1. Journal Growth Lowers Impact Factor
Journal growth means you are attracting more manuscripts, more authors, and more attention. But journal growth can have a negative effect on citation performance measures, especially on the Journal Impact Factor (JIF). Phil Davis, in his post in the Scholarly Kitchen Blog, examines how publication timing can affect annual Journal Impact Factor scores.
The blog post says (quote): The timing of publication needs to be balanced with the aims and production schedule of the journal, as rapid changes in growth can cause chaos for the editorial staff and publisher. More importantly, publication timing needs to respect the needs of authors, many of whom are driven by external pressures - by their colleagues, institutions, and their funders - to publish quickly. The needs and expectations of authors are far more important than attempting to manufacture relatively small changes in JIF scores. It may be very difficult to manage journal output for an open access journal using an APC model and novelty-free acceptance criteria. For example, the journal Medicine, published by Wolters Kluwer published 30 papers in 2013 before it converted to an OA model in 2014. In 2015, it published nearly 2000 papers and more than 3000 papers in 2016. Its JIF dropped from a high of 5.646 in 2014 to a low of 1.804 in 2016............(Unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
2. The future is bright for branch campuses, but not as we know them
International branch campuses enjoy more than their fair share of the TNE limelight. They represent a fraction of the overall activity in this area but often appear to be the most relevant and valuable. As transnational education matures, so too must the branch campus model if it is to remain relevant to the local community it serves, argues Christopher Hill, in his post in the Times Higher Education Blog.
The blog post says (quote): Employability is key to integration and relevance to the local environment and increasingly demonstrates how and why governments seek to incorporate transnational education. The varying approaches undertaken by Malaysia and the UAE, two key TNE host nations, demonstrate the true value of location, location, location. Transnational education begets transnational education but market saturation is a factor to consider if the value and impact of the TNE degree and experience are not evident. While it has historically been challenging for international students to work while studying and after graduation in Malaysia, the UAE is looking to firmly connect education and employment. Integration is a two-way street and both the host and sender should look to develop the relationship for mutual benefit............(Unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
3. Increasing diversity in peer review with transparent mentoring of early career researchers
Four BMC journals recently launched a pilot to proactively endorse peer review mentoring, which aims to increase diversity and inclusivity in peer review. In her post in the BioMed Central Blog, Ella Flemyng explains the rationale behind this pilot, how it will work, and how you can get involved.
The blog post says (quote): All of the journals in the pilot adopt an open peer review policy, with authors and reviewers knowing who each other are, and if the paper is accepted the peer review reports are published alongside the article. This means all will be able to see which papers included peer review mentoring, including who the named mentor and mentee are. The process is relatively simple; if you are invited to peer review and you are a professor or senior researcher and want to mentor an early career researcher with relevant expertise through a peer review, you can decline the invitation and in the reasons for declining ensure it's clear that you want to mentor someone through the process (include the name and email address of the mentee). The editor can then invite the mentee in your place. The mentee must accept the invitation and together the mentor and mentee work on the report, which is submitted under the mentee's name. The report must be transparently co-signed by the mentor and mentee, and include reviewer contributions and full conflicts of interest statements for both the mentor and mentee............(Unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
4. Materiality of Research: can imaginative projects complement (and not displace) more critical research?
Can projects of reimagining complement more critical research? Writing in response to comments on her recent work on reimagining the state, Davina Cooper, in her post in the LSE Impact of Social Sciences Blog, addresses the challenge of developing transformative methods, the value of institutional play in academic research and the relationship these may have to more overtly "critical" accounts.
The blog post says (quote): Among critical writers engaged in exposing patterns of domination, there is often scepticism about the seemingly "heroic" academic, advancing ahead with their new imaginaries, at a distance from the "real", everyday life to which they believe (naively, arrogantly?) their conceptual thoughts will trickle down. Imaginative academic work, though, doesn’t have to take –or be read as taking – a lone, individualistic form. It can be far more modest, collaborative and horizontal. This is usually recognised when writers engage in bridging work, giving voice to radical practices already in existence (or being trialled) in experimental spaces, everyday utopias or traditional communities. But the academic developing new conceptual "lines" is also collaboratively engaged. Not only is their work shaped by wider conversations; reimagining the economy, state or gender can also be seen as a tracing or path, within a shared landscape, that others may, in turn, develop, revise, track alongside or reject............(Unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
Leave a Reply