Ken, Chris, et al,
Thanks for all the detailed and lucid information about these conferences.
I was unaware of pretty much all of it - entirely my fault of course. As
far as that goes, I stand corrected.
Cheers.
Fil
2010/1/4 Ken Friedman <[log in to unmask]>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> Every year around this time, a flurry of notes goes back and forth
> about the Common Ground conference cycle and the Common Ground journals.
> Each year, the same information goes around with people reporting mixed
> experiences and raising the same questions.
>
> This is a quick note to support what others have said. First off, I
> want to say that I have no problem with the fact that Common Ground is a
> profit-making enterprise. Such for-profit companies as Elsevier, Berg,
> and Routledge publish leading journals in all fields.
>
> In my experience, the same cannot be said of conference cycles.
> Associations sponsor nearly all-serious conferences. The reason for this
> is that an academic or scientific association of expert volunteers
> provides the peer review services and long-term engagement required for
> a serious conference cycle. Without this support, a top-notch conference
> is difficult to imagine.
>
> The experiences that people have at Common Ground conferences suggest a
> far more random process. There is no significant continuity. As many
> have noted, one always risks an occasional flat conference even with the
> best of will and the deepest engagement. Even so, the standard process
> delivers a reasonable conference more often than not. In contrast, a
> process in which advisers are not engaged at all and organizers are
> mostly engaged in business management is hardly a recipe for
> development. This is especially problematic when none of the advisers
> review or participate.
>
> It would be different if conference participants included a broad
> spectrum of leading scholars, but this is not the case when the
> conference participants and journal authors are people that generally do
> not appear in other venues and all reviewing is done by the same group
> of inexperienced people submitting the papers.
>
> Chris’s description is quite right and I support his views. I was at
> the London conference as a keynote. So was Fil Salustri, and like Fil, I
> found the event delightful. Much of this had to do with the energetic
> and savvy work that Daria Loi put in as organizer. Daria was until last
> year editor of the journal, but she withdrew over the fact that even as
> editor, she had no real involvement. I had the same problem as an
> adviser. I resigned from the journal advisory board. They kept my name
> on the board long after I resigned. (The web site does not currently
> list journal advisers, so I don’t know if I’m still an adviser.) I
> do know that many of the former journal advisers are listed as
> conference advisers. I wonder whether any of them has any real
> engagement with the conference cycle.
>
> The journal maintains two problematic practices that seem to ensure
> question able quality.
>
> First, everyone that reviews an article is listed as an “associate
> editor” for the volume in which they review. To confuse ad hoc
> reviewing of articles taken from the conference with editorial activity
> as an associate editor is questionable. It is difficult to manage a
> serious, engaged editorial group with a dozen or so editors and
> advisers. To manage or properly work with over 200 “associate
> editors” in a serious way is impossible. This suggests that
> something is amiss in the editorial model.
>
> Second, conference participants are encouraged to publish conference
> papers as journal articles, without the cycle of enrichment,
> improvement, peer review, and editorial engagement that distinguishes a
> conference paper from a journal article.
>
> This process underwrites a business model that may be quite successful
> in financial terms, but it does not meet the generally accepted
> standards for academic publishing. It succeeds financially for an
> obvious reason. For a single conference fee, a participant gets three
> ticks for the metrics. First, participants harvest a conference
> presentation, usually in a city that merits a visit in its own right for
> museums and fine dining. Second, they get a journal article. Third, if
> they have done the work of reviewing, they are acknowledged as
> “associate editors,” along with 200 or so colleagues from around
> the world.
>
> The Common Ground web site advertises the journal as “peer-reviewed,
> supported by rigorous processes of criterion-referenced article ranking
> and qualitative commentary, ensuring that only intellectual work of the
> greatest substance and highest significance is published.” The
> editorial and publishing process does not support these claims.
>
> According to the Common Ground web site, the company -- and this is a
> privately held, for-profit company -- manages conferences and journals
> in 17 fields: arts, books, climate change, design, diversity, global
> studies, humanities, learning, management, museums, social sciences (all
> of them!), science in society, sport and society, sustainability,
> technology (the entire range of issues!), ubiquitous learning,
> universities.
>
> All 17 journals have the same two editors. The editors own the company.
> Some journals have a third editor. Anyone who edits a journal would find
> it hard to imagine editing 17 journals – let alone 17 journals in 17
> different fields.
>
> The same situation applies to the conferences. The conferences are
> booked at venues with an academic patina, often at distinguished
> universities. But the universities are conference venues renting
> facilities to Common Ground – the universities are not conference
> sponsors, nor do they play an active role in Common Ground.
>
> I’m of two minds on the Common Ground conferences and journals. I
> agree with the need for new models of academic publishing and new models
> for conferences. I am skeptical of the many companies claiming to offer
> these new models across dozens of fields and disciplines without the
> engagement or expertise needed to make new models work.
>
> When Common Ground first contacted me through Daria Loi, I felt that
> the idea of a new publishing model and a new conference model was worth
> exploring. Chris Rust was one of the original advisers. At the time of
> the first Design Principles and Practices conference in London, Chris
> withdrew for many of the reasons stated in his note. I remained on the
> board due to Daria’s involvement and my respect for Daria. At that
> time, however, I raised some of these questions, and the Common Ground
> organizers wrote a reasoned and responsible letter promising significant
> improvements and changes. These changes have not been made.
>
> The editors of the Common Ground journals wrote a fascinating
> theoretical article this year in a serious journal describing their
> views and their critique of academic publishing. If the Common Ground
> journals and conferences reflected the issues and concerns of the
> article, I’d have greater confidence and I would have remained
> involved.
>
> As it is, I feel the advisers to these conferences and journals do
> little to advance the field. If Common Ground were to pursue a model of
> engaged scholarship that genuinely lives up to the promises and claims
> on the Common Ground Publishing web site, I’d have been happy to
> remain involved.
>
> As it is, I am a skeptic, and I’d encourage people to think twice
> before participating in a Common Ground conference. I’m even more
> skeptical about the journals. The journal ranking study we undertook
> last year suggested that the Journal of Design Principles and Practices
> has little or no impact in the field. Authors should think twice before
> submitting an article to a journal with no impact. With the few hours
> that most of us have for writing, it is important to choose a journal
> where be of value to the field. We now have two dozen design research
> journals that range from good to outstanding. They are all actively
> seeking articles. Given the opportunities available to publish in solid
> journals that have broad readership, there is no point choosing a target
> journal with no impact.
>
> My two cents.
>
> Ken
>
> Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS
> Professor
> Dean
>
> Swinburne Design
> Swinburne University of Technology
> Melbourne, Australia
>
--
Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
Ryerson University
350 Victoria St, Toronto, ON
M5B 2K3, Canada
Tel: 416/979-5000 ext 7749
Fax: 416/979-5265
Email: [log in to unmask]
http://deseng.ryerson.ca/~fil/
|