Publishers choose between self-censorship in China and import ban

Cambridge University Press is latest firm to reveal that some of its titles have been blocked by the state

January 9, 2019
china-plane-mural
Source: Getty
Beware the wall: ‘state censorship of published research continues to tighten in China…Journals that refuse to concur with this policy are facing repercussions’

Academics have warned of the unpalatable choices that academic publishers face when working with China, as Cambridge University Press became the latest firm to reveal that some of its journals have been blocked by the state.

CUP came under fire in 2017 for removing hundreds of papers and book reviews from the online version of one of its journals in China after a government agency threatened to block access to the website. The publisher later announced that it would reinstate the articles, but a CUP spokesman told Times Higher Education that some import and export agencies have excluded two of its journals – The China Quarterly, the title involved in the 2017 row, and The Journal of Asian Studies – from the list of publications that they are making available in China.

The news follows last month’s announcement from Taylor & Francis that Chinese import agencies opted not to include 83 of its 1,466 social science and humanities journals in the package available to purchase by Chinese libraries.

Springer Nature took a different approach, opting to block Chinese access to at least 1,000 articles on subjects that Beijing deemed to be politically sensitive in response to demands from Chinese export agencies. A spokeswoman told THE this month that none of its journals has been banned by China.

Hans van de Ven, professor of modern Chinese history at the University of Cambridge, said that the developments showed that “the choice for publishers is to self-censor by blocking supposedly objectionable material from their journals or by accepting that their Chinese importers just cancel a subscription”.

He added that China’s blocking of journals “fits in squarely with the [Chinese Communist Party’s] tightening of its controls over university campuses” and “speaks to the nervousness of China’s leadership as it goes into a year of difficult anniversaries, including that of the Tiananmen Square incident 30 years ago”.

“The deepening of academic relations with China over the past three decades has been a wonderfully positive development, but the tightening restrictions on academic freedom in China are making such collaboration far less attractive to students from around the world, as well as to US and European universities,” Professor van de Ven said.

Tim Pringle, senior lecturer in labour, social movements and development at SOAS University of London and editor of The China Quarterly, said that “the latest developments demonstrate that state censorship of published research continues to tighten in China”.

“Journals such as The China Quarterly that refuse to concur with this policy are facing repercussions from import agencies that deselect the journal in question from the publisher’s bundle,” he said.

“While this will not prevent specific articles from being shared through other channels, there is a clear impact on subscriptions in China. The alternative of going along with the censorship through self-censorship is out of the question for The China Quarterly and other China area journals.”

Dr Pringle added that the implications of the increasing censorship are “profound and negative”.

“In any country, restrictions on ‘sensitive’ topics generate a debilitating research climate that constricts academic rigour well beyond the areas of sensitivity. Caution and even fear spreads to the university classroom, academic department meetings and on into government policy. Research that should hold policy up to scrutiny is avoided, and a key check and balance is consequently removed,” he said.

“The impact is further heightened in authoritarian countries where political democracy and an unrestricted media are absent.”

Christopher Balding, an associate professor at Fulbright University Vietnam who lost his post at Peking University HSBC Business School in Shenzhen after being critical of the Chinese government, agreed that the developments highlight that academic publishers “don’t have much room to deal with China”.

“They either have to say, ‘we’re going to accept not getting this revenue’ or ‘we’re going to comply with China,’” he said, adding that “there is no way that the publishers can convince the [Chinese Communist Party] to change its mind”.

Dr Balding encouraged academics and universities to refuse to pay for services from publishers that chose to self-censor.

ellie.bothwell@timeshighereducation.com

Please login or register to read this article

Register to continue

Get a month's unlimited access to THE content online. Just register and complete your career summary.

Registration is free and only takes a moment. Once registered you can read a total of 3 articles each month, plus:

  • Sign up for the editor's highlights
  • Receive World University Rankings news first
  • Get job alerts, shortlist jobs and save job searches
  • Participate in reader discussions and post comments
Register

POSTSCRIPT:

Print headline: China blocks yet more titles

Reader's comments (3)

Publishers have shown ( at least those who have complied withe shameful chinese policy ) that they are mere businessmen and women .Period
The irony that appears to have escaped the writer is the increasingly oppressive censorship in western universities of ideas that contravene political correctness. I teach in the tertiary sector in China and I am much freer to say certain things here than I am in the west. Even being critical of political correctness or mentioning “free speech” is enough to get one into trouble in many western institutions, while social media software is increasingly stringent in screening out it shadow banning dissenters. And academic publishing is even worse. Until we in the West acknowledge and address our own censorship issues, we have no moral high ground on which to criticise countries like China.
A brief review of the banned CUP journal articles suggests that they should have been retracted by their authors long ago since they refer to non-existent events like a massacre in Tiananmen Square that even the US State Department admits did not happen. Curious readers may satisfy their curiosity on the subject here: The Columbia Journalism Review critiques coverage of Tiananmen: http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/the_myth_of_tiananmen.php?page=all US State Department's cables at the time: http://www.alternativeinsight.com/Tiananmen.html The Massacre that Wasn’t: http://www.globalresearch.ca/what-really-happened-in-tiananmen-square-25-years-ago/5385528 Britain's Daily Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8555142/Wikileaks-no-bloodshed-inside-Tiananmen-Square-cables-claim.htm Australian prof. Greg Clark http://www.gregoryclark.net/jt/page116/page116.html

Have your say

Log in or register to post comments