On the Coercive Nature of Research Impact Metrics: The Case Study of Altmetrics and Science Communication

Arboledas-Lérida, Luis

doi:10.1080/02691728.2021.1919237

Cited by 5 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 54 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As Davies et al (2007) suggest, ‘[t]he emphasis on reporting quantifiable outcomes in neo‐liberal forms of governance is always at risk of driving out the unquantifiable’. The fast and often quantifiable indicators of ‘success’ perhaps overtake the slower deliberation of research ideas, and research impact metrics threaten to take on a ‘coercive character’ as described by Arboledas‐Leirida (2021).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Navigating the complex space of journal editing: Exploring the tensions between the intellectual and commercial dimensions of academic publishing

Wainwright

Aldridge

Biesta

2023

British Educational Res J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A call for new editors for this journal was issued by BERA in November 2022. This comes as we enter our sixth and final year of editing BERJ. In this editorial, we reflect on the work of editors and the context within which editors are currently operating, notably that of academic publishing. This, we suggest, raises a set of questions around practices and priorities-those of editors and those of publishers-which have the potential to extend possibilities for journals but also to cause potential problems which require consideration.Through a detailing of the role of editors, BERA's criteria are clear that '[t]he editors take ultimate responsibility for the content and editorial direction of the Journal within the aims and scope agreed by Publications Committee' (BERA, 2022: 1). Moreover, the role of editors requires '[k]eeping abreast of, and managing the journal through, developments in the academic publishing landscape' (BERA, 2022: 2). While a clear set of editorial expectations is given by BERA, this point on developments in the academic publishing landscape, and notably in relation to the transition to open access, belies some of the ambiguities that have emerged in the broader landscape of journal editing with the development of a more complex relationship between journal editors and publishers.Journal editing is a crucial scholarly activity that shapes disciplines and maintains academic standards. There is now considerable cross-disciplinary research on the role of editors as gatekeepers or facilitators of a field of study, as well as a detailing of editors' work with authors and reviewers to ensure manuscript flow and timely communications. The transparency of editors' roles, or lack of, and the challenges and complexities of this have been much commented on (see Acker et al. (2022) for a recent example within higher education). The component parts of editorship have been laid bare, and critically so given that journals are fundamental institutions of modern academic work. However, what is less discussed is how editors are positioned in relation to, and work within, the wider academic publishing landscape. Moreover, what does this positioning mean for the role of editors and editorial practices, and are these compromised in the current academic publishing environment?The publishing landscape that BERA alludes to is growing in scale, range and scope. Journal editors increasingly work with large publishing houses-businesses whose practices and priorities they have little or no control over. Publishers are not neutral backdrops of journal organisation nor mechanisms solely for knowledge dissemination and reach. As publishing practices have changed considerably in recent decades and continue to change apace, they have become the focus of critique and concern, often centring on the extraction of profit from the production of academic knowledge and practice (see Biesta, 2012). Mangez and Hilgers (2012) argue that in a post-industrial society, intellectual work, like other forms of cultural work, is now subordin...

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%