Public Philosophy

Staff Values People and Community: We value and respect each person, both as an individual and as an integral part of this and other communities. Excellence and Responsibility: We hold ourselves to high standards of quality, responsibility, and accountability in our work. Collaboration: As an ensemble, we value mutuality, group process, shared decision-making and open communication. Diversity: We believe in the importance and complexity of honoring and learning from diversity. Honesty and Integrity: We aim to be straightforward and sincere in our communications and interactions with others. Learning: We hope to nurture individual and organizational growth that is rooted in experience, intentional reflection and multiple ways of knowing. Commitment to a Shared Vision: We derive continual inspiration from our mission and sense of common purpose. Celebration: We take time to acknowledge and appreciate one another and our accomplishments. Creativity: The dynamic context of our work requires a commitment to thoughtful exploration and a willingness to take risks. Advancement of Social Equity: Social justice and civic values are core values for each of us, as well as at the heart of our mission as a center.

My conception of public scholarship is rooted in critical and culturally responsive pedagogy, which is embodied in my manuscript on “Hip-Hop Epistemology and Culturally Responsive Science Teaching”.   I want to engage publics in critical thinking and the active critique of what is popular and what is powerful. 

Abstract Although substantial areas of agreement exist regarding the characteristics of effective community–university partnerships for research, there is little empirical research on the relationship between the characteristics of such partnerships and their outcomes. In this study, we explored the relationship between partnership characteristics and partnership outcomes. Analyses of the relationships between partnership dynamics and perceived benefits show that (1) effective partnership management is associated with increased research on a community issue, problem, or need; (2) co-creation of knowledge is associated with improved service outcomes for clients; and (3) shared power and resources are negatively associated with increased funding for community partners’ organizations. Our findings suggest that effective partnership management and opportunities for the co-creation of knowledge are practices that are worthy of deliberate cultivation within community–university partnerships for research.

The BMJ now has a system of open peer review. This means that reviewers have to sign their reports, saying briefly who they are and where they work. We also ask reviewers to declare to the editors any competing interests that might relate to articles we have asked them to review, and we take these into account when considering reviewers' comments. When such competing interests are too great reviewers usually decline the assignment. Open peer review does not mean that authors should feel able to contact reviewers directly to discuss their reports; all queries should still be directed through the editorial office.

We will send you a decision letter and report from the meeting as soon as possible; usually within a few days but longer if we have asked for an additional detailed report from the statistics editor or another reviewer. The report will list the names of everyone who took part in the discussion about your article.

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.

One-month of open-review, during which registered users of the journal platform will be enabled to comment on and to discuss the selected and peer reviewed papers. Authors will be able to use these comments and discussions to revise their final submission for publication.

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.