Book Publishing in the Humanities and Social Sciences in Australia, Part One: Understanding Institutional Pressures and the Funding Context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is part one of a two-part study on the publishing behaviours of academics in the humanities and social sciences (HSS) at Australian universities. Our data consist of semi-structured interviews with twenty-one participants. Part one explores how current institutional pressures and the research funding environment are shaping academics’ book publishing practices. In particular, we attend to the growing concerns of academics relating to the measurement and ranking of universities, which are driving performance expectations for publishing, and we examine how this trend is influenced by changes in governmental policy and the requirements of funding bodies. We found that Australian HSS academics face increasing pressure to publish journal articles rather than books, to publish books with prestigious international publishers, and to secure external funding for their research. These pressures could restrict their scholarly autonomy or even influence their research agenda. We contend that these developments have concerning implications for HSS in Australia.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.121 | 0.106 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.037 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.351 | 0.109 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".