“Bundle of Sticks” and the Value of Interdependence: Building a Tools and Services Collective

In this article, we raise questions about how bundling and independence show up in the scholarly publishing industry today, both for large conglomerates and for smaller commercial and nonprofit players. We then contemplate what interdependence might look like and how it might help to transform academic publishing. We end with findings from the Next Generation Library Publishing (NGLP) project (2019-2022) and its Collaborative Frameworks Working Group regarding a set of initial steps that we believe publishers, tools, and service providers might take together towards developing a collective publishing framework for open source, values-aligned tools and services.

Peers in Systematic Review: Gate Keeping Understandings of Research in the Field

In this chapter, the role of scholarly peers in systematic review is analysed and discussed. Peer evaluation is an essential element of quality assurance of the strictly defined methods of systematic review. The involvement of scholarly peers in the systematic review processes has similarities with traditional peer review processes in academic publishing, but also important differences. Drawing on an analysis of the functions of peers in systematic review relevant questions for all peers are raised regarding what peer work is about and what peers in varied academic contexts including systematic review are ‘gatekeepers’ of? In systematic review, peers are not only making re-judgements of already reviewed and published research but also gatekeeping the given standards, guidelines and procedures of the review method. The analysis lays a groundwork for a debate on peers in different contexts framed by different processes with different purposes, and questions whether a peer review is the same when the premise of the scholarly activity changes.

Linguistic injustice in academic publishing in English

In recent years, an intense debate in English for research publication purposes (ERPP) has developed around the question of whether linguistic injustice exists or not in academic publishing in English. In this Perspectives piece, I wish to engage in this debate by first situating the terms in which it is being developed, and then pointing out some of its limitations. In doing that, I argue that the view of language that is currently held in the debate seems problematic, and that a more explicit attention to the socially stratified nature of academic publishing seems missing from the debate. Suggesting potential ways forward, I propose that it seems crucial to adopt a view of language that anchors it more firmly as a social phenomenon, inherently connected to its speakers and the socially situated and stratified position that they inhabit. Remembering this is important in order to remain aware of the fact that both linguistic and non-linguistic factors are at play in shaping the uneven nature of academic publishing in English.

PERSONAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST IN THE PUBLISHING ENTERPRISE: FOCUS ON JOURNAL EDITORS

Editors play a central role and form an essential link in the publication process. Consequently, they hold considerable influence as to how the literature is molded, and what eventually gets published. In addition to their standard editorial responsibilities, holding that amount of power, editors have extremely high responsibilities to declare any conflicts of interest (COIs) internal to, and external to, the peer review process, particularly those involving personal relationships and networks. This is because they also exist in the peer community, can be high-profile public figures, and form a very unique and restricted – in terms of size, membership and exclusivity – set of individuals. Consequently, editors need to declare their COIs openly, transparently, and publicly on their editor board profiles, and as part of their curriculum vitae. Without such declarations, the greater risk is that editors might have unregulated freedom to enforce their own individual or group biases, through hidden relationships and networks, including the possibility of hiding instances of favoritism, cronyism and nepotism. In the worst-case scenario, this might reflect editorial corruption. Hidden COIs in authors, which tend to be the focus of the academic publishing establishment, including in codes of conduct and ethical guidelines such as those by COPE and the ICMJE, tend to down-play editorial COIs, or restrict them to scrutiny during the peer review process. This opinion piece examines whether there is a systemic problem with under-reported editorial COIs, particularly personal and non-financial COIs, that extend beyond the peer review process and their editorial positions. Greater awareness, debate, and education of this issue are needed.