Oscar del Barco editor: la construcción de una política de la teoría en Ediciones Caldén

In this paper, we look at how theory and publishing practices were intertwined in Argentina between 1967 and 1976. We do so by analyzing “El hombre y su mundo” [“The Man and His World"], a collection of books directed by Oscar del Barco for Ediciones Caldén (Argentina) during that period. We hold that del Barco´s multifaceted work as editor, translator, compiler, and essayist, created a politics of theory, focusing on two interrelated aspects: 1) a poetics of publishing, with translations of works by political theorists, structuralist and poststructuralist thinkers coming together in a unique collection mediated by del Barco’s critical texts, and 2) a "smuggling" publishing practice –as texts were selected, translated and shaped into small books from foreign magazines with no copyright permission. We see a performative force in such interrelation of theory and publishing strategies, as “El hombre y su mundo” made available books through practices and materialities that acted upon what those very books were calling for.

Publishers and Others Who Publish

The objective of the article is to deconstruct the notion of publisher through the lens of the episteme of professionalism and provide a statistical overview of mainstream and marginal book publishers in Latvia. The statistical overview is based on an alternative, experimental approach, in which publishers are grouped by the legal register they are registered in as juridical persons and the output of each group is analysed. This approach is selected to profile publishers in a context where economic indicators or other means by which to analyse publishers are not available. The results provide an insight into the diversity of those who publish books in Latvia as well as give an overview of the characteristics and patterns of their publishing practices.

Membership of the editorial boards of journals published by the predatory publisher OMICS: willing and unwilling participation

Introduction. OMICS is the largest and most successful predatory publisher, with numerous subsidiaries. In 2019 it was convicted of unethical publishing practices. Method. A numerical tally of OMICS's editorial listings was compiled across 131 nations. Names and affiliations were recorded for seven nations. A sample was surveyed to estimate the proportions of those aware and unaware of their listing, and of OMICS’s conviction. Analysis. Excel enabled compilation, absolute and proportional tallies and random selection. Results. OMICS has twenty subsidiaries and 26,772 editor (and editorial board) listings, 11,361 from just seven nations. Proportional to population, Greeks were most frequently represented on OMICS's editorial boards, followed by Americans, Singaporeans and Italians. In absolute terms, Americans were the most numerous. The survey found that more than half of the respondents were either unaware of their listing or were unwilling to be listed, and 26% were unaware of OMICS’s conviction. Conclusion. OMICS's editorial boards do not function as they do for respectable publishers, hence the information published in OMICS journals is unreliable. Academic alliances with OMICS are potentially damaging to academic careers and institutional reputations. Universities should develop policies dealing with predatory publishers in general and OMICS in particular.

Fehras Publishing Practices: an email interview

Gustavo Grandal Montero (ALJ): The three of you founded Fehras Publishing Practices in 2015 in Berlin and since then have been working together in a series of long-term art projects focused on archives and publishing. Collectives, collaboration and networks are central to your practice, how much is this connected to an expanded understanding of publishing as a quintessentially collaborative cultural activity?

Yes! We’re open. Open science and the future of academic practices in translation and interpreting studies

This article offers an overview of open science and open-science practices and their applications to translation and interpreting studies (TIS). Publications on open science in different disciplines were reviewed in order to define open science, identify academic publishing practices emerging from the core features of open science, and discuss the limitations of such practices in the humanities and the social sciences. The compiled information was then contextualised within TIS academic publishing practices based on bibliographic and bibliometric data. The results helped to identify what open-science practices have been adopted in TIS, what problems emerge from applying some of these practices, and in what ways such practices could be fostered in our discipline. This article aims to foster a debate on the future of TIS publishing and the role that open science will play in the discipline in the upcoming years.

Paying lip service to publication ethics: scientific publishing practices and the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World

Litigation forced the dissolution of three major tobacco industry-funded organisations because of their egregious role in spreading scientific misinformation. Yet in 2017, a new scientific organisation—the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World (FSFW)—was launched, funded entirely by tobacco corporation Philip Morris International (PMI). Experts fear FSFW similarly serves to benefit its funder’s scientific and political agenda. We present three case studies of FSFW’s publishing practices to explore: whether FSFW and its affiliates are acting with scientific integrity in their attempts to publish research; how conflicts of interest (COI) are governed in the journals FSFW targets; whether scientific publishing needs to be better protected from the tobacco industry in light of this, and if so, how. FSFW and its grantees have resorted to repeated obfuscation when publishing their science. FSFW staff have failed to act transparently and arguably have sought control over editorial processes (at times facilitated by PR firm, Ruder Finn). FSFW-funded organisations (including its Italian ‘Centre of Excellence’) and researchers affiliated with FSFW (including those working as editors and peer-reviewers) have failed to disclose their links to FSFW and PMI. While journals also failed to apply their COI policies, including on tobacco industry-funded research, the findings highlight that such policies are almost entirely dependent on researchers fully declaring all potential COIs. The paper explores ways to address these problems, including via standardised reporting of COI and funding in journals; journal policies prohibiting publication of tobacco industry-funded science; development of an author-centric database of financial interests; and legally mandated tobacco industry financial contributions to fund science on new tobacco and nicotine products.

Hvem publiserer hva? Hvordan kjønn påvirker publiseringsgrad

Who is Publishing What? How Gender Influences Publication This chapter examines scholarly publishing within the Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences at the University of Oslo from a gendered perspective. The question posed is whether women publish less than men, and if so, why. Based on self-reported publishing volumes, the study applies multivariable methods to investigate the relationship between the number of publications and factors such as position, total worktime and gender. The analyses show that gender has little significance when these other factors are entered into the model. The results are discussed in light of other studies on publishing practices.