Publishing as Pedagogy

2020 ◽  
pp. 57-82
Author(s):  
Lauren Halcomb-Smith ◽  
Alison Crump ◽  
Mela Sarkar
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Scholarly Publishing ◽  
Scholarly Journal ◽  
Learning Space ◽  
Future Directions ◽  
Journal Publishing ◽  
Innovative Model ◽  
Personal Reflections ◽  
Publishing Practices

This chapter explores innovating in scholarly journal publishing through the lens of publishing as pedagogy, an approach where scholarly publishing practices are intentionally designed for learning. Scholarly publishing is described as a learning space with significant scope for innovating, with respect to both the scholarly publishing culture and its practices. Innovating in scholarly publishing is defined as a social, creative, disruptive, and intentional process. The critical intersections to innovating in scholarly publishing are considered and an example of what innovating in scholarly publishing can look like, in practice, is provided—by sharing personal reflections and experiences of conceptualizing, designing, and managing J-BILD, a scholarly journal. In exploring these intersections and the notion of innovating, an innovative model of publishing founded on the principles of open access, transparency, and collaboration is described. This chapter concludes with possibilities for future directions with respect to innovating in scholarly publishing.

Legislative Developments in Scholarly Publishing

2021 ◽  
pp. 53-71
Author(s):  
Carlo Scollo Lavizzari
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Publishing Industry ◽  
Scholarly Publishing ◽  
Scholarly Journal ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Journal Publishing ◽  
The 1960S

The legal developments in scholarly publishing began back at the time of the Guttenberg press. The scholarly journal publishing industry evolved over the centuries. The 1960s through the launch of the internet saw the industry explode with growth. With the advent and development of the digital journal, open access, and other clandestine illegal databases, it is essential that the industry work to protect its interests. This chapter will provide a history, overview, and developments that will be required to ensure the ongoing concerns of the industry.

scholarly journals Liberation through Cooperation: How Library Publishing Can Save Scholarly Journals from Neoliberalism

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dave S. Ghamandi
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Publishing Industry ◽  
Scholarly Journal ◽  
Economic Aspects ◽  
Scholarly Journals ◽  
Journal Publishing ◽  
Article Processing Charges ◽  
Systems Of Domination ◽  
Fair Deal

This commentary examines political and economic aspects of open access (OA) and scholarly journal publishing. Through a discourse of critique, neoliberalism is analyzed as an ideology causing many problems in the scholarly journal publishing industry, including the serials crisis. Two major efforts in the open access movement that promote an increase in OA funded by article-processing charges (APC) —the Open Access 2020 (OA2020) and Pay It Forward (PIF) initiatives—are critiqued as neoliberal frameworks that would perpetuate existing systems of domination and exploitation. In a discourse of possibility, ways of building a post-neoliberal system of journal publishing using new tactics and strategies, merging theory and praxis, and grounding in solidarity and cooperation are presented. This includes organizing journal publishing democratically using cooperatives, which could decommodify knowledge and provide greater open access. The article concludes with a vision for a New Fair Deal, which would revolutionize the system of scholarly journal publishing by transitioning journals to library publishing cooperatives.

scholarly journals The Global South and the challenge of assessment

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samir Hachani ◽  
Tom Olijhoek
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Technical Information ◽  
Scientific Publication ◽  
Global South ◽  
Access Site ◽  
International Network ◽  
Journal Publishing ◽  
Global North ◽  
On Line ◽  
Publishing Practices

This presentation will present the Journal Publishing Practices and Standards and its implementaion by The International Network for the Availability of Scientific Publication (INASP) on the Journal On Line project. It will try to see what  different countries have achieved in responding in the system the INASP has put forward. Open access has undoubtedly allowed a bigger share and spread of scientific and technical information at both green and gold road. The statistics in every key open access site show an increase in the number of freely available data and peer reviewed material. Nevertheless, there is a clear “divide” between countries when it comes to the prestige and recognition for publishing in a Global North or a Global South journal. The reasons are multiple but prejudice about the quality and transparency is the most prominent. The International Network for the Availability of Scientific Publication (INASP) and its flagship program Journals On Line ( JOL) that encompasses a number of national and regional platforms have established a framework: Journal Publishing Practices and Standards (JPPS), whose goal is to bring these journals up to par and afford them a respectable place among the more established journals. The JPPS framework is made up of 6 levels of quality that determine the standing of the journal: inactive title; new title; no stars; one star; two stars; and three stars. The levels are used to rank and classify the journals. The other goal of JPPS is to give the editors of journals feedback on what to improve and how. We will in this presentation present the framework and show statistics for the different platforms using the star system. We will also present a conclusion on whether the framework has achieved its goals and what journals and countries have achieved a leap forward using the system.

scholarly journals Who Decides?

2016 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ivy Anderson ◽  
Mel DeSart ◽  
Lee Cheng Ean ◽  
Remi Gaillard ◽  
Susan Gibbons ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Interest Groups ◽  
Scholarly Publishing ◽  
Funding Agencies ◽  
The Future ◽  
Global Coordination ◽  
The One ◽  
Publishing Practices

Tied to [the] question of who should decide the future of open access, who should have the power to make changes to scholarly publishing practices? Do these powers flow from publishers, institutions, tenure committees, funding agencies, authors, or all of the above? All of the above? None of the above? What are the pros, cons, and consequences of different institutions and interest groups developing and implementing their own solutions (even the one-off variety)? Is federal oversight needed? Global coordination (through an organization like UNESCO)?

scholarly journals Message from the Grassroots

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. 1-27
Author(s):  
Camille Nous
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Knowledge Production ◽  
Capital Accumulation ◽  
Scholarly Journal ◽  
Academic Publishing ◽  
Journal Publishing ◽  
Use Of Knowledge

Librarians have responded to the decades-long “serials crisis” with a common narrative and a range of responses that have failed to challenge the ideology and structures that caused it. Using Walter Rodney’s theory of a guerilla intellectual, we critically examine the dominant understanding of this so-called crisis and emphasize the role that capital plays within it. The imperial nature of scholarly journal publishing and some of its many contradictions are discussed. “Transformative” agreements receive special attention as a hyper-capitalist manifestation of these contradictions at the heart of commercial publishing.The politics of refusal are one response to the commercialism, prestige, and power imbalances that drive the academic publishing system. Highlighting the differences between refusal and reform, this paper explores the protagonistic role that librarians can play in a protracted struggle within and beyond the confines of our profession. Select open access efforts are identified at the end as examples of different forms of refusal. This paper is intended to move beyond the traditional discourse of laying blame solely at the feet of the academic publishing oligopoly and also expounds on the bourgeois academy’s use of knowledge production for capital accumulation.

scholarly journals An Exploration of Faculty Experiences With Open Access Journal Publishing at Two Canadian Comprehensive Universities

2017 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Barbara McDonald ◽  
Ian Gibson ◽  
Elizabeth Yates ◽  
Carol Stephenson
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Open Access Journal ◽  
Health Science ◽  
Full Time ◽  
Comprehensive Universities ◽  
Journal Publishing ◽  
Grand Public ◽  
Time Faculty ◽  
Publishing Practices

INTRODUCTION: This exploratory study was intended to shed light on Canadian academics’ participation in, knowledge of and attitudes towards Open Access (OA) journal publishing. The primary aim of the study was to inform the authors’ schools’ educational and outreach efforts to faculty regarding OA publishing. The survey was conducted at two Canadian comprehensive universities: Brock University (St. Catharines, Ontario) and Wilfrid Laurier University (Waterloo, Ontario) in 2014. METHODS: A Web-based survey was distributed to faculty at each university. The data was analyzed using descriptive statistics. LIMITATIONS: Despite the excellent response rates, the results are not generalizable beyond these two institutions. RESULTS: The Brock response rate was 38 percent; the Laurier response rate was 23 percent from full-time faculty and five percent from part-time faculty. Brock and Laurier faculty members share common characteristics in both their publishing practices and attitudes towards OA. Science/health science researchers were the most positive about OA journal publishing; arts and humanities and social sciences respondents were more mixed in their perceptions; business participants were the least positive. Their concerns focused on OA journal quality and associated costs. CONCLUSION: While most survey respondents agreed that publicly available research is generally a good thing, this study has clearly identified obstacles that prevent faculty’s positive attitudes towards OA from translating into open publishing practices. INTRODUCTION : Cette étude exploratoire tente de mieux comprendre la participation, les connaissances et les attitudes des universitaires canadiens envers la publication en libre accès. Le but premier de cette étude est d’éclairer les campagnes éducatives et de sensibilisation concernant la publication en libre accès auprès des institutions des auteurs. Un sondage a été mené en 2014 à deux universités à vocation générale canadiennes : Brock University (St. Catherine, Ontario) et Wilfrid Laurier University (Waterloo, Ontario). MÉTHODES : Un sondage en ligne a été envoyé au corps professoral de chaque université. Les données ont été analysées à l’aide de statistiques descriptives. LIMITES : Malgré l’excellent taux de réponse, les résultats ne peuvent être généralisés au-delà des deux universités. RÉSULTATS : Le taux de réponse de Brock était de 38%; celui de Laurier était de 23% pour les professeurs à temps plein et 5% pour les professeurs à temps partiel. Les professeurs des deux universités partagent quelques caractéristiques quant à leurs pratiques et attitudes envers le libre accès. Les chercheurs en médecine et en sciences de la santé étaient les plus positifs envers la publication dans des revues en libre accès; les répondants des arts, sciences humaines et sciences sociales avaient des opinions mixtes; les participants en gestion étaient les moins positifs. Leurs inquiétudes portaient sur la qualité des revues en libre accès et les coûts associés. CONCLUSION : Malgré le fait que la plupart des répondants croient qu’il est bon que la recherche soit disponible au grand public, cette étude identifie clairement des obstacles qui empêchent les professeurs de passer d’attitudes positives envers le libre accès à des pratiques concrètes de publication ouverte.

scholarly journals The Two-Way Street of Open Access Journal Publishing: Flip It and Reverse It

Publications ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 23 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Matthias ◽  
Najko Jahn ◽  
Mikael Laakso
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Subject Area ◽  
Open Access Journal ◽  
Scholarly Publishing ◽  
Common Pattern ◽  
Finish Line ◽  
Journal Publishing ◽  
Access Mode ◽  
Citation Metrics

As Open access (OA) is often perceived as the end goal of scholarly publishing, much research has focused on flipping subscription journals to an OA model. Focusing on what can happen after the presumed finish line, this study identifies journals that have converted from OA to a subscription model, and places these “reverse flips” within the greater context of scholarly publishing. In particular, we examine specific journal descriptors, such as access mode, publisher, subject area, society affiliation, article volume, and citation metrics, to deepen our understanding of reverse flips. Our results show that at least 152 actively publishing journals have reverse-flipped since 2005, suggesting that this phenomenon does not constitute merely a few marginal outliers, but instead a common pattern within scholarly publishing. Notably, we found that 62% of reverse flips (N = 95) had not been born-OA journals, but had been founded as subscription journals, and hence have experienced a three-stage transformation from closed to open to closed. We argue that reverse flips present a unique perspective on OA, and that further research would greatly benefit from enhanced data and tools for identifying such cases.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document