Academic Publishing Practices Research Articles

The emergence of epistemic agency in researching multilingually: An autoethnography of a Chinese researcher's academic publishing practices

AbstractGlobal knowledge production and dissemination through academic publishing plays a critical role in achieving epistemic inclusion for peripheral scholars. This paper reports on an autoethnographic study of the 15 years of academic publishing efforts by the first author, Jiaqi Liu (JL). We used the theoretical lens of epistemic agency to explore how JL navigates the challenges posed by the structural constraints of academic publishing. We adopted the framework of “researching multilingually” (RM‐ly) as an analytical framework to examine the specifics of how JL exercises her epistemic agency. The findings indicate that linguistic injustice was associated with epistemic exclusion, but JL developed her epistemic agency by drawing on the intentionality, spatiality, and relationality dimensions of RM‐ly practices. She took responsibility for the advancement of her own knowledge, and generated new insights and practices in order to enhance her epistemic participation between English‐, Japanese‐, and Chinese‐mediated research worlds. The paper suggests that instead of perceiving epistemic exclusion as an insurmountable difficulty, peripheral multilingual scholars can foster epistemic agency through the alternative approach of RM‐ly and engage in multi‐directional knowledge production and dissemination.

Understanding ‘Predatory’ Journals and Implications for Guiding Student and Client Information Seeking

While library professionals working in academic contexts are likely to have knowledge of ‘predatory’ journals and related implications for guiding student information seeking, school and public library professionals may be less familiar with this phenomenon. This article draws on a broad body of research to explore the factors that enable predatory journals to thrive, some of which arise from inequities in current ‘legitimate’ academic publishing practices. While this article highlights the complexities involved when guiding students and clients to make robust information seeking choices in relation to predatory journals, some key implications for professional practice emerge from the research.

Multilingualism and native speakerism in academic journals’ language policies: Exploring a potential power of applied linguistics journals in promoting equitable publishing practices

Abstract Multilingualism in the context of academic publishing involves beliefs and actions manifested through publications in multiple languages. However, a systematic analysis of how academic journals practice multilingualism has been scant. Therefore, the present study analyzed how indexed journals of applied linguistics promote and practice multilingualism following their scopes and language policies (LPs). Initially, 67 journals underwent screening based on their “aims and scope,” resulting in 11 journals that actively promoted multilingualism. Employing a critical discourse analysis (CDA) framework, the main analysis focused on the assumptions embedded within the journals’ LPs. The findings indicated an incongruity between the journals’ stated commitment and their practices of multilingualism. Specifically, all the journals mandated submissions exclusively in English with implicit biases toward native speakerism. The study underscores the need for a collective effort within and beyond the applied linguistics community to address linguistic biases and for more equitable and inclusive academic publishing practices.

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.

Exploring Retraction in Tourism and Hospitality Journals

Recently, retraction has received considerable attention in several fields of research. The topic, however, remains neglected in the field of tourism and hospitality. The current investigation explores the current level of retraction in tourism and hospitality research. It also draws on the perceptions of the editors-in-chief of tourism and hospitality journals to understand their attitudes toward retraction. The findings reveal that retraction is quite rare in the field of tourism and hospitality (only 5 retracted articles were identified). Empirical evidence shows that editors-in-chief have mixed perceptions concerning the current level of retraction, varying between optimism and pessimism. Optimistic editors-in-chief agreed that the rareness of retraction is reflective of research integrity and identified awareness of the best practices in academic publishing, the youthfulness of tourism as an area of study, and the role of plagiarism detection software programs as significant factors. Pessimistic editors-in-chief were reluctant to consider the low retraction rate to be an indicator of a high level of research integrity and they highlighted the difficulty of detecting malpractice, editors-in-chief’s unwillingness to engage in retraction, and the existence of unethical practices that do not lead to retraction. By identifying the retraction level and exploring the perceptions of editors-in-chief, the present study endeavours to track the progress, transparency, and integrity of tourism and hospitality research.

Publishing in and about English: challenges and opportunities of Chinese multilingual scholars’ language practices in academic publishing

This paper reports on a qualitative inquiry into Chinese multilingual scholars’ language practices in academic publishing as the Chinese government develops higher education competitiveness and expands multilingual foreign language education. Fifteen Chinese multilingual scholars from five non-English language divisions were interviewed. Bourdieu’s linguistic market theory was adopted as the guiding framework to understand the scholars’ multilingual practices in academic publishing. The findings suggest that institutional research assessment based on key index lists functioned as a market unification mechanism that devalued the scholars’ multilingual capital. Meanwhile, the implicit language policy of publishing in and about English perpetuated and reproduced structural inequality in the international and national academic publishing marketplace. Despite this perceived disadvantaged position, the scholars generated new language practices to counteract the structural constraints. In light of these findings, policy makers should be aware of the implicit language policies in index-based research assessment exercises, and should take into consideration the specific circumstances of different language majors when developing research assessment policies. Measures are suggested to empower multilingual scholars with capacities to participate equally in knowledge construction, regardless of the languages that they work with.

Beginnings

Beginnings

It’s not Just the Author: The Reader and the Editor Are Dead, Too

The world of academic publishing has changed significantly. In this short essay, I attempt to offer a few observations as the editor of an international journal, suggesting that we may need to have a more in-depth theoretical engagement with current publishing practices. This includes the diminishing role of editors, the nature of authorship and the related review process, and the ways in which the publishing industry responds to, and shapes, our academic publishing practices.

La autoría científica en las áreas de ciencia y tecnología. Políticas internacionales y prácticas editoriales en las revistas científicas españolas

Scientific authorship is tied to scientific recognition, merit, and personal ethics. There is evidence of inappropriate behaviours associated with several factors that call for a better regulation of the conditions in which authorship of a scientific work is assigned. This regulation falls within the competences of the associations of scientific publishers and the journals themselves. The aim of this paper is to analyse the situation of international policies and editorial practices of Spanish journals in the areas of Science and Technology. A transversal content analysis of the manuals of good practices in academic publishing and a sample of 37 Spanish prestigious journals was carried out, with special attention paid to the criteria for authorship, derived liabilities, the role of acknowledgements, number of authors, author ordering, and responsibilities of the corresponding author. The results give cause for concern: only 15% of the manuals and 8% of the journals manage to declare these criteria properly. We compare these results with those of other areas, such as Biomedicine, where similar studies have been carried out, and we discuss the impact of non-regulation on authors’ behaviour and scientific ethics, as well as the implications of co-authorship in scholarly evaluation procedures.

Pluralizing English? Variation in high-stakes academic texts and challenges of copyediting

Paralleling the pluralistic conceptualizations of language as found in world Englishes and English as a lingua franca (ELF), pluralizing language use – that is, accepting deviations from standard Anglo-American written English – has been advocated in the field of second language (L2) writing. However, the question of how this pluralization is or can be achieved remains underexplored, particularly at the level of lexis and grammar, which has traditionally been an important focus for readers of L2 writers’ texts. This question becomes contentious in high-stakes academic writing, which entails negotiation between L2 writers and gatekeepers (editors, copyeditors) who are expected to ensure academic sophistication and rigor of published texts. This article addresses theoretical issues related to differences in language use by critically analyzing the authors’ own process of copyediting nonnative English writers’ manuscripts prepared for a book publication. It examines the role of literacy brokering (textual mediation by editors, proofreaders, and others) at the lexicogrammatical level in academic text production. We found that despite sympathy for an approach that would pluralize English usage, the textual mediation of lexical and grammatical items was often driven by native-speaker intuition and was idiosyncratic. This idiosyncrasy further poses skepticism about the applicability of both error-oriented approaches to and pluralistic theories about L2 writing to copyediting in high-stakes academic publishing. We conclude that pervasive ideologies and accepted practices in academic publishing make it difficult to pluralize academic writing at the level of lexis and grammar. We conclude with suggestions for advocacy, research, and practice for L2 writing scholars and literacy brokers.

How to connect strategy research with broader issues that matter?

The financial crisis and its various episodes, the persistent use of child labour by multinational corporations, the global sex trade with its horrible implications, environmental destruction exemplified by BP’s accident in the Gulf of Mexico, drugs and their globally organized production and sales, Fukushima and the risks of contemporary energy policies, dictatorships and oppression sustained by military and economic power in North Korea and Syria. These are major strategic issues of global relevance that need to be better understood – and dealt with. What they and many others have in common is that they are all about the strategic management of complex, intertwined organizational structures and processes. Furthermore, both their causes and consequences are organizational, and they usually involve an economic dimension that greatly influences various actors’ interests and manoeuvres. These crises have been addressed by economists, political scientists, sociologists, psychologists, military experts and others, but with few exceptions strategy scholars have kept silent. There are of course reasons (or excuses) for why this is the case: strategic management scholarship is considered to have its place in explaining firm behaviour and industrial dynamics, in-depth research takes time which often prevents researchers from being able to comment on crises as they happen, academic publishing practices prolong these processes (it gets years to publish a paper), we as scholars can provide explanations, but the practitioners seldom understand them, the media are not used to using strategy scholars as experts, and so on. In this essay, we don’t buy these excuses at face value. Our message is simple: strategy scholars should be bold enough to look beyond the management of business firms to address contemporary issues of broader societal relevance. Relevance is a key question for management scholars in general and strategy scholars in particular. While there are different views on what relevance means (Augier and March, 2007), most have been concerned about the lack of ability of management research to provide knowledge that is useful for managerial practice (McGahan, 2007; Walsh et al., 2007). For example, Hambrick (1994: 15) famously criticized management research for developing into an ‘incestuous, closed loop of scholarship’. More recently, Walsh (2011) provides an overview of the presidential addresses in recent years that all seem to indicate that management research has failed in its quest 452827 SOQ10310.1177/1476127012452827Vaara and DurandStrategic Organization 2012

Missing Marx: The Place of Marx in Current Communication Research and the Place of Communication in Marx’s Work

This study was designed (1) to test Marx’s theoretical statements on the nature of dominant ideas in a society by investigating the character of scholarly practices in academic publishing, and (2) to demonstrate the falseness of claims about Marx’s disinterest in communication by presenting and evaluating his writings on communication. The study combines quantitative and qualitative methods for data collection and analysis. It has two study populations and multiple samples. The first one includes the articles in communication journals cited by Thomson Reuters’ Social Sciences Citation Index. The second one contains all writings of Marx on communication. The findings indicate that (1) the articles are mostly functional to the ruling interests, (2) they mostly exclude Marx and critical issues that question the ruling material and immaterial mode and relations in communication and society, (3) most alternative approaches are controlled alternatives and overtly or covertly directed against Marx’s method and explanations. Regarding Marx’s interest in communication, contrary to the claims that he had no or minimal interest, Marx provided invaluable explanations about communication. Hence communication scholars should pay close attention if they want to understand the nature and function of communication in society and social change.

An Analysis of the Ethics of Peer Review and Other Traditional Academic Publishing Practices

An Analysis of the Ethics of Peer Review and Other Traditional Academic Publishing Practices

From Incentive to Stewardship: The Shifting Discourse of Academic Publishing

Abstract We examine the effects that opposing metaphors have on the practices of academics and publishers—in terms of policy initiatives, litigation, and technological advances—and argue that a new set of rhetorical strategies should be deployed to create a vision for copyright laws and publishing practices. We draw from the work of Kenneth Crews to define alternative metaphors and strategies for more effective management of copyrights: stewardship, unbundling of copyrights, and processes of negotiation, for instance, rather than ownership and control. Such terms provide a radical disruption to publishing-as-usual and may serve as the necessary incentive for creators and publishers to foster more co-equal, reciprocal relationships and publishing contracts. The results of such negotiations may become more consistent with current tenure and promotion practices that drive faculty attitudes about academic publishing practices. We believe this because the profit reward for publishers is increasingly at odds with scholarly rewards that accrue from expanded readership, increased citations, expanded accessibility, and accelerated production of new knowledge. We conclude by applying metaphors to practices of open access, institutional repositories, and commercial publishing as a way to understand why disciplinary work in computers and writing and the field of composition as a whole have been slow to change despite the dramatic changes in technologies, publishing practices, and online communities over the past decade, and also to envision a way to move forward. We suggest that academics and publishers alike are too fixated on the products of intellectual work rather than the processes of use.

The Ideal Copyright Framework for Academic Authors? A Bounty to Genius and Learning

This article discusses the situation of academic copyright within a broader discussion of the historical role of copyright law, libraries, academic publishing practices and changes in the digital environment. Because academics are both owners and users of copyrighted material and share interests as individual authors and as members of academic communities, neither a strong ‘owners’ nor ‘user's’ rights-based approach is particularly helpful. It is argued that in order to decide what the ‘ideal’ framework for academic copyright entails, we first need to decide what role we, as academics, and our universities, should play in the knowledge economy.