Lament for a lost running order? obsolescence and academic journals

This is the lead article for an issue of M/C Journal on the theme ‘obsolete.’ It uses the history of the International Journal of Cultural Studies (of which the author has been editor since 1997) to investigate technological innovations and their scholarly implications in academic journal publishing; in particular the obsolescence of the print form. Print-based elements like cover-design, the running order of articles, special issues, refereeing and the reading experience are all rendered obsolete with the growth of online access to individual articles. The paper argues that individuation of reading choices may be accompanied by less welcome tendencies, such as a decline in collegiality, disciplinary innovation, and trust.

Learning journals as a counseling strategy

The effects of counseling have been subject to extensive examination including the meta-analyses of Lipsey and Wilson (1993) and Matt and Navarro (1997). The results of these analyses demonstrated the positive effects of counseling interventions but do not indicate how, when, and why these benefits eventuated (Paul, 1967; Shadish & Sweeney, 1991), nor do they consider mediating variables. Much of the research in this area has involved the measurement of quantitative behavioral outcomes and short-term behavioral change (Steenbarger & Smith, 1996). However, there has been a recent move toward more qualitative, process-orientated research (Polkingthorne, 1994). This move addresses the previous methodological myopia but neglects the place of learning in the counseling process. It is suggested that if learning is viewed as underpinning all counseling, then clients should be able to transfer what they have learned from the counseling experience to problematical situations without the need for further counseling.

Journals as Social and Intellectual Fields: A Response

This review is in response to Thinking Collaboratively about Peer-Review Process in Journal Article Publication by Kevin K.Kumashiro. Several authors critique and analyse the reflections of Kevin K. Kumashiro on challenges to publishing ant-oppressive research in educational journals.

A discussion of the research performance evaluation in building and construction management discipline : the journal impact factors and SCI-index journals

The trend of diminished funding, demands for greater efficiency and higher public accountability have led to a rapid expansion of interest in the bibliometric assessment of research performance of universities. A pilot research is conducted to provide a preliminary overview of the research performance of the building and construction schools or departments through the analysis of bibliometric indicators including the journal impact factor (JIF) published by Institute for Scientific Information (ISI). The suitability of bibliometric evaluation approaches as a measure of research quality in building and construction management research field is discussed.

Self-narratives of children : using digital journals

This paper takes the position that children are at risk of being marginalised when research methods are not tailored to their requirements. In particular, children who are negotiating early adolescence are presented as an ideal group for involvement with narrative research approaches that attempt to be flexible and creative. With the premise that the need to juggle multiple realities within complex societal structures is challenging and isolating for such children, narrative methods offer a promising mode of access to their individual realities. Children's own self-narratives in the form of email journal entries are proposed as research tools that can help to minimise issues arising from resistance to adults and problems of shared vocabulary that may occur using more traditional methods. Digital journaling, as a means of capturing self-narratives, can provide a convenient space for young people to generate and share their own personal accounts of their lives and their experiences that can also serve to inform others. Guidelines are offered for how to manage a journaling project that is not reliant on children's physical presence within school settings. Digital journals are thus described as multi-function mechanisms that can support personal growth as well as promote shared understandings and social fairness between adults and children.

Understanding users’ information behaviors through information journals

Information behavior studies in the field of Library and Information Science (LIS) generally focus on one of many aspects of information behavior: information finding, information organizing, and information using. Information seeking is further specialized into information searching, information seeking, information foraging or information sense making. Spink and Cole (2006) highlighted the lack of integration across these various approaches and models of information behavior within LIS. Often, each approach provides a different language for similar processes (Spink & Cole, 2004), and it is sometimes hard for practicing information professionals to parse the various theories and models to see how they shape and affect the provision of information resources, services, and products. An integrated model of information behaviors that explains the key dimensions of how peoples’ contextual and situational dimensions affect their information needs and behavior will help information providers and LIS researchers alike with a framework that can help “depict and explain a sequence of behaviors by referring to relevant variables, rather than merely indicating a sequence of events… while indicating something about information needs and sources” (Case, 2002). This presentation presents an integrated model of peoples’ information behaviors based on research that studied participants’ information behaviors through a detailed daily information journal maintained for two weeks.

Australian Library and Information Studies (LIS) researchers' ranking of LIS journals

The paper describes the processes and the outcomes of the ranking of LIS journal titles by Australia’s LIS researchers during 2007-8, firstly through the Australian federal government’s Research Quality Framework (RQF) process and then its replacement, the Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA) initiative. The requirement to rank the journals titles used came from discussions held at the RQF panel meeting held in February 2007 in Canberra, Australia. While it was recognised that the Web of Science (formerly ISI) journal impact approach of journal acceptance for measures of research quality and impact might not work for LIS, it was apparent that this model would be the default if no other ranking of journal titles became apparent. Although an increasing number of LIS and related discipline journals were appearing in the Web of Science listed rankings, the number was few and it was thus decided by the Australian LIS research community to undertake the ranking exercise.

Predatory vs Quality Journals

“Predatory vs Quality journals,” presented by Paula Callan, Scholarly communications Librarian, QUT and Stephanie Bradbury, Research Support Coordinator, QUT. Presented 5 August via Blackboard Collaborate as part of the QULOC Research Support for Library Liaison webinar series. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

Down, You Vagabond of a Heart! : Romance and Created Personas in the Journals of L. M. Montgomery

Kanadalainen kirjailija L. M. (Ludy Maud) Montgomery (1874-1942) tunnetaan parhaiten lasten ja nuorten kirjallisuudestaan, erityisesti Anne of Green Gables -romaanistaan (suom. Annan nuoruusvuodet). Graduni tutkii kuitenkin Montgomeryn vähemmän tunnettua omaelämäkerrallista tuotantoa, hänen päiväkirjojaan, jotka on julkaistu viidessä osassa (1985-2004). Keskityn romanssin kuvaukseen Montgomeryn päiväkirjojen ensimmäisessä osassa ja tutkin, millaisia tekstuaalisia persoonia (personas) kertoja luo autobiografisessa prosessissa. Tähän narratiiviseen prosessiin vaikuttavat erityisesti päiväkirjan yleisö tai lukijat (audience), samoin kuin fiktiiviset esikuvat ja fiktiivisesti kirjoittaminen (fictionalisation) sekä kysymys päiväkirjan kertovasta ja kerrotusta minästä (narrated and narrating I). Romanssi on pääosassa Montgomeryn päiväkirjojen ensimmäisessä julkaistussa osassa, joka kuvaa hänen teini- ja varhaisaikuisuusvuosiaan. Väitän, että vaikka päiväkirjateksti saattaa vaikuttaa rehelliseltä ja todenmukaiselta kuvaukselta elämästä, varsinkin Montgomeryn tapauksessa kyseessä on silti läpikotaisin editoitu ja muokattu teksti, jota päiväkirjan tekijä hallitsee rautaisella otteella ja joka käyttää hyväkseen fiktiivisiä keinoja. Aineistonani käytän sekä Montgomeryn julkaistuja että julkaisemattomia päiväkirjoja, joita säilytetään University of Guelphin arkistoissa, Kanadan Ontariossa. Päiväkirjat ovat moneen kertaan sekä Montgomeryn että julkaistujen päiväkirjojen editoijien muokkaamia, joten niiden tutkiminen lähilukemalla (close-reading) ja eri versioita vertaillen on erityisen tärkeää. Teorian osalta keskityn lähinnä Pohjois-Amerikassa kirjoitettuun autobiografia- ja (naisten) päiväkirjatutkimukseen. Väitän gradussani, että Montgomeryn kuvaus heteroseksuaalisesta romanssista välttää tarjoamasta lukijalle romanssijuonen tyypillistä katharsista. Montgomeryn romanttiset persoonat ovat yllättävän epäromanttisia ja ristiriidassa keskenään. Romantiikan traditiolle tyypillistä kieltä ja personifikaatiota käytetään joko korostetun liioitellusti tai humoristisesti ja parodioiden.

Benchmarking Scientific Journals from the Submitting Author’s Viewpoint

Authors of scholarly papers to a large extent base the decision on where to submit their manuscripts on the prestige of journals, taking little account of other possible factors. Information concerning such factors is in fact often not available. This paper argues for the establishment of methods for benchmarking scientific journals, taking into account a wider range of journal performance parameters than is currently available. A model for how prospective authors determine the value of submitting to a particular journal is presented. The model includes eight factors that influence an author’s decision and 21 other underlying factors. The model is a qualitative one. The method proposes to benchmark groups of journals by application of the factors. Initial testing of the method has been undertaken in one discipline.

A Method for Comparing Scholarly Journals as Service Providers to Authors

When authors of scholarly articles decide where to submit their manuscripts for peer review and eventual publication, they often base their choice of journals on very incomplete information abouthow well the journals serve the authors’ purposes of informing about their research and advancing their academic careers. The purpose of this study was to develop and test a new method for benchmarking scientific journals, providing more information to prospective authors. The method estimates a number of journal parameters, including readership, scientific prestige, time from submission to publication, acceptance rate and service provided by the journal during the review and publication process. Data directly obtainable from the web, data that can be calculated from such data, data obtained from publishers and editors, and data obtained using surveys with authors are used in the method, which has been tested on three different sets of journals, each from a different discipline. We found a number of problems with the different data acquisition methods, which limit the extent to which the method can be used. Publishers and editors are reluctant to disclose important information they have at hand (i.e. journal circulation, web downloads, acceptance rate). The calculation of some important parameters (for instance average time from submission to publication, regional spread of authorship) can be done but requires quite a lot of work. It can be difficult to get reasonable response rates to surveys with authors. All in all we believe that the method we propose, taking a “service to authors” perspective as a basis for benchmarking scientific journals, is useful and can provide information that is valuable to prospective authors in selected scientific disciplines.