Group items tagged

the mechanisms of publishing come to stand in for the larger and more complex processes of creating, vetting, and circulating knowledge

if we examine the work that humanists are doing—in something like the way that scholars in the field of Science and Technology Studies (STS) have done for science—by looking at their culture of material practices, then the familiar framework of “publishing” does not serve us well

to publish this scholarship requires that we add some new dimensions to our ideas of “publishing.”

One of the forms of open access . . . consists in the creation and use of repositories for research writing: databases, typically run by university libraries, into which ‘pre-prints’ (basically, manuscripts) of journal articles may be uploaded for free download by anyone with access to the internet. This has recently become known as ‘green’ open access

gold’ open access, which keeps journals open by moving the burden of payment from the reader to the writer

Acceptance was the norm, not the exception

accepted by journals hosted by industry titans Sage and Elsevier

by journals published by prestigious academic institutions such as Kobe University in Japan.

At the same time, I want to hold Robin accountable to his desire for a “materialist analysis of the relationship between politics, economics, and culture.”

I think he wrongly characterizes the conditions under which many of these young academics are writing

The risk of being a public intellectual, he posits, comes from the fact that these scholars are taking time away from their academic writing

Open peer review means that, firstly, the reviewers' names are included on the peer review reports, and secondly that, if the manuscript is published, the reports are made available online along with the final version of the manuscript. The published article will provide a link to its 'pre-publication history', which lists all the versions of the manuscript, all the signed reviews, and all responses to the reviewers since the submission of the manuscript until its publication.

You begin to get a clue of what he’s really talking about, then, by noticing two of the people he approvingly cites and quotes in his critique of academia: Anne-Marie Slaughter and Jill Lepore.

The problem here is not that scholars don’t aspire to write for The New Yorker. It’s that it’s a rather selective place

He only reads The New Yorker, and then complains that everyone doesn’t write for The New Yorker

In the first stage, manuscripts that pass a rapid pre-screening (access review) are immediately published as 'discussion papers' on the journal's website. They are then subject to interactive public discussion for a period of 8 weeks, during which the comments of designated reviewers, additional comments by other interested members of the scientific community, and the authors' replies are published alongside the discussion paper. Reviewers can choose to sign their comments or remain anonymous, but comments by other scientists must be signed.

By Public Scholarship we mean bringing the best thinking and research to bear on the most critical issues facing society today.  Public Scholarship also entails a commitment to publishing letters, op-eds, and articles in newspapers, magazines, websites, blogs, and other forms of social media to raise awareness about these issues, to stimulate broad discussion, and to explore the role timely scholarship can play in addressing our most challenging problems. Public scholars strive to communicate simply and clearly to a wide audience, and therefore adopt a journalistic style in which sentences are crisp, paragraphs are brief, and jargon is employed sparingly. While public scholars embrace theory and sophisticated research approaches, they particularly seek to translate theory into practice and to use research findings to shed compelling light on the causes and the effects of pressing social issues. Public scholars also recognize that social issues which affect the broadest range of people matter most. Consequently, issues of poverty, hunger, access to education and healthcare, concerns about the rights of immigrants and other marginalized groups, as well as efforts to ensure public safety and promote social well-being are social priorities that deserve unusually extensive coverage. Public Scholarship is a means by which teachers and scholars can promote the public good, and we encourage faculty, staff, and students to find engaging and innovative ways to communicate with a broader public. We, in the Center for Leadership and Engagement, are pleased to support these efforts and to provide outlets on our website for sharing a variety of perspectives.

Could the peer review of the future resemble collaborative blogging

"democratic production of knowledge."

The author’s manuscript after eligibility check (step 1) made by the journal’s editors enters the traditional double blind peer review (step 2). Articles accepted for publication are then available for an open comment peer review (step 3) for a given period (at least 30 days) during which the journal’s editors solicit scholars in the field to post comments.  All registered users to the journals are therefore able to comment on and to discuss the accepted articles published in pre-print format. This part of the peer review process is moderated by the journals editors. Authors are able to revise their articles for final publication in the light of both forms of review (double blind and open).