Indigenous Knowledges and Scholarly Publishing

At its core, academic knowledge production is predicated on Western notions of knowledge historically grounded in a Euro-American, White, male worldview. As a component of academic knowledge production, scholarly publishing shares the same basis of Whiteness. It excludes knowledge that doesn’t conform to White, Western notions of knowledge, forces conformity to (and therefore reinforcement of) a Western standard of writing/knowledge, and leads to a reverence of peer-reviewed literature as the only sound source of knowledge. As a tool of scholarly publishing and the editorial process, blind peer review, though perhaps well-intentioned, is fraught with problems, especially for BIPOC researchers and writers, because it fails in its intended purpose to drastically reduce or eliminate bias and racism in the peer review and editorial processes; shields peer reviewers and editors against accusations of bias, racism, or conflicts of interest; and robs BIPOC, and particularly Indigenous, writers and researchers from having the opportunity to develop relationships with those that are reviewing and publishing their work.

Download Full-text

Academic knowledge production and prefigurative politics

International Journal of the Sociology of Language ◽

10.1515/ijsl-2021-0002 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 2021 (267-268) ◽

pp. 163-167

Author(s):

Beatriz P. Lorente

Keyword(s):

Peer Review ◽

Structural Characteristic ◽

Knowledge Production ◽

Review Process ◽

Peer Review Process ◽

Academic Knowledge ◽

Means And Ends ◽

Sociology Of Language ◽

Prefigurative Politics ◽

Access Model

Abstract Inequality is the pervasive structural characteristic of academic knowledge production. To dismantle this inequality, the challenge raised by prefigurative politics which is based on an ethos of congruence between means and ends must be taken up by the International Journal of the Sociology of Language. The IJSL’s peer review process, its academic conventions and its access model can potentially be spaces for concrete practices that prefigure parity in academic knowledge production.

Download Full-text

Gender bias in scholarly peer review

eLife ◽

10.7554/elife.21718 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 6 ◽

Cited By ~ 92

Author(s):

Markus Helmer ◽

Manuel Schottdorf ◽

Andreas Neef ◽

Demian Battaglia

Keyword(s):

Peer Review ◽

Gender Bias ◽

Review Process ◽

Peer Review Process ◽

Public Information ◽

Scholarly Publishing ◽

Gender Preference ◽

Peer Reviewers ◽

Same Gender

Peer review is the cornerstone of scholarly publishing and it is essential that peer reviewers are appointed on the basis of their expertise alone. However, it is difficult to check for any bias in the peer-review process because the identity of peer reviewers generally remains confidential. Here, using public information about the identities of 9000 editors and 43000 reviewers from the Frontiers series of journals, we show that women are underrepresented in the peer-review process, that editors of both genders operate with substantial same-gender preference (homophily), and that the mechanisms of this homophily are gender-dependent. We also show that homophily will persist even if numerical parity between genders is reached, highlighting the need for increased efforts to combat subtler forms of gender bias in scholarly publishing.

Download Full-text

Peer review rigging: Should authors be allowed to suggest peer reviewers? [Download paper on preventing peer review scams]

Editage Insights ◽

10.34193/ei-a-6176 ◽

2019 ◽

Author(s):

Sneha Kulkarni

Keyword(s):

Peer Review ◽

Peer Reviewers

Download Full-text

Accepting a peer review invitation: Tips for first-time peer reviewers

Editage Insights ◽

10.34193/ei-a-6068 ◽

2019 ◽

Author(s):

Kakoli Majumder

Keyword(s):

Peer Review ◽

Peer Reviewers ◽

First Time

Download Full-text

Book Review: Academic Knowledge Production and the Global South: Questioning Inequality and Under-Representation, by Márton Demeter

Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly ◽

10.1177/1077699021998653 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 107769902199865

Author(s):

David Cheruiyot

Keyword(s):

Knowledge Production ◽

Global South ◽

Academic Knowledge

Download Full-text

The Savvy Academic

10.1093/oso/9780190095918.001.0001 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Seth J. Schwartz

Keyword(s):

Data Collection ◽

Longitudinal Studies ◽

Conflicts Of Interest ◽

Scholarly Publishing ◽

Early Career ◽

Journal Articles ◽

Writing For Publication ◽

Review Articles ◽

Publishing Career ◽

Data Analytic

This book covers the process of writing for publication from start to finish—from selecting a topic and reviewing literature to working with coauthors, writing theoretical and review articles, and responding to editor and reviewer comments when revising manuscripts. Dr. Schwartz uses examples from his own scholarly publishing career and provides concrete advice for both early-career and more experienced writers. The book also covers important topics such as planning studies, managing and supervising data collection, retaining participants in longitudinal studies, data analytic ethics and conflicts of interest, and dealing with writer’s block. Dr. Schwartz provides guidance for writing journal articles, books, and book chapters, as well as for dealing with manuscripts that have been repeatedly rejected. He offers guidance for writing first drafts, editing drafts, incorporating coauthor feedback, and working with difficult or resistant coauthors. This book is a “how-to” in terms of writing for publication.

Download Full-text

Considering Indigenous Research Methodologies: Critical Reflections by an Indigenous Knower

Qualitative Inquiry ◽

10.1177/1077800418787545 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 25 (1) ◽

pp. 45-56 ◽

Cited By ~ 6

Author(s):

Joseph P. Gone

Keyword(s):

Knowledge Production ◽

Ways Of Knowing ◽

Indigenous Studies ◽

Indigenous Research ◽

Research Methodologies ◽

Academic Knowledge ◽

Indigenous Epistemologies ◽

Indigenous Research Methodologies ◽

Conducting Research ◽

University Settings

Within the domain of academic inquiry by Indigenous scholars, it is increasingly common to encounter enthusiasm surrounding Indigenous Research Methodologies (IRMs). IRMs are designated approaches and procedures for conducting research that are said to reflect long-subjugated Indigenous epistemologies (or ways of knowing). A common claim within this nascent movement is that IRMs express logics that are unique and distinctive from academic knowledge production in “Western” university settings, and that IRMs can result in innovative contributions to knowledge if and when they are appreciated in their own right and on their own terms. The purpose of this article is to stimulate exchange and dialogue about the present and future prospects of IRMs relative to university-based academic knowledge production. To that end, I enter a critical voice to an ongoing conversation about these matters that is still taking shape within Indigenous studies circles.

Download Full-text

The Ladies Vanish?

Comparative Sociology ◽

10.1163/15691330-12341471 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 17 (5) ◽

pp. 519-556 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Wei Luo ◽

Julia Adams ◽

Hannah Brueckner

Keyword(s):

Knowledge Production ◽

History Of Sociology ◽

American Sociology ◽

Representation Of Women ◽

Academic Knowledge ◽

Disciplinary History ◽

History Of

AbstractMany notable female sociologists have vanished from the canonical history of American sociology. As the most influential crowd-sourced encyclopedia, Wikipedia promises – but does not necessarily deliver – a democratic corrective to the generation of knowledge, including academic knowledge. This article explores multiple mechanisms by which women either enter or disappear from the disciplinary record by analyzing the unfolding interaction between the canonical disciplinary history of sociology and Wikipedia. We argue that the uneven representation of women sociologists as (1) remembered, (2) neglected, (3) erased or, finally, (4) recovered is shaped by the emerging interactional space of knowledge production.

Download Full-text