May 19 2013

5 minutes with Kathryn King from The Policy Press: “Digital publishing gives us the opportunity to offer content in ways impossible in print”

Leave a comment
Share

Policy Press BW - 08To mark their first birthday, the LSE Review of Books held an awards ceremony on 16 May 2013 to recognise the hard work of contributors and to thank all parties involved in helping to support the initiative. Kathryn King, Marketing Manager at The Policy Press, continues the series of blog posts from academic publishers, covering more details about the award Policy Press is sponsoring and how integral the study of Sociology is to their publishing history.

This was first posted on LSE Review of Books.

Which books first inspired your own interest in books and the world of publishing?

I had wanted to work with books in publishing since I was young. A voracious reader as a teenager, I adored books like The Portrait of a Lady by Henry James and Vera Brittain’s Testament of Youth. Nowadays I feel lucky in my current role at The Policy Press to combine my love of books and publishing with its not-for-profit status and ‘making a difference’ social mission. It is immensely satisfying to know that, in a small way, we contribute to improving people’s lives through our publications.

Continue reading

Print Friendly
Share
Posted by: Posted on by Blog Admin

May 17 2013

Academia.edu releases embedded data-sets and code

2 Comments
Share

richard.priceImproved research sharing practices will undoubtedly help to boost the visibility of research. Richard Price, CEO of Academia.edu, explains how their social media platform is looking to incentivise data sharing by providing an outlet for researchers to share their data and code in a way that also enhances their reputations. 

Last week, Academia.edu announced that users can embed data-sets and code onto their Academia.edu profile pages. Data-sets and code can be attached to papers, or can be uploaded in a stand-alone way. Historically researchers have only shared their ideas in the form of academic papers. The DNA of academic journals came from the era of print, and it never made sense to share data and code in print form. Currently 75% of the world’s scientific data is not shared. It hasn’t been there because the distribution platforms haven’t been there, and there haven’t been the right reputation metrics to incentivize researchers to share their data.

Continue reading

Print Friendly
Share
Posted by: Posted on by Blog Admin Tagged with:

May 16 2013

Elite journals are losing their position of privilege

1 Comment
Share

George

Having first documented the large-scale demise of the impact factor as a predictor of quality research, George Lozano and team examined whether this pattern also applies to the handful of elite journals. His recent study finds the proportion of top papers published by elite journals has in fact been in steady decline since the late-eighties. Journal hierarchies are breaking down and researchers will benefit from the many publishing venues now available to reach wider audiences.

The digital age has brought forth many changes to scholarly publishing. For instance, we now read papers, not journals. We used to read papers physically bound with other papers in an issue within a journal, but now we just read papers, downloaded individually, and independently of the journal. In addition, journals have become easier to produce. A physical medium is no longer necessary, so the production, transportation, dissemination and availability of papers have drastically increased. The former weakened the connection between papers and their respective journals; papers now are more likely to stand on their own. The latter allowed the creation of a vast number of new journals that, in principle, could easily compete at par with long-established journals.

Continue reading

Print Friendly
Share
Posted by: Posted on by Blog Admin Tagged with:

May 15 2013

True innovation in Higher Ed will emerge from faculty-driven, open-source projects, not start-up commercialisation

5 Comments
Share

leslieLeslie Madsen-Brooks is skeptical about the kind of disruption start-ups and tech folks promise. She highlights ways university faculty and staff are already driving thoughtful technological innovation through engaging in open source, open learning projects. Projects which focus on the individual and collective empowerment of students and communities, rather than commercialization will ensure lasting, productive disruption.

I’ve heard that higher ed needs to be “disrupted” because it’s not cost efficient, it treats students as learners rather than customers, it’s risk-averse and unproductive, it values research over teaching, it doesn’t offer enough flexibility to adult learners, it’s too focused on prestige and credit hours instead of broad-based student competencies, it’s done a lousy job of using technology to expand affordable access to degrees, faculty spend too much classroom time lecturing and faculty act as if we should be exempt from the sweeping technological change that has upended the newspaper and music industries.

I’m not opposed to disruption; rather, I’m skeptical about the kind of disruption start-ups and tech folks promise: “paradigm-shifting” technology that improves university teaching and learning. The truth is, many of these start-ups clearly have no idea what actually works in higher ed and know little about the direction university teaching and learning have moved in the last 10 years, because they’re trying to take us backward, not forward. Start-up and commercial tech are certainly proving disruptive—just in all the wrong ways.

Continue reading

Print Friendly
Share
Posted by: Posted on by Blog Admin Tagged with:

May 14 2013

The apparatus of research assessment is driven by the academic publishing industry and has become entirely self-serving

14 Comments
Share

petercoles

Peer review may be favoured as the best measure of scientific assessment ahead of the REF, but can it be properly implemented? Peter Coles does the maths on what the Physics panel face and finds there simply won’t be enough time to do what the REF administrators claim. Rather, closed-access bibliometrics will have to be substituted at the expense of legitimate assessment of outputs. 

What I want to do first of all is to draw attention to a very nice blog post by a certain Professor Moriarty who, in case you did not realise it, dragged himself away from his hiding place beneath the Reichenbach Falls and started a new life as Professor of Physics at Nottingham University.  Phil Moriarty’s piece basically argues that the only way to really judge the quality of a scientific publication is not by looking at where it is published, but by peer review (i.e. by getting knowledgeable people to read it). This isn’t a controversial point of view, but it does run counter to the current mania for dubious bibliometric indicators, such as journal impact factors and citation counts.

The forthcoming Research Excellence Framework involves an assessment of the research that has been carried out in UK universities over the past five years or so, and a major part of the REF will be the assessment of up to four “outputs” submitted by research-active members of staff over the relevant period (from 2008 to 2013). Reading Phil’s piece might persuade you to be happy that the assessment of the research outputs involved in the REF will be primarily based on peer review. If you are then I suggest you read on because, as I have blogged about before, although peer review is fine in principle, the way that it will be implemented as part of the REF has me deeply worried.

Continue reading

Print Friendly
Share
Posted by: Posted on by Blog Admin

May 13 2013

The longstanding culture in the social sciences of making data accessible is one to value

Leave a comment
Share

JamesNazrooMatthewWoollardEvidence-based social policy depends on access to rich supplies of high-quality data. But how can we create, curate, enrich and reuse data already collected by government departments and researchers? James Nazroo and Matthew Woollard of the UK Data Service explore the network of trust and expertise that ensures a cost-effective pipeline of productive, policy-relevant data.

James Nazroo, a Deputy Director of the UK Data Service writes from a researcher’s point of view:

The launch of the UK Data Service signals a step-change in the way we use and reuse the products of our research. It is about making high-quality data (of all types) easy to get hold of, as easy as possible to use, and providing support for the use of such data. And, by providing an exemplar, it is also about encouraging and supporting others to set up ‘data stores’ that provide easy access to data either directly or through the UK Data Service. Doing this is not straightforward, taking the efforts of a large number of people and involving significant funds. So it is worth thinking about why it is important.

Continue reading

Print Friendly
Share
Posted by: Posted on by Blog Admin Tagged with:

May 12 2013

Book Review: Humanity 2.0: What it Means to be Human Past, Present and Future

1 Comment
Share

Francis Remedios photoSocial thinkers in all fields are faced with one unavoidable question: what does it mean to be ‘human’ in the 21st century? As definitions between what is ‘animal’ and what is ‘human’ break down, and as emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence and nano- and bio- technologies develop, accepted notions of humanity are rapidly evolving. Francis Remedios finds that although Humanity 2.0 offers challenging ideas, readers who work through those ideas will be rewarded.

This was originally published on LSE Review of Books.

Humanity 2.0: What it Means to be Human Past, Present and Future. Steve Fuller. Palgrave Macmillan. 

Find this book amazon-logo

As biotechnology, genetic engineering and synthetic biology are changing humanity, what does it mean to be human?  What is the distinctiveness of humanity? Given humanity is the locus of the social sciences, this book focusses on the changing boundary conditions of biology (race) and ideology (religion) for humanity. With the welfare state set as the location of the battle between biology and ideology on humanity, Fuller defends the distinctiveness of humanity.

Continue reading

Print Friendly
Share
Posted by: Posted on by Blog Admin

May 10 2013

The free, web-based EndNote Basic offers a new collaborative edge whilst remaining a true reference management tool

2 Comments
Share

paulThe public response to Elsevier’s takeover of Mendeley prompted Thomson Reuters to release an enhanced, free version of their referencing management tool, EndNote Basic. Paul Horsler examines the new features. While certainly not a tool for sharing PDFs, the web-based platform can be accessed remotely and allows for wider group collaboration and reference sharing. 

Endnote has two versions, Endnote and Endnote Basic.  The latter, and the topic of this post, was formerly branded as Endnote Web, the free web-based referencing software from Thomson Reuters.  Prior to this rebranding, there were three distinct levels of Endnote Web account: (one can even say that there still is)

  • A free one via Thomson Reuters which had very limited features
  • One via Web of Knowledge, which provided those at subscribing institutions with some enhanced features
  • An Endnote Web account that was linked to a version of the Endnote Desktop software.  This provided even more features

Continue reading

Print Friendly
Share
Posted by: Posted on by Blog Admin Tagged with:

May 9 2013

Open access requirements will erode academic freedom by catalysing intensive forms of institutional managerialism

2 Comments
Share

Kyle_white_1

In response to last week’s piece on how open access will enhance academic freedom, Kyle Grayson responds by outlining three key reasons why open access will directly–and indirectly–erode academic freedom in the arts, humanities, and social sciences. He argues that gold access will catalyse more intensive forms of managerialism based on crude metrics and that the scope and size of research projects are equally at risk.

In light of the formalisation of core aspects of the open access regime by the Higher Education Funding Council (HEFCE) on 1 April 2013, there was an interesting piece by Curt Rice on the LSE Impact blog last week. He argues that open access will enhance academic freedom. While I would agree that his argument is plausible in theory–and I have presented similar arguments in favour of open access–his position completely ignores the institutional context that is shaping how open access is being implemented in the UK.

Continue reading

Print Friendly
Share
Posted by: Posted on by Blog Admin Tagged with:

May 8 2013

The legitimacy and usefulness of academic blogging will shape how intellectualism develops

16 Comments
Share

jennydavis

Academic blogging has become an increasingly popular form, but key questions still remain over whether blog posts should feature more prominently in formal academic discourse. Jenny Davis clarifies the pros and cons of blog citation and sees the remaining ambiguity as indicative of a changing professional landscape. The wider scholarly community must learn how to grapple with these ethical and professional questions of rigor in standards of academic sourcing.

In this post I attempt to tackle a complex but increasingly important question: Should writers cite blog posts in formal academic writing (i.e. journal articles and books)? To begin with full disclosure: I cite blog posts in my own formal academic writing. But not just any blog posts. I am highly discriminate in what I cite, but my discriminations are not of the cleanly methodical type which can be written, shared, and handed out as even a suggested guide.

Continue reading

Print Friendly
Share
Posted by: Posted on by Blog Admin Tagged with: