Taylor & Francis drops innovation journal after libel row

Publisher says divestment from Prometheus was taken for commercial reasons

九月 4, 2018
Duel in a field
Source: Getty

A journal is at risk of closure after its publisher, with whom its editors had crossed swords on several occasions, dropped the title.

The editor of Prometheus: Critical Studies in Innovation suggested that Taylor & Francis’ decision might be linked to a dispute over the planned publication of a series of articles on shaken baby syndrome. The publisher, however, said that the decision was “related to the journal’s commercial performance”.

The periodical had been published by Taylor & Francis since 2000, when it moved to the UK from Australia, and was known for convening debates on contentious issues.

A previous spat with Taylor & Francis saw Prometheus’ editorial board threaten to resign en masse in 2014 when the company demanded large cuts from a debate paper that criticised the behaviour and profit margins of commercial publishers, including Taylor & Francis’ parent company, Informa.

Although publication of the debate was delayed for eight months, Taylor & Francis eventually apologised for being “overzealous” in its “concern to avoid legal and copyright problems”.

Stuart Macdonald, Prometheus’ general editor, said the two sides then enjoyed a “peaceful few years” of working together.

But the relationship ran into trouble again last year when the editors proposed a debate on shaken baby syndrome, including a proposition paper by Waney Squier, a consultant paediatric neuropathologist who has questioned the science behind convictions in several infant death cases.

Professor Macdonald, a visiting professor in the University of Leicester’s School of Management, said that Dr Squier’s paper was sent to Taylor & Francis’ lawyers in October and then, in January, the publisher asked to inspect the other 10 submissions. These included papers by lawyers, the chair of the General Medical Council and a senior Metropolitan Police officer.

In March, the lawyers said that they had no objections to publication, on the proviso that a second opinion should be sought on Dr Squier’s paper, and some of the responses.

But, in June, external lawyers said that all 11 papers were likely to be libellous. Professor Macdonald said that Taylor & Francis required changes to all the papers, but failed to specify what these should be, and production ground to a halt.

Then, in July, Taylor & Francis told Professor Macdonald that it was divesting Prometheus.

“Just why Taylor & Francis should take such draconian action is not entirely clear,” said Professor Macdonald. “It may be that Taylor & Francis has become totally risk averse.”

Professor Macdonald said that he had been told in a meeting with managers from Taylor & Francis that “they had found a solution to the problem of publishing the debate – they would simply separate themselves from us completely, with immediate effect and no transition period”.

But a Taylor & Francis spokesman said that the decision was on commercial grounds alone.

“The journal has been publishing behind schedule for some time, despite the best efforts of those who have been working on it, with the most recently published issue being issue 1 of 2017,” he said. “Over the same period, the journal has lost the majority of its subscribers.”

Professor Macdonald said that he was seeking a new “smaller publisher” for Prometheus, “with whom we can share academic values”.

Taylor & Francis said it intended to publish the final three issues of the current volume before the end of 2018. “We are supporting the editors to achieve this,” the spokesman said.


登录 或者 注册 以便阅读全文。




  • 获得编辑推荐文章
  • 率先获得泰晤士高等教育世界大学排名相关的新闻
  • 获得职位推荐、筛选工作和保存工作搜索结果
  • 参与读者讨论和公布评论



Log in or register to post comments