Most people assume that medievalists like me have no interest or investment in new forms of books and publication processes. Nothing could be farther from the truth. While some aspects of digital writing -- especially increased speed, scale and access -- are undoubtedly new, other central features of blogging, wiki and social media platforms are not just old, but so old that they had become virtually obsolete prior to the invention of the computer. In fact, we can say they are newly medieval -- a recognition that has important implications for open communications in peer review.
When we describe an encyclopedia that operates as an unfinished accumulation of information about the world, in which multiple texts are compiled, abbreviated, juxtaposed, revised and recategorized by multiple (often) anonymous contributors over time, we are not just describing Wikipedia. We are describing the miscellaneous and assembled nature of most medieval collections, such as the bestiary, the florilegium and the chronicle. When we describe the expansion of a social network through written correspondence, we are not just describing friending on Facebook or following on Twitter. We are describing the medieval art of letter writing that flourished among notaries and bureaucrats, encouraging writers to share words with friends.
And when we describe a culture of commentary, in which the proliferation of comments upon a text or issue usurp the primacy of the text or issue itself, we are not just describing blog rants on the click-bait article of the day. We are describing the thriving industry of medieval commentaries on classical philosophy, biblical interpretation and legal codes. While all of these practices have continued to exist in various forms throughout the high age of print, they have achieved a prominence today that they have not experienced since the Middle Ages.
Among those many commonalities, the prevalence of commentary reflects a particular disposition toward writing and reading that is at the core of open-access movements. Advocates for open access have been working tirelessly to make scholarly work freely available online without most copyright and licensing restrictions, offering a vigorous response to the price barriers that limit the availability of scholarship to readers. The scientific community, for some time now, has been publishing research findings through open-access platforms, such as the Public Library of Science (PLoS), to share their work in a timely manner.
In contrast, humanities scholars have been slow to embrace such platforms, but humanities-focused open access now comes in a variety of packages from library consortia, such as the Open Library of the Humanities, to scholarly journals, such as Digital Humanities Quarterly, and independent presses, such as Open Humanities Press and punctum books. All of these open-access formats reflect a simple, yet seemingly radical, ideal: scholarly writing wants readers. This ideal, however, has an uncomfortable by-product: if scholarly work becomes more accessible to readers, the work becomes more vulnerable and its reception becomes more transparent. While there are multiple implications for this vulnerability and transparency within the context of open access, a key one is the relevance of open annotation practices for innovations in peer review.
Social Annotation and Open Peer Review
Reading has almost always been a social act, but I want to suggest that reading hasn’t been this social since the Middle Ages. An important distinction, however, must be made. Whereas now the social nature of reading is enhanced through ubiquity and accessibility, reading during the Middle Ages was social because of scarcity and inaccessibility. Digital texts thrive on speed, scale and access, offering multiple opportunities for encounters with readers. Medieval texts and readers were relatively scarce, raising the value and utility of the single book, which might be used by generations of commentators for interpretations of Aesop’s fables in the classroom to legal glosses on canon law. From these two very different contexts emerge an emphasis on commentary and annotation, which establish a text’s value and use.
Unfortunately, the potential of this social culture of commentary is often squandered, especially within traditional methods of double-blind peer review. I have been persuaded by Kathleen Fitzpatrick and Martin Paul Eve, among others, that open peer review (even in partially open formats) offers more benefits than double-blind peer review for the following reasons.
Open review makes commentary more transparent. Open peer review is the equivalent of a Microsoft Word document that tracks changes, showing markup. Many medieval manuscripts and early printed books were produced in anticipation of this marked-up state, with complex textual apparatus, including space for interlineal glosses and marginalia. Within open review formats, the comments of writers and reviewers are made available to all, encouraging vigorous dialogue. For example, the Modern Language Association Commons is currently hosting an open review of the volume Digital Pedagogy in the Humanities, which uses a commentary platform that allows for discussion between reviewers and writers. Such an open format allows writers to evaluate the feedback intelligently, which I have witnessed in two open-review experiments hosted by the journal Postmedieval and Media Commons Press. Writers can assess feedback by asking themselves questions, such as, “Is this just one reviewer’s agenda or is this critique shared by others?” Perhaps most importantly, the transparency of open review reveals bias. If a reviewer has a clear bias, the community of reviewers can help to identify it.
Open review enhances the utility and relevance of the commentary. Within open-review platforms, reviewers are often self-selected, based on their investment and expertise, as opposed to responding to a request from an editor to review a manuscript (which may not reflect the reviewer’s interests or expertise).
Open review allows for a large number of reviewers. Rather than limit the task of review to a handful of reviewers, work shared in open review is crowdsourced and potentially subject to a large volume of commentary. The work of reviewing could then be distributed, making it less of a burden upon individual reviewers and enriching and enlarging the community invested in the work.
Open review treats scholarly work as it really is: work in progress. Finished work is a myth, despite our emphasis on products. An exciting new project, the Open Access Companion to The Canterbury Tales, refers to its first incarnation as a kind of Netflix-like “first season,” recognizing that its value will be maintained or enhanced through accumulation and evolution.
Open review maximizes the value, relevance and impact of the work. Years ago, I asked a senior scholar about an argument he made in his first book and was shocked when he replied, “I don’t believe that anymore.” Now that I have published my own work and have revised my thoughts about some aspects of it, I see this as a natural consequence of doing scholarly work. We often change our minds, especially after being exposed to other reasoned critiques of our work. Open review formats could therefore continue postprint, making book reviews more significant and useful. The book review process would become more dynamic -- authors (and other reviewers) could respond to and correct outrageous or uninformed claims in reviews.
We should all be moving toward open-review practices and publicly accessible review platforms, but given the precarious positions of many scholars and publishers, we should proceed with caution. After all, blind forms of review have often allowed work to stand on its own and protected scholars from bias and career-damaging critiques. Keeping in mind Kathleen Fitzpatrick and Avi Santo’s important call for “structured flexibility” in developing protocols and tools for open review, I offer the following recommendations:
Make comments publicly available, even within double-blind formats. Whereas anonymity often protects the identities of junior scholars or reviewers who might be given little consideration because of their professional status, I see little benefit from keeping commentary hidden, especially on open-access platforms. While the redaction of comments keeps some critiques out of the hands of tenure review committees, such transparency would allow the larger scholarly community to redress critiques that are useless, unfair or biased. Even within such an open platform, however, editors would need to moderate commentary, especially to prevent trolling, spamming and harassment. If editors want to limit the feedback authors receive, they could open the comments only to reviewers, which could provide a forum for reconciling confusing or contradictory feedback.
Adopt single-blind formats, in which the author remains anonymous and the names of reviewers are divulged. This kind of limited open review maintains transparency during the review process, while at the same time mitigating the possible embarrassment or damage to the promotion of a scholar whose work results in public rejection. Many publishers already use a limited form of single-blind review, revealing the name of the author to two or three reviewers only known by the editor. This format protects the reviewers, which can be beneficial for junior or less established scholars who want their reviews to be taken seriously, but it also licenses reviewers to pursue critiques they may not be willing to stand behind. By contrast, an open-review platform that reveals the names of reviewers to the public would encourage responsible critiques and provide valuable contexts, such as a reviewer’s scholarly perspectives or preferences, for feedback that would otherwise be unavailable to authors.
Establish multistage processes that combine blind and open review formats. Even within double-blind review, established authors are often identifiable because of their reputations for particular kinds of scholarship or areas of expertise. For such known quantities, even the most transparent forms of open review may be appropriate. New scholars to a field, however, may benefit from multistage processes, in which their work is subject first to blind review before being deemed publishable and then vetted through open review. These hybridized formats would be especially appropriate for well-established journals and presses that already have active and vigorous scholarly communities that are seeking to make their work more available to the public at large.
Create spaces for postpublication open review. Many medieval manuscripts survive marked and mediated by the hands of multiple marginal commentators, creating a readerly trail that medievalists follow to track the way the work has been received over time. Today, our book reviews are too often limited to the views of individual scholars, who may not be invested in the work they are reviewing. Postpublication book or article review spaces would open up and crowdsource the reception of the work, providing opportunities for authors to respond to feedback from multiple interested reviewers and make important revisions to their publications.
Open Access Needs Open Review to Be Open
It is important to stress that open access, even in its most liberal forms, does not require open review -- double-blind processes can continue unabated. Open-access publishers who continue to use blind review will not undermine their efforts to make scholarly work accessible. However, those publishers will not fully succeed in making this work open.
The democratic potential and ethic of openness is not fully realized without open review, which would provide opportunities for scholarly dialogue and critique throughout the writing process and beyond. The quality, range and significance of work could be greatly enhanced, offering a distributed network of invested writers and reviewers, rather than small cohorts of experts and exclusive publishing priesthoods.
Alex Mueller is associate professor of English at the University of Massachusetts in Boston.
You just got the journal editor’s email. Your article was accepted. Congratulations!
Now what happens?
The next steps used to be automatic: sign your author rights over to the publisher, check your proofs, wait for the article to appear and then bask in glory -- or at least update your CV and tenure file.
But times have changed. Institutional mandates for open access, rising awareness of author rights and growing options for disseminating work online mean that automatic assignment of author rights to publishers is not always desirable, or even possible. At the same time, dwindling institutional subscription budgets, increased pressure on corporate publishers to show profits and dependence of small scholarly associations on journal revenues mean that publishers scramble to capture as many salable rights as they can.
As a consequence, authors increasingly find themselves negotiating with publishers to see their work to completion, even after they successfully navigate academic peer review.
This situation is bad for authors, who start at a huge disadvantage in any negotiations with publishers. Multinational corporate publishers work with hundreds of journals and thousands of authors at once, and few journals are short of submissions. Publishers can always walk away from the table and wait for a more compliant author to come along.
But for authors, a decision to walk away involves a variety of unsatisfactory compromises. Starting over at another journal triggers another peer-review cycle and incurs costly delays. There’s no guarantee that the next journal will be more open to negotiation. And author-friendly alternatives, such as new open-access journals, often lack the prestige of more established journals. In an academic world with tightening job markets and rising tenure requirements, these compromises can have negative career consequences.
Turning authors into negotiators after peer review also undermines the peer-review process and threatens editorial autonomy. Once an article has passed peer review, there is no good academic reason not to publish. Peer reviewers and editors have agreed that the paper should be published. The academic decision has already been made. If publishers respected the peer-review process, academic decisions would be final, and publication would be a reward for academic quality.
Instead, publishers increasingly use academic decisions as business leverage to extract more concessions from authors before publication. For example, in my own field, the sociology of religion, both leading subfield journals have recently reduced the scope of rights granted back to authors by significantly extending embargo periods on published articles. Both journals have also moved to web-based publication agreements, making it difficult to attach the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition addendum that helps authors retain important rights. Things are getting worse, not better.
So how do we fix these problems? How can we keep the power of peer review in the hands of academics? How can we start leveling the playing field for authors?
It’s a big challenge. Any solution needs to empower authors to walk away from negotiations without incurring career-threatening penalties and to offer a way to leverage academic decisions for the benefit of authors rather than publishers.
My suggestion? Make journal acceptance portable.
This solution is radical, but it’s not complicated. Making journal acceptance portable means that journals would honor acceptance decisions from other journals, publish those articles without additional peer review and explicitly credit the original journal’s acceptance for publication. This solution could be applied to existing journals with more generous publication terms or to new open-access journals designed for maximum author flexibility.
How would it work?
For illustrative purposes, let’s say we start a new open-access journal called the Journal of Prestige Redistribution.
First, the editors of JPR would make a list of trusted journals. That would involve reaching a working consensus about, for example, the most prestigious journals for a given field or subfield. The trusted journal list would establish JPR’s scope and would assure readers that every JPR article originally passed peer review at a prestigious journal in their field. Articles accepted at trusted journals would automatically be eligible for publication in JPR, without further review.
Second, JPR would establish a protocol for verifying that a paper successfully passed peer review at a trusted journal. A model for this protocol already exists. Publons, a service that gives credit to reviewers for reviewing journal submissions, verifies those reviews using the confirmation email from the relevant journal. Following that model, authors who wish to transfer their acceptance to JPR could simply provide JPR editors with the acceptance letter from the journal’s academic editor.
Third, JPR would publish accepted articles without further peer review, giving explicit credit to the journal at which peer review took place. For example, JPR might publish each paper with a header or footnote that says, “This paper passed academic peer review at Leading Academic Journal. Subsequent to acceptance, business negotiations with Corporate Journal Publisher broke down.” This notice would guarantee the visibility of the paper’s peer-review pedigree and reinforce the distinction between academic merit and business interests.
Ideally the resulting publications would combine the best parts of our current scholarly publishing system: the imprimatur of established, prestigious journals and the author-friendly policies of newer alternatives. By making acceptances portable, JPR-like journals could empower authors to negotiate from a stronger position, knowing that walking away would not mean starting over. And, as the (hypothetical) name suggests, JPR journals could liberate from any given corporate publisher the prestige that quality academic peer reviewing provides, restoring editorial autonomy to the publishing process.
So why not do it?
One objection is that academic editors who are hard-pressed to find peer reviewers may see a JPR publication as free riding on their peer-review process. But arguably every paper rejected after peer review is also a free rider. Making acceptances portable likely would have little effect on submissions or editorial workload. But it would put pressure on publishers to improve terms and conditions for authors. Admittedly, that pressure could create awkwardness for editors who cooperate with publishers to limit author rights.
Then, of course, there is the possibility of fraud. An unscrupulous author might find a way to forge an acceptance email, for example. Or an author could attempt to publish a different version of the paper than the version originally accepted. Those are legitimate problems, but they are not distinct to the JPR model. Perhaps even you have pulled out a few paragraphs from the final version after satisfying reviewer No. 2?
Probably the biggest objection is that corporate publishers will see portable acceptances as a threat, thereby becoming motivated to alter their submission terms and conditions or enforce new rules on editors and reviewers, in order to prevent JPR-like journals from succeeding. But corporate publishers already see challenges to their business interests as a threat. Academics are not obliged to defend those business interests.
Which brings up a final concern. Who will step up? Editors, authors and professional associations are all entangled in a scholarly publishing system that increasingly favors corporate publishers over academic contributors. Reform by any individual, editor or association is difficult. Defending academic interests requires mobilizing supportive communities and institutions. It’s possible that academe just isn’t ready to support a JPR proposal.
Whether we’re ready or not, scholarly publishing is changing. We don’t know exactly what future changes will look like. But we must be willing to explore options that benefit authors and support academic autonomy. Sure, some options might disadvantage some publishing companies or threaten established status hierarchies. They might even make some enemies. But they also might create a more generative, equitable and author-centered academic publishing future.
When I started my dissertation in the late 1990s, I knew I wanted to speak to a broader public, but I didn’t know how to do it. People around me thought I was nuts. Fast-forward to 2016, and academics are increasingly moving more readily between scholarly circles and public ones. Public intellectuals like Neil deGrasse Tyson, Noam Chomsky, Susan Sontag, bell hooks and Parker J. Palmer have written for multiple audiences and made an impact.
Such crossover scholarship moves outside academic publishing and scholarly communities to speak to a mass audience. It can be a book; an op-ed article; TV, film and radio appearances; a blog post or other kind of public writing or performance. Inside Higher Ed columnist Scott McLemee says that crossover books are defined by academic presses as “the titles they hope will appeal to a wider audience than the niche that exists for most monographs.”
Yet many people in higher education are still skeptical of the value of crossover scholarship. So how do we talk about it in academic circles to give it the legitimacy it deserves?
I want to argue for a new term: crossover ecology. That’s because we need to stop conceiving of crossover scholarship in a one-way direction: us to them. This paradigm solidifies the false divide between academe and the public, and everyone loses. When we recently hosted the wonderful national OpEd Project, I heard through the grapevine that a colleague said to an untenured faculty member at my institution, “Op-eds won’t get you tenure.” While that is technically true, it misconceives crossover scholarship as uni-directional rather than multidirectional. The latter produces interesting scholarship, and the former is bad career advice.
What Crossover Ecology Gives You
When I was in graduate school, it was clear that most people couldn’t write anything that might appeal beyond the ivory tower until at least their second book. The reading public “out there” seemed to be fluffy, a compromise, and other than making more than a few dollars on book royalties, it was hard to see any benefits. But today we are in a different historical and technological moment that has not only meant a democratization of public voices and news due to technological access but also that the public can have a different impact on academic scholarship.
I argue that crossover ecology -- where public and academic work build on one another in a cycle -- produces better work for all communities. In particular, crossover ecology affects four things:
Voice. It forces scholars to write with verve, clarity and purpose to communicate broadly.
Impact. It can build a large audience that ultimately translates to cultural influence.
Agency. It shortens the time from thought to publication; ideas don’t languish.
Quality. It fosters collaborative and communal thinking not in isolation and feeds scholarship rather than detracts from it.
Crossover Ecology at Work
My colleague Ryan Martin is associate professor and chair of the department of psychology at the University of Wisconsin at Green Bay. An anger researcher, he started a blog called “All the Rage: Commentary and Resources on the Science of Anger and Violence.” Collecting all things related to anger, he reviews anger research and writes book reviews and updates on student research. As he said to me, “I wanted the blog to be easy-to-read research on anger and violence from someone who knows what they’re talking about.”
Several years ago, Martin published an academic article, “Anger on the Internet: The Perceived Value of Rant-Sites” in Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking. In July 2014, The New York Times picked up the article, cited him and wrote, “Clicking Their Way to Outrage: On Social Media, Some Are Susceptible to Internet Outrage.” At which point, Martin’s work went viral.
What happened next to Martin? News media outlets came to him. He was invited to submit book chapters for academic collections. Psychology Today asked him to be a blogger, and he now writes short pieces like “5 Ways to Deal With Angry People.” Martin has kept sending people to his blog, which in turn has led to more requests. He currently does roughly one media interview a week. Note that his research is not suddenly watered down. Rather, both academic and popular outlets continue to seek him out.
Then there is my colleague Heidi R. Lewis, an assistant professor of feminist and gender studies at Colorado College. She says that her dissertation dabbled in popular culture but mostly focused on literature because “I was still under the impression that I had to appendage myself and my work to ‘legible’ disciplines like English.” She landed a job in women’s studies that, as an interdisciplinary field, allowed her to be more expansive in her writing.
What happened next is that Lewis entered a blog contest through the online publication Feministing. She submitted a piece on hip-hop artist Lil Wayne. She also shared that piece with Mark Anthony Neal, professor of black popular culture at Duke University, who was “so excited about it that he asked if he could publish it on his website,” NewBlackMan (in Exile). Lewis said yes and “the rest is history.”
As she describes it: “He wrote to me six hours after the piece was published to let me know that it’d already gotten 1,300 hits. A week later, it’d gotten over 4,000 hits. Around December, it’d gotten over 6,600. My professional life literally changed. People that I admire were sharing the piece like crazy over social media -- it had gone viral. I knew then that I had a knack for writing for the folks and wanted to make it my business to keep doing that as much as possible.”
Soon after, Lewis became a member of the editorial collective The Feminist Wire, a prominent feminist blog, where she had further outlets for crossover work. Though she had heard that her piece on Lil Wayne was being assigned in classes, she wanted to circulate a more in-depth version, so she submitted it to The Journal of Popular Culture, where it is forthcoming.
Lewis notes that the president of her institution congratulated her publicly on her crossover scholarship. She says, “I think it’s important that academia recognize all of our intellectual work -- not just the work with which some of those in administration are most familiar. All of my traditional scholarly work examines popular culture. All of my public work does, too.” Lewis is now expanding a short piece on Rihanna’s “Pour It Up” that first came out in The Feminist Wire. Why? Because an academic journal is hungry for it.
These are just a few examples of the benefits of crossover scholarship. The moment that academics stop imagining crossover scholarship as a one-way street to pabulum and start seeing it as ecology that inspires voice, generates impact, propels agency and infuses quality, a much-needed paradigm shift in public scholarship will occur.
Karlyn Crowley is professor of English and gender studies at St. Norbert College, where she directs the Cassandra Voss Center, a nationally recognized gender center.
As they have gained momentum over the past decade, the open access (OA) movement and its cousin, the Creative Commons licensing platform, have together done a tremendous amount of good in the world of scholarship and education, by making high-quality, peer-reviewed publications widely available both for reading and for reuse.
But they have also raised some uncomfortable issues, most notably related to academic freedom, particularly when OA is made a requirement rather than an option and when the Creative Commons attribution license (CC BY) is treated as an essential component of OA.
In recent years, major American and European funding bodies such as the National Institutes of Health, the Wellcome Trust, the Gates Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and Research Councils UK have all instituted OA mandates of various types, requiring those whose research depends on their funding to make the resulting articles available on some kind of OA basis. A large number of institutions of higher education have adopted OA policies as well, though most of these (especially in the United States) only encourage their faculty to make their work openly accessible rather than requiring them to do so.
At the same time, Creative Commons licensing has emerged as a convenient way for authors to make their work not only publicly readable, but also reusable under far more liberal terms than copyright law would otherwise provide. When an author makes her work available under a CC-BY-NC-ND license, for example, this signals that the public is allowed to copy, redistribute, and republish that work for noncommercial purposes, though not to create derivative works without permission.
The most liberal of these is the Creative Commons Attribution license (CC BY), which effectively assigns all of the exclusive prerogatives of the copyright holder to the general public, allowing anyone who so desires to copy, distribute, translate, create derivate works, etc., even for commercial purposes, as long as the author is given credit as creator of the original work.
Along with the great and undeniable benefits offered to the world of scholarship by the emergence of both OA and Creative Commons licensing, these programs and tools (like all programs and tools) also entail costs and unintended consequences, and have raised some uncomfortable issues.
One such issue has to do with academic freedom. More and more publishers, funding agencies and academic institutions have begun not only requiring OA of their authors, but also adopting a definition of OA that requires CC BY licensing. The Public Library of Science (PLoS) which is easily the world's largest and most powerful OA publisher (producing more than 30,000 articles per year), does not permit its authors to use any license except CC BY, nor does BioMed Central.
In late 2014 both the Gates and the Ford Foundations announced that articles published as the result of research they underwrite must be published on an OA basis, to include a CC BY license granted to the public. The Research Councils UK -- which controls about $4.5 billion in research funding in the United Kingdom -- also requires OA/CC-BY whenever its block grants are used to fund article processing charges. Obviously, the more funding agencies and publishing venues require CC BY, the less choice is available to authors who rely on those funds or those venues.
What do authors think of this? When they are asked, the answer seems clear: many of them don't like it. When the publisher Taylor & Francis surveyed its authors in 2014 and asked them to give their opinions on a variety of licensing options, three times more respondents rated CC BY “least preferred” than rated it “most preferred” or “second preferred,” combined. When Nature left it to authors to choose a license for their OA work, 74 percent of them selected licenses more restrictive than CC BY. (Since making CC BY the default license earlier this year, however, Nature has found that authors leave the CC BY license in place 96 percent of the time.) Authors who have published under CC BY licenses have, in a couple of recently documented cases, been dismayed to find their work being repackaged and sold by commercial publishers with whom they would not have chosen to associate.
The issue in such cases is not a loss of revenue, which the authors surely never expected to realize in the first place, but rather being forced into a publishing relationship not of their choosing -- as well, in some cases, as an objection to the commercial reappropriation of their work in principle. In some disciplines, particularly in the humanities, authors worry about translations of their work appearing under their names (in accordance with CC BY's attribution requirements) but without their vetting and approval. Sometimes authors who are anxious to see their work made as freely available to readers as possible balk at granting the world carte blanche to repurpose, alter, or resell their work without permission.
Those who advocate for OA with CC BY argue that there is no reason for authors to object to it: scholars and scientists (the argument goes) have already been paid for the work they're writing up, and since they have little if any expectation that their writings will generate additional revenue for them, why not make their work freely available to those who may be able to find ways to add value to them through reuse and “remixing,” and maybe even to profit from doing so? In any case (the argument continues), authors retain their copyright under a CC license, so what's the problem?
The problem, for many authors, is that their copyright becomes effectively meaningless when they have given away all of the prerogatives over their work that copyright provides. The right to make copies, to publish, to create derivative works, etc., are not the meaningful rights that the law gives to copyright holders -- after all, these are rights that the general public has in relation to works in the public domain. The meaningful right that the law provides the copyright holder is the exclusive (though limited) right to say how, whether, and by whom these things may be done with his work by others.
So the question is not whether I can, for example, republish or sell copies of my work under CC BY -- of course I can. The question is whether I have any say in whether someone else republishes or sells copies of my work -- and under CC BY, I don't.
This is where it becomes clear that requiring authors to adopt CC BY has a bearing on academic freedom, if we assume that academic freedom includes the right to have some say as to how, where, whether, and by whom one's work is published. This right is precisely what is lost under CC BY. To respond to the question "should authors be compelled to choose CC BY?" with the answer "authors have nothing to fear from CC BY" or "authors benefit from CC BY" is to avoid answering it. The question is not about whether CC BY does good things; the question is whether authors ought to have the right to choose something other than CC BY.
In other words, the issue here that has a bearing on academic freedom is the issue of coercion. CC licenses that are freely chosen by authors are one thing, but when those licenses are imposed on authors by those who have power over their careers, we begin talking about a different set of issues. Such coercion exists on a spectrum, of course: when a powerful publisher says "We won't accept your work, regardless of its quality, unless you adopt CC BY," that represents one kind of coercion; when a funder says "We won't fund your research unless you promise to make the published results available under a CC BY license," that's a somewhat different kind. Both have emerged relatively recently.
To say that authors ought to be able to choose for themselves whether or not to adopt CC BY is not to oppose CC BY or to deny the very real benefits it offers. It is, rather, to suggest that retaining some say in how one's work may be reused is an important aspect of academic freedom, and that academic feedom matters. And one might go a step further and suggest that by refusing to fund a research proposal on the basis of its author's publishing plans (rather than on the proposal's intrinsic merits), or by refusing to publish an article based on its author's unwillingness to adopt CC BY (rather than on the article's intrinsic merits) we do a potentially serious disservice to the advancement of science and scholarship.
Openness and reuse certainly do contribute importantly, even crucially, to the advancement of knowledge -- but they are not the only things that do, and when authors are denied funding or excluded from important publishing venues based not on the quality or significance of their work but rather on their willingness to comply with a particular model of dissemination and reuse, we introduce distortions into the system that have the potential to do damage even as they attempt to do good.
Perhaps those in the OA community who are confident in the attractiveness of CC BY, and in its lack of real costs and downsides to authors, should demonstrate that confidence by endorsing policies and programs that allow authors to choose for themselves. Educate them as to the issues, certainly; make the strongest possible case in favor of CC BY, absolutely. But then stand back and let authors decide for themselves whether or not they agree.
Arguments backed up by coercion are always suspect; if they are as strong as those making them seem to believe, then coercion should not be necessary. Where coercion is shown to be necessary for widespread adoption, then perhaps that suggests the need for a more rigorous examination of costs and benefits.
Rick Anderson is associate dean for collections and scholarly communication at the University of Utah's J. Willard Marriott Library.