PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY最新文献

Abstract

Undoubtedly, the invention of the printing press by Gutenberg brought about a profound paradigm shift, transforming both the late medieval book markets and the general reading culture. However, as with many paradigm shifts, we need to differentiate in this regard more than scholarship has acknowledged so far. First, many medieval narrative motives, topics and themes continued to be rather popular well into the seventeenth century, if not beyond. Second, manuscript culture did not simply disappear. Instead, as this article outlines, in many areas and especially among the upper social classes, luxury items in the form of manuscripts remained critically important. A closer analysis also indicates that many times practical knowledge (fencing, horse training, medicine, etc.) and personal observations were copied down by hand and thus passed on to the specific audiences without the printing press involved. The manuscript did not disappear at all; instead, it assumed a more specialized function in terms of knowledge, autobiographical reflections and social representation.

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.