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

Help for ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC Archives


ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC Archives

ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC Archives


ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC@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

ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC Home

ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC Home

ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC  December 2010

ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC December 2010

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: massive copyright theft

From:

Morgan Leigh <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Society for The Academic Study of Magic <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 8 Dec 2010 14:22:31 +1100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (157 lines)

One must always make one's own decisions. My choice when faced with a
flawed or rigged game is not to play. This choice is not for everyone.
Why is the game flawed/rigged?

IMHO the system of ranking journals is part of the general push to
quantify everything, which doesn't serve the academy well at all. Sure,
people want a way to be able to compare academics when considering
employing them. But I don't think that a ranking system for journals is
the way to do it.

Why? Firstly because this quantitative method is used primarily because
quantitative research is more fashionable than qualitative and decisions
based on it take less time to arrive at. It seems as if counting things
and adding them up gives a picture of reality, but unless balanced by
qualitative considerations it is a very distorted picture. Lies, damn
lies and statistics. I feel it is relied on because people want to cover
their butts. If one can say that one chose a particular candidate based
on an externally mandated quantitative method then there is effective
arse covering.

Secondly, the ranking system is flawed. I am not familiar with the
English system, and it seems from other posts here that it is a bit
inscrutable. Such a system should be totally transparent. Consider this,
people already in academic positions have an interest in seeing that the
journals they are published in remain at a high ranking. The journals
have an interest in remaining highly ranked so they can sell copies.
This is key to this issue. Trying to reconcile the desires of profit
driven enterprises with academic integrity is a very difficult task. I
do wonder how academia got itself in the position of being beholden to
commercial publishing interests. History is replete with instances where
people couldn't get published because their research was so far from
established thought that neither publishers nor other academics would
assist them in getting their work out, even though they were proved to
be correct. Other academics are often the worst enemy of new research,
just consider the story of the cure for Yellow Fever.

Fourthly, because having published articles is not necessarily a good
indicator of one's ability to be a good teacher. At all.

Fifthly, because of the closed peer review system. IMHO the review
system should be open. At present people can sabotage work they don't
agree with because their review is never revealed. Moreover an open
system allows more eyes and brains to examine things and, has been shown
time and time again in open source software, the more eyes you have on
the code the more likely problems are to be identified.

My questions;
Who sets the ranking for the journals?
Are for profit publishers the best people to control academic publishing?
			

Regards,

Morgan Leigh
PhD Candidate
School of Sociology and Social Work
University of Tasmania





On 7/12/2010 10:10 PM, toyin adepoju wrote:
> Thanks for this Margaret.
> What do you say to the fact that it seems that a good number of the
>  most prestigious journals in the humanities are not OA? Does that not
> partly explain "Why one would publish with someone who is in the
> business of restricting access to one's work?"
> Can one afford to ignore non OA journals if one one wants to be promoted
> up the academic ladder?
> toyin
> 
> On 5 December 2010 11:02, Morgan Leigh <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
> 
>     Why one would publish with someone who is in the business of restricting
>     access to one's work is a mystery to me.
> 
>     http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0013636
>     -
>     "Self-Selected or Mandated, Open Access Increases Citation Impact for
>     Higher Quality Research"
> 
>     Abstract.
> 
>     Articles whose authors have supplemented subscription-based access to
>     the publisher's version by self-archiving their own final draft to make
>     it accessible free for all on the web (“Open Access”, OA) are cited
>     significantly more than articles in the same journal and year that have
>     not been made OA. Some have suggested that this “OA Advantage” may not
>     be causal but just a self-selection bias, because authors preferentially
>     make higher-quality articles OA. To test this we compared self-selective
>     self-archiving with mandatory self-archiving for a sample of 27,197
>     articles published 2002–2006 in 1,984 journals.
> 
> 
>     Conclusion.
> 
>     The OA advantage is greater for the more citable articles, not because
>     of a quality bias from authors self-selecting what to make OA, but
>     because of a quality advantage, from users self-selecting what to use
>     and cite, freed by OA from the constraints of selective accessibility to
>     subscribers only. It is hoped that these findings will help motivate the
>     adoption of OA self-archiving mandates by universities, research
>     institutions and research funders.
> 
> 
>     Regards,
> 
>     Morgan Leigh
>     PhD Candidate
>     School of Sociology and Social Work
>     University of Tasmania
> 
>     On 2/12/2010 11:54 PM, Margaret Gouin wrote:
>     > Sebastian,
>     >
>     > I published my doctoral dissertation through a 'reputable' academic
>     > publishing house.
>     > I regret it. Quite apart from the amount of time I had to spend
>     undoing
>     > all the many totally unnecessary errors the 'reputable' academic
>     > publishing house introduced into my original manuscript, they do not
>     > seem to be at all interested in promoting it. It is priced at an
>     > appalling and entirely unwarranted amount which puts it well
>     outside the
>     > reach of most people who might otherwise have bought it. My only
>     hope is
>     > that within a couple of years it will appear in paperback. Maybe.
>     It is
>     > highly unlikely that I will ever see more than a paltry sum in return
>     > for all the work I put into it.
>     > I should have gone through Lulu.com or something similar, and will
>     if I
>     > ever do another book.
>     >
>     > Sincerely,
>     > Margaret
>     >
>     >
>     > 2010/12/2 Sebastián <[log in to unmask]
>     <mailto:[log in to unmask]> <mailto:[log in to unmask]
>     <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>>
>     >
>     >
>     >     I am currently struggling against my own ego in whether I should
>     >     liberate my graduation thesis which I have in pdf format or
>     keep it
>     >     to myself until I manage to "publish" it.
>     >
>     >
> 
>     --
> 
> 

-- 

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

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
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005


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

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