JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for PHD-DESIGN Archives


PHD-DESIGN Archives

PHD-DESIGN Archives


PHD-DESIGN@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

PHD-DESIGN Home

PHD-DESIGN Home

PHD-DESIGN  January 2010

PHD-DESIGN January 2010

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Common Ground Conferences and Journals

From:

Ken Friedman <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Ken Friedman <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 4 Jan 2010 17:21:20 +1100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (155 lines)

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

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager