5Rs for Open Pedagogy

Author: Rajiv Jhangiani

Abstract: I have been thinking about the values and ideals that underpin open pedagogy for me. I say for me because these are personal, subjective, and contextual. This is similar to the concept of open pedagogy itself, which most of us are quite happy to have multiple definitions and understandings of (here’s one take from Robin and me, along with many others curated by the wonderful Maha Bali). In this iteration I am choosing to impose a constraint on my thinking by repurposing David Wiley’s structure of the 5R permissions of open educational resources to form a parallel construction. In doing so I am knowingly privileging concision and catchiness over complexity and comprehensiveness (this is why this list is 5Rs for, and not of, open pedagogy). I therefore encourage you to build upon, refine, contextualize, challenge, completely discard, or replace mine with your own, as you see fit.

Citation: Jhangiani, R. 5 Rs for Open Pedagogy. thatpsychprof.com. April 11, 2019.

VIEW

 

Source: thatpsychprof.com

Use of the Journal Impact Factor in academic review, promotion, and tenure evaluations

Authors: Erin C. McKiernan, Lesley A. Schimanski, Carol Muñoz Nieves, Lisa Matthias, Meredith T. Niles, Juan Pablo Alperin.

Abstract: The Journal Impact Factor (JIF) was originally designed to aid libraries in deciding which journals to index and purchase for their collections. Over the past few decades, however, it has become a relied upon metric used to evaluate research articles based on journal rank. Surveyed faculty often report feeling pressure to publish in journals with high JIFs and mention reliance on the JIF as one problem with current academic evaluation systems. While faculty reports are useful, information is lacking on how often and in what ways the JIF is currently used for review, promotion, and tenure (RPT). We therefore collected and analyzed RPT documents from a representative sample of 129 universities from the United States and Canada and 381 of their academic units. We found that 40% of doctoral, research-intensive (R-type) institutions and 18% of master’s, or comprehensive (M-type) institutions explicitly mentioned the JIF, or closely related terms, in their RPT documents. Undergraduate, or baccalaureate (B-type) institutions did not mention it at all. A detailed reading of these documents suggests that institutions may also be using a variety of terms to indirectly refer to the JIF. Our qualitative analysis shows that 87% of the institutions that mentioned the JIF supported the metric’s use in at least one of their RPT documents, while 13% of institutions expressed caution about the JIF’s use in evaluations. None of the RPT documents we analyzed heavily criticized the JIF or prohibited its use in evaluations. Of the institutions that mentioned the JIF, 63% associated it with quality, 40% with impact, importance, or significance, and 20% with prestige, reputation, or status. In sum, our results show that the use of the JIF is encouraged in RPT evaluations, especially at research-intensive universities, and indicates there is work to be done to improve evaluation processes to avoid the potential misuse of metrics like the JIF.

Citation:   McKiernan EC, Schimanski LA, Muñoz Nieves C, Matthias L, Niles MT, Alperin JP. 2019. Use of the Journal Impact Factor in academic review, promotion, and tenure evaluations. PeerJ Preprints 7:e27638v2 https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.27638v2

VIEW

 
 

Source: PeerJ Preprints

Outcomes and Impacts of Development Interventions: Toward Conceptual Clarity

Authors: Brian Belcher, Markus Palenberg

Abstract: The terms “outcome” and “impact” are ubiquitous in evaluation discourse. However, there are many competing definitions that lack clarity and consistency and sometimes represent fundamentally different meanings. This leads to profound confusion, undermines efforts to improve learning and accountability, and represents a challenge for the evaluation profession. This article investigates how the terms are defined and understood by different institutions and communities. It systematically investigates representative sets of definitions, analyzing them to identify 16 distinct defining elements. This framework is then used to compare definitions and assess their usefulness and limitations. Based on this assessment, the article proposes a remedy in three parts: applying good definition practice in future definition updates, differentiating causal perspectives and using appropriate causal language, and employing meaningful qualifiers when using the terms outcome and impact. The article draws on definitions used in international development, but its findings also apply to domestic public sector policies and interventions.

Citation: Belcher, B., & Palenberg, M. (2018). Outcomes and Impacts of Development Interventions: Toward Conceptual Clarity. American Journal of Evaluation39(4), 478–495. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214018765698

VIEW

 

Source: American Journal of Evaluation

Decoding Academic Fair Use: Transformative Use and the Fair Use Doctrine in Scholarship

Author: Matthew D. Bunker

Abstract: Fair use in copyright law is an enormously complex legal doctrine.  Although much scholarly attention has been paid to fair use in the context of teaching — particularly in on-line education — relatively little research exists on the problem of fair use in scholarship. This article analyzes reported federal cases on fair use in scholarly contexts, with a particular emphasis on the transformative use doctrine that has become enormously influential in fair use determinations. The article explores insights from this body of case law that may assist future scholars wishing to fairly use copyrighted expression in their scholarship.

Citation: Matthew D. Bunker “Decoding Academic Fair Use: Transformative Use and the Fair Use Doctrine in Scholarship.” Journal of Copyright in Education and Librarianship, 3:1 (2019).https://doi.org/10.17161/jcel.v3i1.6481

VIEW

 

Source: Journal of Copyright in Education and Librarianship

Balancing Needs in Publishing With Undergraduate and Graduate Students at Doctoral Degree-Granting Universities

Authors: Rebecca A. Lundwall, Cooper B. Hodges, Allison D. Kotter

Abstract: Professors at doctoral-degree granting universities tend to focus on publishing with graduate students more than with undergraduates. While we argue that publishing with undergraduates is worthwhile, we first want to point to organizational structures that contribute to the focus on graduate students. First, the hierarchical structure of doctoral universities can make publishing with undergraduates more difficult. Although it is often possible to delegate mentoring of undergraduates to graduate students, faculty have primary responsibility for mentoring graduate students (Espinoza-Herold and Gonzalez, 2007Ynalvez et al., 2014). Direct faculty mentoring of graduate students is necessary because success in obtaining postdoctoral positions, faculty appointments, and research-related employment is highly dependent on publishing with mentors while in graduate school (Hartley and Betts, 2009Casanave, 2010). Second, compared with undergraduate programs, graduate programs tend to provide more field-specific knowledge, greater depth of study, and increased focus on conducting research (Mangematin, 2000Austin, 2002Hakala, 2009Northwest Commission on Colleges Universities., 2018). A graduate student’s knowledge of the subfield can make publishing with graduate students less time consuming. Third, faculty at high research activity universities are under considerable pressure to publish frequently and in high-impact journals (Nir and Zilberstein-Levy, 2006Burks and Chumchal, 2009Rizzo Parse, 2009Everett and Earp, 2015), which makes publishing without students tempting. Nevertheless, publishing together can be rewarding for faculty, graduate students, and undergraduate students.

Citation: Lundwall RA, Hodges CB and Kotter AD (2019) Balancing Needs in Publishing With Undergraduate and Graduate Students at Doctoral Degree-Granting UniversitiesFront. Psychol. 10:295. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00295

VIEW

 

Source: Frontiers in Psychology

From coalition to commons: Plan S and the future of scholarly communication


Author(s): Rob Johnson

Abstract: The announcement of Plan S in September 2018 triggered a wide-ranging debate over how best to accelerate the shift to open access. The Plan’s ten principles represent a call for the creation of an intellectual commons, to be brought into being through collective action by funders and managed through regulated market mechanisms. As it gathers both momentum and critics, the coalition must grapple with questions of equity, efficiency and sustainability. The work of Elinor Ostrom has shown that successful management of the commons frequently relies on polycentricity and adaptive governance. The Plan S principles must therefore function as an overarching framework within which local actors retain some autonomy, and should remain open to amendment as the scholarly communication landscape evolves.

Citation: Johnson, Rob. 2019. “From Coalition to Commons: Plan S and the Future of Scholarly Communication”. Insights 32 (1): 5. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.453

View

Source: From coalition to commons: Plan S and the future of scholarly communication

“When You Use Social Media You Are Not Working”: Barriers for the Use of Metrics in Social Sciences

Authors: Lemke Steffen, Mehrazar Maryam, Mazarakis Athanasios, Peters Isabella

Abstract: The Social Sciences have long been struggling with quantitative forms of research assessment—insufficient coverage in prominent citation indices and overall lower citation counts than in STM subject areas have led to a widespread weariness regarding bibliometric evaluations among social scientists. Fueled by the rise of the social web, new hope is often placed on alternative metrics that measure the attention scholarly publications receive online, in particular on social media. But almost a decade after the coining of the term “altmetrics” for this new group of indicators, the uptake of the concept in the Social Sciences still seems to be low. Just like with traditional bibliometric indicators, one central problem hindering the applicability of altmetrics for the Social Sciences is the low coverage of social science publications on the respective data sources—which in the case of altmetrics are the various social media platforms on which interactions with scientific outputs can be measured. Another reason is that social scientists have strong opinions about the usefulness of metrics for research evaluation which may hinder broad acceptance of altmetrics too. We conducted qualitative interviews and online surveys with researchers to identify the concerns which inhibit the use of social media and the utilization of metrics for research evaluation in the Social Sciences. By analyzing the response data from the interviews in conjunction with the response data from the surveys, we identify the key concerns that inhibit social scientists from (1) applying social media for professional purposes and (2) making use of the wide array of metrics available. Our findings show that aspects of time consumption, privacy, dealing with information overload, and prevalent styles of communication are predominant concerns inhibiting Social Science researchers from using social media platforms for their work. Regarding indicators for research impact we identify a widespread lack of knowledge about existing metrics, their methodologies and meanings as a major hindrance for their uptake through social scientists. The results have implications for future developments of scholarly online tools and show that researchers could benefit considerably from additional formal training regarding the correct application and interpretation of metrics.V

Citation:   McKiernan EC, Schimanski LA, Muñoz Nieves C, Matthias L, Niles MT, Alperin JP. 2019. Use of the Journal Impact Factor in academic review, promotion, and tenure evaluations. PeerJ Preprints 7:e27638v2 https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.27638v2

VIEW

 

Source: Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics

Conditions d’une dénationalisation et décolonisation des savoirs

Author: Rada Iveković

Abstract: Pour décoloniser les savoirs, il faudrait au minimum déconstruire l’origine nationale des savoirs et des pouvoirs. C’est leur enracinement national qui rend possible leur colonialité intrinsèque. Décoloniser les savoirs relève d’une démarche à long terme, infinie, qui n’est pas seulement d’ordre épistémologique, mais aussi politique : elle concerne la justice, l’économie, les rapports sociaux ; elle porte sur le passé, le présent et l’avenir. Puisque le colonialisme est partie prenante du devenir de l’État national, tous deux reposant sur une hiérarchie consensuelle et codifiée des sexes et sur d’autres types d’inégalités constitutives, Une condition indispensable de la décolonisation des savoirs est leur dénationalisation.

Citation:   McKiernan EC, Schimanski LA, Muñoz Nieves C, Matthias L, Niles MT, Alperin JP. 2019. Use of the Journal Impact Factor in academic review, promotion, and tenure evaluations. PeerJ Preprints 7:e27638v2 https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.27638v2

VIEW

 

Source: Mouvements

Academy-owned? Academic-led? Community-led? What’s at stake in the words we use to describe new publishing paradigms


Authors: Melanie Schlosser (LPC Community Facilitator) and Catherine Mitchell (Director, Publishing & Special Collections, California Digital Library; Past President of the LPC Board).

Abstract: “Academy-owned” seems to be the descriptor du jour in scholarly communications circles.  We talk increasingly about academy-owned infrastructure, academy-owned publishing, academy-owned publications, etc. We find ourselves at meetings and conferences where we explore the challenges of supporting new forms of scholarly research, new modes of publication, new communities of readers — and there it is again — “academy-owned,” lurking in the conversation. We write grants whose very premise is that the academy will rise to claim its rightful place as the source, the maker, the distributor, the curator of its greatest asset — knowledge. There is definitely a movement afoot.

Citation: Melanie Schlosser & Catherine Mitchell. (2019, February 6). Academy-owned? Academic-led? Community-led? What’s at stake in the words we use to describe new publishing paradigms. LPC Blog. Retrieved from https://librarypublishing.org/alpd19-academy-owned-academic-led-community-led/.

View

Source: Academy-owned? Academic-led? Community-led? What’s at stake in the words we use to describe new publishing paradigms | Library Publishing Coalition

Future of scholarly publishing and scholarly communication

Author: Directorate-General for Research and Innovation (European Commission)

Abstract:The report proposes a vision for the future of scholarly communication; it examines the current system -with its strengths and weaknesses- and its main actors. It considers the roles of researchers, research institutions, funders and policymakers, publishers and other service providers, as well as citizens and puts forward recommendations addressed to each of them. The report places researchers and their needs at the centre of the scholarly communication of the future, and considers knowledge and understanding created by researchers as public goods. Current developments, enabled primarily by technology, have resulted into a broadening of types of actors involved in scholarly communication and in some cases the disaggregation of the traditional roles in the system. The report views research evaluation as a keystone for scholarly communication, affecting all actors. Researchers, communities and all organisations, in particular funders, have the possibility of improving the current scholarly communication and publishing system: they should start by bringing changes to the research evaluation system. Collaboration between actors is essential for positive change and to enable innovation in the scholarly communication and publishing system in the future.

Citation:   McKiernan EC, Schimanski LA, Muñoz Nieves C, Matthias L, Niles MT, Alperin JP. 2019. Use of the Journal Impact Factor in academic review, promotion, and tenure evaluations. PeerJ Preprints 7:e27638v2 https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.27638v2

 

VIEW

Source: Publications Office of the European Union