MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2020978367 · doi:10.1353/scp.2011.0034

Academic Publishing in a Global Context: The Politics and Practices of Publishing in English (review)

2011· article· en· W2020978367 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
Juan Pablo Alperín

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Scholarly Publishing · 2011
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiquePublishing and Scholarly Communication
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPublishingPoliticsContext (archaeology)Political scienceSociologyMedia studiesPublic relationsHistoryLawArchaeology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Academic Publishing in a Global Context: The Politics and Practices of Publishing in English Juan Pablo Alperin (bio) Theresa Lillis and Mary Jane Curry. Academic Publishing in a Global Context: The Politics and Practices of Publishing in English New York: Routledge, 2010. Pp. 210. Paper: isbn 978-0-415-46883-1, us$44.95. The majority of English-speaking scholars do not pause to reflect on whether or not their work will be read by those outside the English-speaking world. In fact, scholars from the English-speaking world take for granted that their work will be published and read in English. On the other side of the equation are all the multilingual scholars around the world for whom publishing in a language other than their native language plays an important role in their academic careers. Whether you belong to the first group or the second, Theresa Lillis and Mary Jane Curry's Academic Publishing in a Global Context: The Politics and Practices of Publishing in English will challenge your perceptions of what it means to participate in global scholarship. Through the struggles and practices of non-English-speaking academics, Lillis and Curry challenge us to think about where we fit in a global system of knowledge production. Our place in this system includes the type of research we produce for each of our audiences, considerations related to who our audiences are, and the effects of the language we use on what knowledge is ultimately produced and disseminated. After a general introduction (chapter 1) and a description of the source materials for the study (chapter 2), the book begins by identifying the various communities of which scholars working in languages other than English are a part, as well as the various incentive structures surrounding publication for these different communities. Lillis and Curry challenge what is generally meant by 'international', introducing a key notion that is echoed throughout the book: the shift of the meaning of 'international' toward 'English-medium.' In many countries, publications in the English-medium 'international' community are the most highly rewarded. The book draws on a remarkable data set comprising eight years of data related to the work of fifty scholars from Slovakia, Portugal, Spain, [End Page 545] and Hungary. These scholars are primarily from the fields of education and psychology, although there is nothing in the work to suggest that the findings would vary in other disciplines, at least not within the social sciences. The data collected include texts (in as many drafts/iterations as possible); interviews; e-mail discussions; copies of correspondence between participants and colleagues, reviewers, or editors; and few less-used sources. Text histories provide a wealth of examples that the authors draw on to provide insight into the world of the scholars who took part in the study. By giving us the opportunity to empathize with the participants, Lillis and Curry allow us to reflect on the process non-English natives must go through simply to participate in the academic conversation. We clearly see that their efforts on top of the already tedious publication process are substantial. Using this data set, the authors successfully tackle two main objectives. The first of these is to provide an accurate description of the lives and practices of multilingual scholars working in contexts where English is not the primary medium of communication. The second is to contribute to the debate and understanding of academic production in the global context. The use of scholars' own words to set up and complement Lillis and Curry's arguments proves instrumental in achieving both objectives. The authors' initial discussion of the various communities to which non-English scholars belong, and of the various incentive structures surrounding publication in each of these communities, is accompanied by discussion texts such as this one: Let's put it another way. If it's in English, then it's considered that it has impact, just because it's in English. If it's in French, then they have to look into it, and oh, yeah, this is an international prestigious journal—and in Spanish then you know they're going to look at it with X-Rays to see to make...

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,032
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,139
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMétarecherche, Communication savante, Intégrité de la recherche
Catégories consensuellesMétarecherche, Communication savante
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,428
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,998

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0320,139
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0810,433
Science ouverte0,0040,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,009
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,116
Tête enseignante GPT0,310
Écart entre enseignants0,194 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.

Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations5
Publié2011
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of Scholarly PublishingMême sujetPublishing and Scholarly CommunicationTravaux en français237 207