Dear Karel, Susan and list,
thank you for your post Karel. It summarises the 'nub' quite nicely,
especially in respect to PhD students who may not be 'early career'
in their professions, but are positioned so in academia. Your
suggestion, a 'digital peer-reviewed academic journal' is quite
appropriate, not too intimidating and performs the functions of
dissemination, 'learning the ropes' and generating constructive
feedback for 'work-in-progress' (to reference Susan's earlier
comment) for candidates. Also referring to Susan's concerns, it may
encourage publication of more experimental or creative work,
particularly in some design fields.
Gavin's point about writing for different journals, different
audiences and disciplines is also an important consideration/practice
for PhD students, particularly for those engaged in design education
or other inter(trans)-disciplinary work, comprising two academic
fields with quite disparate research/practice orientations.
Thanks to everyone for their considerations and information, I have
found it helpful, and hopefully other candidates have as well. The
important thing is to move bravely forward, and publishing is part of
the process.
teena
>Dear all,
>
>The discussions in the last week left me with a slightly bitter
>taste. There seem to be two intentions to publish:
>- to 'disseminate information',
>- to satisfy administrative requirements.
>
>The second intention is becoming so important, that the first one is
>only for 'a happy few' who can afford to wait to present worthwhile
>materials.
>
>An enormous group of authors has to put pressure on reviewers and
>editors because:
>- I need this publication to start a PhD
>- I need this publication to obtain a PhD
>- I need this publication to support my PhD-viva
>- I need this publication for staff evaluations
>- Our department needs this publication for an assessment/accreditation
>
>The financial and personal consequences of the decisions of
>reviewers and editors are substantial. Administrators base their
>decisions on the views of editors and reviewers: 'it has been peer
>reviewed, so it must be good'.
>
>Despite the severe consequences for the authors, we still expect
>that 'reviewing' and 'editing' must be done for free. It's part of
>the fun, but it requires a lot of time. I'm afraid that this has
>reached its limits.
>
>
>Option 1: The example of open review processes Chris Rust mentions
>on biomedcentral.com provides a real alternative. Direct contact
>between authors and reviewers with the aim to 'disseminate and
>discuss' new findings. Wonderful. Unfortunately, there is another
>side. The instructions for authors state:
>- "Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica" levies an article-processing
>charge for every accepted article, to cover the costs incurred by
>open access publication. In 2008 the article-processing charge is
>£1000 (?1260, US$2000)."
>or
>- "AIDS Research and Therapy" levies an article-processing charge
>for every accepted article, to cover the costs incurred by open
>access publication. In 2008 the article-processing charge is £850
>(?1070, US$1700)."
>
>In other words: If you want to publish, you pay per article. Now it
>is possible to calculate the costs of the administrative policies.
>
>Option 2: An alternative requirement for a PhD-student could be to
>set up at least one 'digital peer-reviewed academic journal'. That
>will solve many of the problems mentioned this week.
>
>biomedcentral.com makes the second option fairly painless:
>http://www.biomedcentral.com/independent/starting
>
>
>Nobody will have time to read much of it, but that is not the aim.
>The aim is to satisfy the administrative requirements in such a way
>that we can still have a few enjoyable discussions about the topics
>that really matter with people that we really like to work with.
>
>
>The domain names http://www.designresearchcentral.com and
>http://www.desrescentral.com are still available ...
>
>Kind regards,
>Karel.
>[log in to unmask]
|