Marcel Knöchelmann

Dr. Marcel Knöchelmann

Research Area Research System and Science Dynamics
Researcher
  • +49 30 2064177-54
  • +49 30 2064177-99

Marcel Knöchelmann researches the intersection of culture and publishing. His current projects at DZHW focus on scholarly publishing, authorship, and culture in academia, employing a cultural sociological approach. He is a trained bookseller, studied publishing in Leipzig and London, and pursued a PhD about scholarly communication and humanities scholarship at the Department of Information Studies, University College London. He conducted a visiting scholarship at the Department of Sociology, Yale University, in 2020. His scholarly interests include:

  • The decision making of cultural intermediaries
  • Ethics of publishing
  • Scholarly communication in the humanities
  • Open access/humanities practices and discourses
  • Social theory (the strong programme in cultural sociology & civil sphere theory)
  • Read more Read less
    Projects

    List of projects

    Unfortunately, there is no result available for this search combination
    Responsible valuation and quality assurance of open access publications via bibliometric indicators (INDIOA)
    Forschungscluster: Open Science
    Phoenix - Authorship revised
    Publications

    List of publications

    Unfortunately, there is no result available for this search combination

    The rise of the guest editor—Discontinuities of editorship in scholarly publishing.

    Knöchelmann, M., Hesselmann, F., Reinhart, M., & Schendzielorz, C. (2022).
    The rise of the guest editor—Discontinuities of editorship in scholarly publishing. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics. https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2021.748171
    Abstract

    Scholarly publishing lives on traditioned terminology that gives meaning to subjects such as authors, inhouse editors and external guest editors, artifacts such as articles, journals, special issues, and collected editions, or practices of acquisition, selection, and review. These subjects, artifacts, and practices ground the constitution of scholarly discourse. And yet, the meaning ascribed to each of these terms shifts, blurs, or is disguised as publishing culture shifts, which becomes manifest in new digital publishing technology, new forms of publishing management, and new forms of scholarly knowledge production. As a result, we may come to over- or underestimate changes in scholarly communication based on traditioned [...]

    Unknown Shibboleth: On the opacity of gatekeeping.

    Knöchelmann, M. (2021).
    Unknown Shibboleth: On the opacity of gatekeeping. Verfassungsblog. https://verfassungsblog.de/unknown-shibboleth-on-the-opacity-of-gatekeeping/, https://verfassungsblog.de/unknown-shibboleth-on-the-opacity-of-gatekeeping/ (Abgerufen am: 19.01.2022).
    Abstract

    Without specifying its meaning or context, openness remains an empty category. It commonly evokes a positive sentiment, but what does it mean to say: We are opening up this or that? And what does it disguise? It even compares with excellence in this respect: a word that is en vogue to be thrown into debates about the future of the academy. It can be claimed, in this sense, that we are excellent in our scholarship if we produce more information, and we are more excellent if this information is open. We are also more democratic if we are open since we share our information. ...

    The democratisation myth: Open access and the solidification of epistemic injustices.

    Knöchelmann, M., & University College London/Yale University (2021).
    The democratisation myth: Open access and the solidification of epistemic injustices. Science & Technology Studies, 34(2), 65-89.
    Abstract

    Open access (OA) in the Global North is considered to solve an accessibility problem in scholarly communication. But this accessibility is restricted to the consumption of knowledge. Epistemic injustices inhering in the scholarly communication of a global production of knowledge remain unchanged. This underscores that the commercial or big deal OA dominating Europe and North America have little revolutionary potential to democratise knowledge. Academia in the Global North, driven by politics of progressive neoliberalism, can even reinforce its hegemonic power by solidifying and legitimating contemporary hierarchies of scholarly communication through OA. [...]

    Systemimmanenz und Transformation: Die Bibliothek der Zukunft als lokale Verwalterin?

    Knöchelmann, M., & University College London/Yale University (2021).
    Systemimmanenz und Transformation: Die Bibliothek der Zukunft als lokale Verwalterin? Bibliothek Forschung und Praxis, 45(1), 151-162.
    Abstract

    Germany as a unified site for science and scholarship aims to enlarge its share of open access publications by means of transformative agreements with large publishers. This, however, is but a transformation in the sense of a soft evolution within the existing system. It prohibits the notion of equity that was once foundational for open access. The future of the library seems to be reduced to the role of the local administrator instead of it being an integrative institution with the ability to change the system.

    Presentations

    List of presentations & conferences

    Unfortunately, there is no result available for this search combination

    The Humanities and openness: Ambiguities and possible futures.

    Knöchelmann, M. (2021, Oktober).
    The Humanities and openness: Ambiguities and possible futures. Keynote auf dem Symposium Open Research Day, University of Groningen, Groningen, NL.
    Abstract

    Open is the future. But what does openness actually achieve? What do we achieve if we simply do away with paywalls in our current mode of scholarly communication? Will this make the scholarly endeavour more equitable? Will society benefit from better use of resources, or from better teaching and scholarship? The current developments of openness indicate we may achieve not much. Even worse: the mere shift of paywalls counters the ambitious goal of the more equitable academia. Openness is another means to gain reputation. It can be bought and advertised. Aren’t there better solutions? [...]

    To the Happy Few: The Limits of Solidarity in the Political Economy of Scholarly Communication.

    Knöchelmann, M. (2021, August).
    To the Happy Few: The Limits of Solidarity in the Political Economy of Scholarly Communication. Vortrag auf der Konferenz Sociological Knowledges for Alternative Futures - ESA Conference 2021, European Sociological Association, Barcelona.
    Abstract

    The notion of solidarity insinuates that all involved in the production of knowledge are geared towards a collective endeavour: the advancement of knowledge. In this sense, produced knowledge is to be shared freely among all. The idea of open access to scholarly publications (OA) builds upon this by being founded on the charitable ideal of a democratisation of knowledge. However, the large-scale OA manifestation such as Plan S or Projekt DEAL narrow the possibility of such solidarity. The principle underlying them is to allow for a sharing of established knowledge only to the high price of buying access to the means of establishing knowledge—a commercial market of OA for which only a few have the financial means for participation. [...]