1. Is it time to nationalise academic publishers?
After decades of free-market ideological dominance on both sides of the Atlantic, nationalisation (or at least anti-monopoly state intervention) is back on the agenda. With state intervention back in vogue, and publishers' profit margins still sky-high, journals could be the next monopoly to come under scrutiny, discusses David Matthews, in his post in the Times Higher Education Blog.
The blog post says (quote): Indeed, it is possible to imagine a world that has switched entirely to open access, yet publishers' profits are as high as ever. The reason, as argued by Alex Holcombe and Björn Brembs, is that publishers control prestigious, legacy journals with high impact factors. Researchers are compelled to publish in these journals for the sake of their careers, even if they are more expensive than alternatives (they point to Scientific Reports, which has used the Nature brand to help squeeze out the cheaper, near-identical PLOS One). This points to academic publishers' rather unusual form of monopoly. It is not a particularly concentrated market: even the biggest player, Elsevier, points out that it publishes only 17 per cent of all articles. Nor do publishers control the means of distribution (i.e, the internet), like water companies might control pipes. Authors have plenty of options if they want to publish elsewhere.........(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
2. When Journals Play Favorites
Academic publishing is supposed to favour the strongest research - regardless of who is producing it. A study finds evidence of institutional bias in publishing, in that journals favour the work of authors who either work or studied at the universities that house the publications, notes Colleen Flaherty, in her post in the Inside Higher Ed Blog.
The blog post says (quote): Academic in-group bias is general in nature, even if not necessarily large in scope. Journals might also choose their articles based on other factors than likely citation counts, such as better suitability with the journals' scope. Reingewertz and Lutmar also point out that most journals are not affiliated with a specific institution. But academic in-group bias, where it exists, can cause harm - "tilting" tenure and other personnel decisions based on publication data, for example. The authors suggest that such bias can be minimised by putting less weight on publications of in-group members in the home journals and assigning more weight to publications of out-group members. Another possible approach would be to use a strong double-blind refereeing process by not allowing the editor to see the affiliation of the author.........(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
3. Inside the Game-changing OER Legislation for Publishers
OER models are rapidly evolving. OER's next wall to climb in the K-12 space is the complex, regulated, and sometimes political process of state adoptions. For the uninitiated, a state adoption is a process whereby a state department of education conducts reviews of instructional materials to determine whether they are suited for use in K-12 classrooms, discusses Jay Diskey, in his post in the CCC Blog.
The blog post says (quote): While the Texas adoption system no longer compels school districts to purchase programs approved by the State Board of Education, receiving adoption approval from the board still carries a lot of weight. Surely, several OER organisations will seek approval. Programs submitted for review will also have to meet a long list of Texas requirements and they will have to align with the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills standard - not Common Core State Standards, which the Texas State Board of Education and the legislature oppose. Development of new programs is an expensive endeavour and despite the "free" moniker that always travels with the term OER, there is nothing free about the type of R&D work that will need to take place to prepare materials for adoption reviews.........(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
4. PLOS Collaborates on Recommendations to Improve Transparency for Author Contributions
PLOS supports the recommendations for increased transparency and has already put some of them in practice. In a new report, a group convened by the US National Academy of Sciences and including a dozen journal editors reflects on authorship guidelines and recommends new ways to make author contributions more transparent, notes Veronique Kiermer and Larry Peiperl, in their post in the PLOS Blogs.
The blog post says (quote): Transparency also brings more accountability to a system where questionable and even detrimental practices (such as guest, ghost or conscripted authorship) have been documented. While transparency requirements cannot entirely eliminate abuse, transparent description of individual author contributions can deter inaccurate representations and can expose institutionalised authorship practices that should be questioned. Paradoxically, a concern often heard about emphasising contributions is that they risk diluting individual author responsibility for the overall integrity of a study. The recommendations address this concern by stipulating authorship standards that require each author to be "personally accountable for [their] own contributions and to ensure that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work, even ones in which the author was not personally involved, are appropriately investigated, resolved, and the resolution documented in the literature." Thus, having one's contributions precisely described does not absolve any author of responsibility for the accuracy and rigour of the entire study..........(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
5. Resist? Welcome? Co-opt? Ignore? The pressures and possibilities of the REF and impact
The increased focus on impact in research evaluation represents a range of possibilities and pressures to those academics whose work is being assessed. For some it offers an opportunity to progress social justice causes and engage in participatory, bottom-up research approaches with less powerful groups; while to others it is further evidence of the managerial audit culture that is corrupting universities, trammelling academic freedom, and which must be resisted. In his post in the LSE Impact of Social Sciences Blog, Robert MacDonald considers both perspectives and suggests that even if the REF is an example of increased governmental control, it might yet provide space to engage in a positive, progressive politics of research.
The blog post says (quote): Critics interpret REF as just one mode of the heightened, neo-liberal, managerial control that is degrading academic life and infesting universities. So, how should we think about the REF impact agenda? Because of its obvious connections with social improvement and reform through policy action, social policy is regarded as one disciplinary area that is well-placed to meet and benefit from the impact agenda. Yet there has been surprisingly little concerted discussion amongst scholars about REF and impact. This is despite the fact that many millions of pounds of public funding accrue to the proposed or claimed impact of research. In addition, there is substantial funding directed toward the "impact industry"; the consultants, think tanks, PR firms, funding schemes, new software programmes, impact managers, specialist impact case study authors, etc., that have become embedded in the academy.........(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
Leave a Reply