I have to say I wholly agree with the sentiment of: http://tgr.ph/JRPaWz, Peer Review is lauded as the 'gold standard' for academia. However, I am obliged to point out the pitfalls:
1. The research becomes sanitised versions of what the authors may wish to say.
2a. Publishers much prefer text rather than diagrams. Diagrams take up valuable space and are difficult to produce. For someone with a visual communication style this is incredibly frustrating as diagrams become removed (e.g. compare Prof Elena P. Antonacopoulou's "Creating Actionable Knowledge for Impact Practising, Learning and Learning" in PDF form to "Impact and Scholarship: Unlearning and Practising to Co-create Actionable Knowledge", the updated article in Management Learning 40(4) 421-430). The all-important diagram for triple loop learning has disappeared.
2b. This makes the product less readable. There's nothing more off-putting than reams and reams of text.... a picture paints a thousand words :-)
3. The business model is absolutely crazy! We are buying back work academics have produced. We are locked in to this system as promotion depends on publication in good journals. Then, we need the good journals to refer to for our research. The publishers are making profits from the public purse.
4. We are required to genuflect to editors who have power over where, how and if your article is published. Thus, one is asked to add references (often the editors own work) which may or may not add to the final article.
5. I appreciate that knowledge is sedimentary. However, one becomes obliged to add references to work, simply to acknowledge that you are aware that it exists (even if you don't agree with it).
6. Even after all this rigorous process errors still exist. For example in Management Learning 43(1) p.114 Chris Argyris (1993, 2000) is credited with 'action learning philosophy. "Wtf?" is the note I made in the margin. I've read most of Chris's work, which is mainly concerned with action science. The action learning philosophy comes through Reg Revans. How did this glaring error get past the editors?
7. The pipelines for the top journals are obscene. The whole purpose of journals were they were quicker to produce than books. With print on demand this is no longer the case. However, due to a tradition we have been unwittingly locked in to, we have forgotten the original purpose of journals to promulgate knowledge. How does a two-year pipeline serve anybody except the publishers and editorial elite?
8. I've saved the best till last. Students deserve to access research so they are working on contemporary topics. Not just our students at our institutions, but students throughout the world. I believe Universities have a responsibility to propagate knowledge independent of partisan motives or profit motives.
Thus, my conclusions are that whilst I can live, for the most-part with the politics of publication, this business model is not sustainable and should be scrapped as early as possible. Free access to publicly funded research: bring it on!
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
Emirates CEO sees room for more US destinations
I had the pleasure of meeting Sheik Ahmed at the Graduation Ceremony of MBA Cohort 3 at the Emirates Aviation College in Dubai. I was impressed with his modest and approachable leadership style, as demonstrated in this interview:
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-05/D9UG0BEO0.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)