PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY最新文献

This article presents a bibliometric analysis of the scientific production around the epistemic injustice construct in the period 1998–2023. The data to perform the analysis was retrieved from the Scopus and Web of Science databases, and its analysis tool was used to obtain the bibliometric indicators. As part of the analysis, the most relevant authors, the journals with the greatest impact, the countries with the greatest scientific production, and the areas where the subject has had a broader development are presented. In addition, a review of the articles with the greatest impact on scientific production under this theme is included. It is concluded that epistemic injustice is a concept that continues to develop and expand in the humanities and social sciences, health sciences, education and other fields.

This article reports on the Australian Publishing Industry Workforce Survey on Diversity and Inclusion, conducted in 2022 and co-funded by the University of Melbourne and the Australian Publishers’ Association. Through comparison with similar surveys from the UK and the US and Australian population data, we show that, as in those nations, the Australian publishing industry workforce is disproportionately White, with low representation of people of Asian, African and European cultural identities. The Australian industry lags in representation of First Nations Australians and inclusion of disabled people; is largely female, especially at the lower levels; is highly educated; and has high LGBTQ + representation. A striking finding from our survey is the very high proportion (59%) of Australian publishing workers with mental health conditions, a rate that may be related to the timing of our survey in the aftermath of COVID-19 restrictions but warrants close monitoring. Overall, the Australian survey findings should strengthen a global whole-of-industry commitment to structural changes that redress inequities, create positive workplaces and foster richer, more diverse cultural production.

Knowledge pertaining to scholarly publishing is not limited to information held within academic papers, and within a complex publishing environment that is in constant flux due to challenges and threats, there is interest in knowing how journals are adjusting to these parameters. The Internet Archive is a free and easy way to archive information that is found on websites. We recently argued for its use in the archival of website-based citations, and expand those arguments herein to focus on the importance to archive journal editorial boards, for three reasons: first, journals might not have any formal mechanisms to register changes in the editorial constitution of the board; second, there is historical importance in appreciating changes to editorial board constituency, including changes to gender representation; and third, changes might be made opaquely to hide or masquerade information that is intricately linked to the historical aspect of that journal. Our interest is thus not only within a historical prism, but also from a bibliometric point of view, given that the editorial board defines—to some extent—the journal’s content by serving as its gatekeepers of quality. We attempted to archive the editorial board pages of 46 journal editorial board URLs, achieving 100% mementos.

The research aims to evaluate the publication of scholarly journals in Lithuania, a small-language country, by analyzing the owners and publishers of scholarly journals. The results show that, since 1990, the publishing of Lithuanian scholarly journals has grown significantly: 225 scholarly journals were published in Lithuania by 73 different publishers in 2020. Social publishers, mostly state-funded universities, scientific institutes and colleges still held the largest market share of scholarly journals, but commercial publishers also appeared and started to make a business out of publishing scholarly journals. The analyzed data on publishers show that Lithuanian publishers have tried to take over and reorganize a number of scholarly journals from the Soviet era, while adapting to the dynamically changing world of scholarly publishing and moving from simple product sales models of the twentieth century to new digital ecosystems of the twenty-first-century age in which the essential distribution of publications is carried out digitally.

The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) is a leading ethics-promoting organization associated with academic publishing. COPE continuously fortifies its ethics guidelines, also serving as a warning portal of “predatory” publishing behavior. A 2019 COPE discussion document on “predatory publishing” lists 16 warning signs of predatory publishers/journals. Grounded in legitimacy theory, this study examines, by adopting COPE’s 16 warning signs of “predatory publishing” as criteria, the case of a current COPE member publisher, Academic and Business Research Institute (AABRI). Our assessment reveals that, according to COPE’s own stated criteria, AABRI would be considered as “predatory.” The objective of this case study was to appreciate whether COPE’s 16 warning signs may be insufficiently sensitive to detect a predatory journal or publisher, or whether those criteria require an adjustment if the journal/publisher is academically legitimate but is found to be otherwise. If such criteria were to be used widely by academics (and others) to characterize journals or publishers, but result in a surprising or undesired negative classification (“predatory”), then this may have widespread ramifications not only for global academia but also for scholarship and society at large. An incorrect classification could also negatively impact the COPE “brand” of ethical and scholarly legitimacy.