A space to explore, share and shape the issues facing social scientists
A publication strategy should include carefully-defined goals, a purposeful timeline, and actionable steps for proposing and writing the kinds of pieces large or small that allow others to access what we’ve learned, produce impact, and propel our careers forward.
Last month the webinar “Battling Bannings- Authors discuss intellectual freedom and the freedom to read” saw Index on Censorship’s Vicky Baker moderate a discussion between historian Wendy Doniger and children’s book authors Christine Baldacchino and Jessica Herthel.
As part of our series on academic freedom, Dylan Kerrigan discusses the wider implications of the financialisation of academic knowledge production by considering academic book publishing. He asks if the success of academic books is best measured by economic or non-economic criteria, by its impact on the business sector or its veracity, by ideological myth-making or evidence.
A culture of bad science can evolve as a result of institutional incentives that prioritize simple quantitative metrics as measures of success, argues Paul Smaldino. But, he adds, not all is lost as new initiatives such as open data and replication are making a positive difference.
Novel breakthroughs in research can have a dramatic impact on scientific discovery but face some distinct disadvantages in getting wider recognition and are often cited as a plus in getting published. But new findings suggest an inherent bias in bibliometric measures against novel research.
Recent findings suggest interdisciplinary research is less likely to be funded than discipline-based research proposals, reports Gabriele Bammer, who argues different review processes may well be required to do justice to these different kinds of interdisciplinarity.
Many academics still operate under the flawed logic that good writing must be complex writing (or vice versa).
The more brazen the willingness to commit academic fraud, the harder it becomes to prevent, suggests Ian Freckelton. So while there is a role for codes of conduct or even criminal courts, finding ways to push temptation to deceive even further out of mind will likeley prove even more successful.
In the past few years there has been an insidious rise in predatory journals and publishers, notes Adele Thomas, and African academics have not been immune to their predation.
In a joint statement, 10 editors representing some of the academia’s most prestigious journals for management, organisational behavior and work psychology research, have vowed to publish research that fails to prove a hypotheses.
Peer review is a powerful tool for sussing out the truth, but it’s not all-powerful. We also need to develop ways to reward scientists who do make their publications, data and methodology open for even greater scrutiny.
The need to ‘publish of perish’ may send many academics adrift in unknown and dangerous waters of the predatory and vanity journals. It’s worth keeping a weather eye before sailing over the edge.
