Members will remember that Cambridge University Press recently was in the news over a decision to accept censorship in China as a condition for selling "products" there.
After an international campaign, they reconsidered, and reversed the decision (see the related H-Asia thread).
Now a new peer review boycott is afoot, of Springer Nature and Palgrave Macmillan on the Change.org website.
The FT article says, among other things, that: "Springer Nature, the German group that bills itself the world’s largest academic book publisher" [and which owns Palgrave Macmillan and Scientific American], "has blocked access in China to at least 1,000 articles, making it the latest international company to succumb to intensifying Chinese censorship demands. Research by the Financial Times shows the publisher has removed more than 1,000 articles from the websites of the Journal of Chinese Political Science and International Politics, two Springer journals, in the Chinese market. All of the articles in question contained keywords deemed politically sensitive ... Springer said in a statement that it had blocked access to 'a small percentage of our content (less than 1 per cent)' in mainland China but that the articles remained available elsewhere. ... It said it was obliged to comply with 'local distribution laws', which are enforced by its partner, the state-owned China National Publications Import & Export Corporation..."
They are of course NOT obliged to comply with censorship laws ... They can leave. As the "world's biggest academic publisher" they now have the world's academics' attention fixed on them. What's their choice? Honor and reputation as an academic publisher, or, quick and dirty money under a censorship regime?!
Magnus Fiskesjö, firstname.lastname@example.org