information WE THE PEOPLE will not access. That was Medieval. Across America we are already hearing everyone state they cannot access REAL information---they don't know what information is correct---that will become worse as people trying to provide REAL information are censored off the internet.
I'm not a fan of signing petitions but it is good to see what activism is out there ---make sure your email information is not being sold to Clinton neo-liberals as many petition sites do.
The Fair Deal campaign is about keeping the Trans-Pacific Partnership from changing our copyright laws.
A fair deal is one that opens up new trade opportunities, without forcing us to make changes to copyright law that would take a major toll on our society.
Make your voice heard by signing on to this simple statement for decision-makers now:
“Please reject copyright proposals that restrict the open Internet, access to knowledge, economic opportunity and our fundamental rights.”
Right now an international agreement called the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is being negotiated by Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Peru, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Singapore, Vietnam, and the United States. The changes to copyright required by the TPP would reduce our access to information and restrict our ability to innovate, both on and offline.
Changing our copyright laws in ways that restrict the open Internet and economic opportunity are unfair to citizens, businesses, creators, and civil society organizations. Not only could such changes raise prices for users of copyright works, but they could also stifle our knowledge economy and chill innovation.
The TPP negotiations are secret,so nobody can say for sure how you will lose or gain from the agreement, but a leaked document reveals that the U.S. wants copyright standards that would force change to many of the negotiating countries’ copyright laws. We want you to know more about what’s at stake so that you can have a say now, before the deal is done.
The TPP is no simple “trade agreement.” It goes further than tariffs and quotas. The TPP will reach beyond the border, into countries’ own policy-making and regulatory processes. For example, the TPP could stop future governments from making their own decisions on important issues including how long copyright lasts and how Internet service providers do business.
Support a Fair Deal for Citizens
Keep parallel importsThe TPP could give copyright holders the power to veto parallel imports. This would drive up the already high price of books, DVDs, and other items in several countries.
Don’t extend our copyright terms
The TPP could make copyright longer in most of the affected countries. Accepted standards for copyright terms are set out in international law. Under the TRIPS Agreement, copyright in books, for example, lasts for the life of the author plus 50 years after death.The TPP could add another 20 years to that, making copyright last the author’s life plus 70 years. Not only would citizens have to pay an extra 20 years in royalties, but several generations will go by before the book enters the public domain.
Keep us free from restrictive digital locks
A Technological Protection Measure (TPM) or digital lock is software designed to prevent people from copying digital products. But TPMs do more than that – they can prevent us from engaging in entirely legal activities. The TPP could expand digital locks and make it illegal to circumvent them even for non-infringing purposes – like changing an e-book into a format someone who is blind or has low vision could read. The TPP could effectively make it illegal for the blind to access e-books where digital locks are attached, even if they've purchased the e-book lawfully!
Support a Fair Deal for Innovators
Copyright law is meant to encourage people to create, but too strong copyright law can actually stifle innovation. This is especially true in the digital environment. As explained in a leaked text by New Zealand negotiators:
Many innovations are occurring in a rapid and sequential manner either through the clustering of innovation or by one innovator moving to quickly build on the work of another...In this environment, more people are arguing that overly strong rights can act as an inhibitor rather than as promoter of innovation.
Support a Fair Deal for our Internet
Keep our Internet open
The TPP could give copyright owners power over temporary electronic copies, for example cached, buffered or streamed data. The glaring problem is this: the Internet fundamentally depends on making temporary copies to move information from point A to point B, so the TPP’s “temporary electronic copy” right is like giving copyright owners the power to set up toll booths all along the information superhighway. This would seriously take away from the openness that makes the Internet so valuable.
Let ISPs do what they do best – provide Internet access, not police copyright
The TPP could force ISPs to be judge and jury when it comes to copyright infringement, making them—not a court—determine who “repeat infringers” of copyright are and cut them off from the Internet.
Citizens not involved with universities or research may not think the article below pertains to them but it most certainly does. As we see today our universities are not leading in revolution and are almost void on public policy discussions and holding power accountable. These are huge issues in a free society. Public universities were ground zero for these actions. Obama and Congressional neo-liberals deliberately created a tiered higher education structure handing the power of research to IVY LEAGUES and with that comes more and more proprietary actions around data, products, patents all of which used to be public because they are funded with public money. The professors below are not targeting these problems because at Rutgers they are probably profiting from these patent policies BUT their concerns are just as valid in press/information freedom----it is tied to BIG DATA AND NSA the idea of rating global corporate universities and professors by opening all boundaries of personal data to data-mining corporations.
When academics are placed under a microscope---whether teachers being videotaped for all the information they share or these researchers having all contents of their research open to review before publishing-----it limits innovation and creativity it does not INSPIRE IT AS WALL STREET AND ITS INNOVATION marketing sells. Rutgers is a public university that sees itself as IVY LEAGUE. We will see almost all funding of academic research handed to private global universities with no access by 99% of citizens.
Refusing to Be Measured
Rutgers professors vote a second time to seek access to and limits on use of data from Academic Analytics -- as faculty advocates vow to take such criticism to other campuses.
May 11, 2016ByColleen Flaherty
The faculty of the Graduate School at Rutgers University in New Brunswick took a stand against Academic Analytics on Tuesday, resolving that administrators shouldn’t use proprietary information about faculty productivity in decisions about divvying up resources among departments, or those affecting the makeup of the faculty, graduate teaching assignments, fellowships and grant writing. They also demanded to view their personal data profiles by Sept. 1. The vote was 114 to 2.
The new resolution is similar to one passed by the faculty of the School of Arts and Sciences in December, in that it expresses concern about the accuracy of the Academic Analytics data and the implications for academic freedom. Rutgers signed a nearly $500,000 contract with the data-mining company in 2013, in exchange for information about the scholarly productivity of individual professors and academic units and how they compare to those at peer institutions. Yet some faculty members who have seen their personal profiles -- an opportunity most professors haven’t had -- say the data are in some cases wrong, under- or overcounting publications. Many faculty critics also say the data lack nuance or accounting for research quality and innovation, and could chill the scholarly inquiry of junior faculty members in particular as they seek to boost their “stats” ahead of applying for tenure.
“The entirely quantitative methods and variables employed by Academic Analytics -- a corporation intruding upon academic freedom, peer evaluation and shared governance -- hardly capture the range and quality of scholarly inquiry, while utterly ignoring the teaching, service and civic engagement that faculty perform,” the graduate faculty resolution says. “Taken on their own terms, the measures of books, articles, awards, grants and citations within the Academic Analytics database frequently undercount, overcount or otherwise misrepresent the achievements of individual scholars,” and those measures “have the potential to influence, redirect and narrow scholarship as administrators incite faculty and departments to compete for higher scores.”
The School of Arts and Sciences’ resolution also demanded that Academic Analytics not be used in promotion and tenure decisions.
Pro-Academic Analytics administrators at Rutgers and elsewhere, meanwhile, say the service is just one tool among many used to track scholarly productivity, and that more information is better information. Even staff members at Academic Analytics say their data shouldn’t ever replace traditional forms of peer evaluation, but rather supplement it with facts, figures and comparisons that institutions might otherwise attempt to gather on their own -- likely less accurately and at greater expense.
“Researchers at Academic Analytics care very much about higher education and we look at ourselves as providing a service,” said Tricia Stapleton, company spokesperson. “We help institutions understand themselves because many are very large, complex beings and it’s not always easy to gather this kind of information.”
Yet Rutgers seems to be acting on some faculty concerns. Richard L. Edwards, chancellor of Rutgers at New Brunswick, said in an email to faculty members last week that he planned on announcing within the next month a mechanism “for individual Rutgers faculty members to review their [Academic Analytics] files and to make corrections if errors are discovered.”
Edwards said he’ll establish a campuswide committee of faculty and administrators charged with monitoring and making recommendations about the program’s use on campus by fall.
Addressing concerns about the cost of the four-year contract, the chancellor said it’s annually about the equivalent of hiring a midlevel analyst. But one person “could not possibly provide the information that we get from Academic Analytics, with data from hundreds of universities and thousands of faculty members.”
David Hughes, a professor of anthropology at Rutgers and president of its American Association of University Professors- and American Federation of Teachers-affiliated faculty union, said that beyond promises of access to faculty data, Edwards’s message fell short. In particular, he said that Edwards had “mischaracterized” Academic Analytics as consistent with the Leiden Manifesto, a sort of gold standard for research metrics -- including “Keep data collection and analytical processes open, transparent and simple.”
“I suspect that when he praises [Academic Analytics] for its transparency, involvement of stakeholders and so on, he is referring to its transparency to and involvement of client administrators -- not their faculties,” Hughes said.
It was only after some effort that Hughes was able to view his profile earlier this year; he said he’d been credited for three journal articles in a given period when he’d only written one, and undercredited on other kinds of publications. Beyond issues of transparency and basic accuracy, Hughes said he also wondered how an anthropologist who made a movie instead of publishing an article would be credited -- if at all. Other professors have expressed concern about how Academic Analytics measures interdisciplinary research and credits co-investigators on grants.
Academic Analytics says its approach is one of the most generous concerning interdisciplinary research, but co-principal investigators are not currently included in the default methodology; institutions must order a custom report that includes them.
Zach Hosseini, a Rutgers spokesperson, said via email that the university “is always looking for new ways to add to the many tools we use to measure our productivity and progress. Academic Analytics is the only tool we found that provides major national research universities like ours the chance to do an ‘apples to apples’ comparison of its programs to its peers. We intensively reviewed all products that could allow us to do this needed comparison and determined that the other tools couldn’t provide the accuracy and scope in data mining we required.”
But data comparisons are just part of how Rutgers assesses faculty productivity and institutional progress, Hosseini said. “We take a holistic view of both, looking at community service endeavors, the impact of our scholarly writing and the quality and quantity of the grants we receive.”
Hosseini said Rutgers saw no issue with the tool’s accuracy, and that it’s “very clear on what it measures and what it doesn’t. The university values the criteria it measures and understands that not every citation or grant in the academic universe will be appear in the tool’s reports.”
Part of Push Toward ‘Academic Intelligence’?
Academic Analytics, based in New York, was founded by Lawrence Martin, former dean of the Graduate School at the State University of New York at Stony Brook, and Anthony Olejniczak, a fellow anthropologist at Stony Brook. Their premise was that colleges and universities needed a more dynamic set of data, updated on an annual basis, than is included in the National Research Council’s periodic rankings of graduate programs. Initial institutional reports were released in 2005, with academic unit-level data. The main intention was for clients to be able to compare output on their campuses to other peer institutions. But over time, staff members said, the service yielded to demands to release professor-level productivity data to keep up with the marketplace. Yet academic unit-level external reviews are still the No. 1 driver of data requests. The company has about 90 Ph.D.-granting institutions as clients and a database of some 380 universities.
Regarding concerns about inaccuracy, Olejniczak said in an interview that Academic Analytics’s data tend to be more accurate and comprehensive that those found in other productivity indexes. That’s because they match up the names of professors obtained in client personnel rosters with their own databases for publications, research funding by federal agencies, citations, conference proceedings and honorific awards, he said. So a chemist who published in a medical journal would get credit even though she hadn’t published in a chemistry journal, for example.
And because these databases are now so vast -- including up to 30,000 journals -- it’s rare that any peer-reviewed publication, even an interdisciplinary or foreign-language one, goes uncounted in some way, he said. Any discrepancy is usually about how something was counted, not whether it was counted.
Olejniczak said he understood that Academic Analytics had a reputation for opacity or a being a “black box,” and said he felt that the “community” aspect of the operation is often neglected by critics. Institutions are welcome to suggest new publications to add to the algorithm, and the enterprise benefits as a result. At the same time, he acknowledged that contracts are negotiated with administrators, not professors, and the company’s main point of contact at any institution always resides somewhere in the central administration.
Asked whether Academic Analytics was philosophically opposed to being 100 percent open to faculty members, Olejniczak said no, but that the company had to balance transparency with commercial viability. That is, some of the information must remain proprietary.
Additionally, Rutgers’s contract with Academic Analytics, obtained by the union though a public open records request, says that the portal may be accessed only by those who hold “a position that involves [strategic] decision making and evaluation of productivity,” as approved by the company. The contract also limits what data may be distributed or shared.
Overall, Olejniczak said he thought that faculty opposition to Academic Analytics stemmed from basic discomfort with being measured.
“There was always inevitably going to be some pushback,” he said. “But I think this is a natural sort of evolution as academic intelligence becomes de rigueur in the U.S.”
Deepa Kumar, vice president of the Rutgers faculty union and a professor of communications, said she remained unswayed by such arguments. She said Tuesday’s meeting, at which a number of faculty members across the arts and sciences spoke out against Academic Analytics, was the start of a greater resistance against the program. Indeed, the national AAUP recently released a statement urging caution against the adoption of Academic Analytics and similar services.
The AAUP statement noted a 2015 report from the Higher Education Funding Council for England, where use of research metrics is now required at public institutions, that found “considerable skepticism among researchers, universities, representative bodies and learned societies about the broader use of metrics in research assessment and management.” Data points can be misused or “gamed,” the study says, and as underlying algorithms remain fragmented, “it is not currently feasible to assess research outputs or impacts … using quantitative indicators alone.”
Kumar said the next step -- likely next year -- is to campaign not just for the limited application of Academic Analytics or access to data but the end of its use on campus.
“Using this data to make decisions about allocation of resources to departments and schools is something that has serious consequences,” she said. “This is simply not one extra form of measurement.”