Journal Editing and Ethical Research Practice: Perspectives of Journal Editors
Saved in:
| Title: | Journal Editing and Ethical Research Practice: Perspectives of Journal Editors |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Randell-Moon, Holly, Anderson, Nicole, Bretag, Tracey, Burke, Anthony, Grieshaber, Sue, Lambert, Anthony, Saltmarsh, David, Yelland, Nicola |
| Source: | Ethics and Education. 2011 6(3):225-238. |
| Availability: | Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 14 |
| Publication Date: | 2011 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Descriptive |
| Education Level: | Higher Education |
| Descriptors: | Writing for Publication, Research, Periodicals, Editing, Role, Faculty Publishing, Academic Discourse, Scholarship, Ethics, Integrity, Foreign Countries, Competition |
| Geographic Terms: | Australia, Nigeria |
| DOI: | 10.1080/17449642.2011.632717 |
| ISSN: | 1744-9642 |
| Abstract: | This article offers perspectives from academics with recent journal editing experience on a range of ethical issues and dilemmas that regularly pose challenges for those in editorial roles. Each contributing author has provided commentary and reflection on a select topic that was identified in the research literature concerning academic publishing and journal editing. Topics discussed include the ethical responsibilities of working with international and early career contributors to develop work for publication, balancing influence and responsibility to a journal's disciplinary field while maintaining the integrity of editorial and review processes, and the challenges of promoting scholarly research that pushes epistemological, methodological, and political boundaries in an increasingly competitive publishing climate. This article aims to stimulate discussion concerning the roles, responsibilities, and ethical challenges faced by journal editors, and the implications of these for ethical practices in academic publishing today. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Number of References: | 30 |
| Entry Date: | 2012 |
| Accession Number: | EJ949914 |
| Database: | ERIC |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| FullText | Links: – Type: pdflink Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwERaHJ-oTP4x7UftdB954ToAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDHFLS1Zp0WMTO4S5NQIBEICBmuq09XoAzsHt-2o64FT0B76JEfrpF-OmU3X7040VmMndmUAIJNaYafHlYTadTxwmidksNZPQ_Kg4kX7BYWkhBWDJqWyn57uqep-9PHLg33_OQjmZxE00lg5ZltbhS3cwMQv1nMP8Ywh9hrKkgA0E1lv1n_GASsfUc2kb37s2SfPYxuusjJj1wart9AhiWj-J7g0wOD0WjPGyJIA= Text: Availability: 1 Value: <anid>AN0069700489;[15up]01oct.11;2019Feb11.12:41;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0069700489-1">Journal editing and ethical research practice: perspectives of journal editors. </title> <p>This article offers perspectives from academics with recent journal editing experience on a range of ethical issues and dilemmas that regularly pose challenges for those in editorial roles. Each contributing author has provided commentary and reflection on a select topic that was identified in the research literature concerning academic publishing and journal editing. Topics discussed include the ethical responsibilities of working with international and early career contributors to develop work for publication, balancing influence and responsibility to a journal's disciplinary field while maintaining the integrity of editorial and review processes, and the challenges of promoting scholarly research that pushes epistemological, methodological, and political boundaries in an increasingly competitive publishing climate. This article aims to stimulate discussion concerning the roles, responsibilities, and ethical challenges faced by journal editors, and the implications of these for ethical practices in academic publishing today.</p> <p>Keywords: ethics; journal editing; research culture; higher education; politics</p> <hd id="AN0069700489-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Academic journals play an important role in shaping disciplinary fields and specialized subfields, and in maintaining the credibility of their research communities. Charged with oversight of multiple aspects of the publication process, journal editors are crucial to what has been referred to as the 'process of legitimation and control' (Wellington and Nixon [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref1">28</reflink>], 644) through which the credibility of journal publications is safeguarded. While these processes may be carried out somewhat differently across different contexts and disciplinary fields, there are some general points of consistency in the work of journal editors, who, according to Hitt ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref2">18</reflink>], 256) 'often play a very important role in the review and decision process ... they select individual scholars to serve on the editorial review board, and they also select the reviewers for each individual article'. This role is one that carries with it significant responsibilities toward a variety of stakeholders: submitting authors, reviewers, the disciplinary field, and the higher education sector. It is also a role that involves discursive privileges associated with the gatekeeper, network, and cultural advantages of the Anglophone academy (Aalbers and Rossi [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref3">1</reflink>]). This is perhaps most notable for editors in terms of status and prestige associated with high-level expertise, decision-making, and agenda setting in an increasingly competitive, high-stakes publishing climate.</p> <p>Journal publishing has also been described as 'a game' in which 'hegemonic academic practices are produced and maintained' (Meriläinen et al. [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref4">22</reflink>], 586). Thus, while accepted practices such as editorial screening of manuscripts, managing peer-review processes, communicating reviewer feedback to authors, and so on, are widely seen as the legitimate and legitimating means by which scholarly standards are upheld, these processes are themselves shaped by dominant discourses, paradigms and voices in a given field, and in academia more broadly. As Stanley ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref5">26</reflink>]) points out, research that critiques or challenges master narratives of, for example, race, gender, and epistemological paradigms can be systematically marginalized, disempowered and excluded by invisible systems of privilege; 'locality outside of Anglophone centre contexts tends to be marked, in contrast to Anglophone centre contexts where locality is "unmarked" ' (Lillis, Magyar, and Robinson-Pant [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref6">20</reflink>], 783). The review process can function to police particular ideological, epistemological, methodological, geographical or political boundaries through the commentary reviewers provide on manuscripts and the recommendations they make with regard to publication. Editors, in such situations, 'play a critical role not only in the manuscript-review process but also in perpetuating or challenging master narratives' (Stanley [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref7">26</reflink>], 20).</p> <p>For this special issue of <emph>Ethics and Education</emph>, seven academics with recent experience of journal editing, many of them founding editors of journals dedicated to new specialized subfields, were invited to comment on a nominated ethical dilemma, issue or challenge that they see as currently facing editors and editorial boards of academic journals. The brief to contributors was:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> a. to provide a short commentary on their own experience of the nominated issue pertaining to academic publishing;</item> <p></p> <item> b. to reflect on its impact on their work as a journal editor and their approach to addressing it;</item> <p></p> <item> c. to offer some insights as to what they see as important issues for educational ethics within higher education more broadly.</item> </ulist> <p>Key issues and themes were initially identified in the research literature concerned with journal editing and publishing and formed the basis of the topics journal editors were invited to comment on. Through this process, the aim was to bring together a range of voices and perspectives for the purpose of stimulating discussion and debate about what has become an increasingly intensified, competitive, and commodified domain of academic professional life. In particular, editorial power and responsibility must now be managed and negotiated in the context of the emergence of benchmarking exercises in western universities, such as the Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA) initiative (for the impact of the Research Assessment Exercise in the United Kingdom on journal publishing, see Campbell et al. [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref8">8</reflink>]; Bence and Oppenheim [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref9">4</reflink>]). The remaining sections of the paper offer a range of insightful accounts and reflections on the ways journal editors negotiate and manage the ethical responsibilities and power relations involved in journal publishing against these policy backdrops.</p> <hd id="AN0069700489-3">Safeguarding ethical practice and academic integrity</hd> <p>Dr. David Saltmarsh, Macquarie University, editor (2004–2010), <emph>Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education</emph></p> <p>Journal editors are regularly confronted with issues of ethics and integrity with regard to their journal editing practices. The workload of editing, a task undertaken by many Australian academics as an unpaid (and often unacknowledged) activity, typically involves the management of manuscripts of varying quality that are submitted to a journal and which should be responded to in timely fashion, answering queries from authors, arranging for manuscripts to be reviewed, and meeting the publisher's timetable. Ethical demands exist in most aspects of the editing practice: should a paper be reviewed or rejected, who should be asked to review, is the paper original work, have revisions been made in accordance with reviewer suggestions, should a revised manuscript be included in the next issue or held for a better balanced later number? These decisions, and others (Saltmarsh et al. [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref10">25</reflink>]), have added significance when the effects on authors and their career prospects are considered.</p> <p>Collegiality sits at the heart of the journal editing process but this spirit is increasingly threatened by the imperative to publish and the strategies used to assess performance. As Yeatman ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref11">29</reflink>]) has noted, with the rise of corporate managerialism from the late 1980s, competition has been promoted at the expense of collegial culture. Bazeley ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref12">2</reflink>]) considers collegiality to be concerned with sharing knowledge, ideas, and expertise, and as something separate from the dissemination of research in books, journals or reports. In fact many scholars investigating collegial cultures look for it at the level of the teaching department or research cluster (Yokoyama [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref13">30</reflink>]). Mentoring, for example, provides opportunities for collegial engagement when a protégé is advised which journals to publish in, how many articles to aim for to gain promotion or tenure, and the management of workload to enable drafting of manuscripts (Lumpkin [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref14">21</reflink>]). However, journal editing is dependant on a high level of collegiality and academics should bear this in mind as they contemplate the next items to be added to their publication lists.</p> <p>As a practice the editors of the <emph>Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education</emph> have invited authors published in the journal to review manuscripts, since they have demonstrated their capacity to write to the appropriate standard, and have produced research of significance and quality. To find that these scholars had sometimes made themselves unavailable was disappointing, though unknown factors may have caused this situation. Frustrating too is the frequent occurrence of contributors exceeding the journal's maximum word length, and often by senior colleagues. Raising this issue with the author or authors has lead to unpleasantness and threats to withdraw the paper rather than revise the work. Encouraging an author to revisit, again in some cases, a reviewer's advice can also have its awkward moments. Manuscripts, largely written by former research students, have also been submitted by their academic supervisor with no acknowledgement of collaboration or another author. These papers have been summarily rejected. Manuscripts containing research conducted without relevant ethical approval have suffered the same fate. Other work has arrived with large chunks of text identical to earlier publications produced by the author – the problem is somewhat reminiscent of spotting plagiarism in a student essay. Handing over the responsibility to guest edit a 'special issue' also presents difficulties in ensuring that all papers have actually been reviewed, are of a suitable quality and will be delivered to the publisher 'on time'. We as editors are aware of the pressure to publish and want to facilitate the process, but often find ourselves reminding our peers of the need to behave in a more ethical, collegial, and dignified way.</p> <hd id="AN0069700489-4">Balancing authority, influence and responsibility to the field</hd> <p>Dr. Nicole Anderson, Macquarie University, founding editor (with Professor Nick Mansfield), <emph>Derrida Today</emph></p> <p>Balancing influence and responsibility to a journal's disciplinary field, while maintaining the integrity of the editorial and review process, is a matter of endless negotiation between higher education institutions, authors, editors, and publishers. At the heart of these complex relationships is the question of what it means to be responsible or ethical in the context of journal publishing and editing, particularly in cases where a journal publishes work specifically focused on ethics in a particular disciplinary field. Questions of ethics are a central feature of both the scholarly content and management of the journal <emph>Derrida Today</emph>, founded by myself and Professor Nick Mansfield in 2008. The journal is focused on a single philosopher: Jacques Derrida, who is famous for deconstructing the notion of responsibility and ethics in works such as <emph>The Gift of Death</emph> (1995), <emph>Given Time</emph> (1992a), <emph>Of Hospitality</emph> (2000), <emph>Adieu: To Emmanuel Levinas</emph> (1999) and "Force of Law" (1992b).</p> <p>In balancing the formal academic requirements of journal editing and publishing with scholarly responsibility to Derrida's work, a series of questions emerge: to whom or what are we responsible? As the journal editors are we responsible to Derrida, his memory, and thus to the research on his work? Or are we responsible to the editorial and review process? The title of the journal, <emph>Derrida Today</emph>, conveys on the one hand a responsibility to the past (the memory and thought of Derrida, which also raises further questions about fidelity to his work), and on the other a responsibility to the present and the future (the continuing social and political relevance of Derrida, today). As we have stated in the Editor's Note, which is repeated at the beginning of each issue of the journal, while we the editors may have a vision of how the field should be represented and thus a responsibility to maintaining the field along a particular trajectory, the journal becomes determined by the submissions it receives and the outcomes of the reviews, particularly as reviewers who are experts in their respective fields also have their own notions of what constitutes the Derrida studies.</p> <p>Once the editing, selecting, and reviewing of the editorial process begin to inevitably shape the journal's disciplinary field, the notion of what constitutes responsibility and ethics undergoes a deconstruction of sorts (in the Derridean sense). For instance, I have noticed that in the negotiations I make between various parties (author, co-editor, publisher, editorial boards, reviewers and so on) one or the other of these parties is always privileged against the others. This privilege also depends on context and is contingent upon the larger cultural and institutional forces at play when publishing a paper or issue at a particular time. These negotiations require a decision that is often contingent and contextual, a process which deconstructs 'ethics' as a universal or fixed system of practices. My approach as an editor is to allow for and welcome these negotiations, both because doing so enables differences of opinion in a democratic way, but also because ethics as a practice can only occur in and through negotiation between different parties. It is in and through these negotiations that responsibility is possible.</p> <p>Significantly, some universities have removed themselves from this ethical negotiation by not offering support for journal editors (in terms of financial or workload contribution or acknowledgment in research weighting/points), partly because journals are published not by a university, but a publishing house. In other words, some institutions do not partake of this ethical negotiation but close it down by lack of financial support, and by endorsing and perpetuating (for instance, through journal ranking and impact exercises) certain kinds of knowledge(s) and ethics which conform to the rules and legislation of particular institutional discourses. Yet despite this, there is constant ethical negotiation among authors, publishers, reviewers and editors: precisely those who reside and work <emph>within</emph> the institution of higher education to more broadly promote the work of higher education.</p> <hd id="AN0069700489-5">Shaping the field through editorial and review processes</hd> <p>Dr. David Saltmarsh, Macquarie University, editor (2004–2010), <emph>Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education</emph></p> <p>From time to time I hear members of my academic department suggest that 'we should start up a journal' as a means of publicizing our research, promoting the University/Faculty/Department, or just having an input into our respective disciplinary fields. It was enthusiasm of this sort that led me to suggest to three of my colleagues that we prepare a proposal to edit an established journal in teacher education on behalf of a 'learned society': learned society being the term publishers use to refer to a group like the Australian Teacher Education Association (ATEA). Between the four of us we had expertise in research concerning early childhood, school, higher and vocational education, and a variety of methodological and theoretical perspectives. We made our intentions for the journal clear in our proposal to the Association, and restated them in our first editorial of the <emph>Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education</emph> (APJTE):</p> <p>We hope to encourage the contribution of papers that are characterized by a theoretical depth and critical appraisal of the issues under consideration and believe that this would significantly enhance the scholarly standing of the Journal. This is consistent with our aim of raising the status of educational research and would promote more conceptual, analytical and critical reviews of teacher education (Sumsion et al. [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref15">27</reflink>], 1).</p> <p>It was clear that research in education was considered relatively weak and, whether that was actually the case or not, aiming to raise the quality and integrity of published work was an initial focus for the editors of APJTE. In order to attract experienced scholars and quality submissions to the journal, three strategies were used. First, we revised our board of consultants, to give greater geographic coverage, and liaised with them to identify appropriate reviewers from the various regions. Second, to expand the reach of the journal, we sought to have at least one international reviewer for each manuscript sent for review. Each manuscript is sent to at least two expert reviewers, and by using this strategy we reduced the Australian-centric appearance and brought APJTE to the attention of a wider scholarly readership. Third, having one themed issue overseen by a guest editor increased the number of issues per year to four. These 'special issues' allowed topics to be treated in greater depth than we could in the editorials, enabled the inclusion of more voices and potentially brought the journal to the attention of additional readers.</p> <p>These strategies were adopted not just as ways of promoting the journal and attracting more submissions, but also as a means of improving editing practices. We considered reviewer time a highly prized, scarce resource and consequently the editors chose to reject some manuscripts rather than send all submissions out to review. This increased editor workload but wasted less reviewer time. International reviewers gave valuable feedback to contributors about the way that a submission might be regarded by readers outside the country of the author/s. This, we believe, did much to give the journal a stronger world standing. We also expected special issue editors to provide evidence of blind peer-review for each of the papers and that no more than 50% of the papers in the special issue would come from any one institution. Papers that gave no indication of using ethical practices in gathering data were queried in the first instance and rejected if this step had been ignored. Our publisher, Taylor and Francis based in the UK, was subject to European Union (EU) publishing laws and hence so were we. These laws require researchers to abide by the standards of their country in which the work was conducted, and the researcher's institutional location. This was a welcome safeguard as many instances of not having gained ethics approval for projects came from Australian or New Zealand authors.</p> <p>Throughout my 20 plus years in higher education, I have been reminded to 'publish or perish', and the expectation that academics will publish is now even more emphatic. APJTE has improved its position in journal ranking since 2005 when we undertook to edit the journal. In 2005, it was not even on the Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST) list of approved peer-reviewed, internationally available journals. Now, it has electronic manuscript submission and review, is ISI ranked, has an A* ERA ranking and is edited by a group of four scholars in three universities, across two states of Australia. The journal's standing is strong and the editing practices are ethical, scholarly, and sustainable and as such it is well placed to shape research in teacher education.</p> <hd id="AN0069700489-6">Navigating professional networks in a competitive publishing environment</hd> <p>Professor Nicola Yelland, Victoria University, and Professor Sue Grieshaber, Queensland University of Technology, founding editors, <emph>Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood</emph> (CIEC)</p> <p>In the search for the ethical university, which we believe should include a recognition and respect for diversity and equity, we wanted to create a space and community for publishing in our field that provided an alternative to the then existing mainstream sources. Traditionally, early childhood education (ECE) is aligned with developmental psychology and has a particular view of what constitutes the 'norm' for children and how development should progress in a 'regular' sequence of events. Accordingly, those who did not 'fit' could be identified and intervention strategies were then designed to rectify their deficit. Aligned with this was the notion of developmentally appropriate practice (DAP) (Bredekamp [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref16">5</reflink>]; Copple and Bredekamp [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref17">9</reflink>]), which asserts that there is a 'best practice' that can be identified and that a 'right' way to initiate curriculum development exists. Much of this study was quantitative in nature and we felt it did not capture the diversity and cultural aspects of children's lives in the twenty-first century. Hence, the first edition of <emph>Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood</emph> (CIEC) was published in 2000. At that time, while publishing in the discipline of Education/Early Childhood Education was competitive, it was not fraught with the pressures and anxieties associated with contemporary ranking and citation frequencies which have changed the landscape considerably.</p> <p>The role of conducting and publishing research is an integral part of academic life. We believed that it was possible to provide opportunities for the dissemination of cutting edge work in the field that made a worthwhile contribution to scholarship and adhered to principles and values that were grounded in respect for others and their values, integrity of the material and the creation of a community of practice. For us, two (among many) ethical questions were important:</p> <p>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref18">1</reflink>) How could we establish and maintain a reputation for publishing quality alternative pieces of scholarship?</p> <p>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref19">2</reflink>) In what ways could we encourage and support new scholars in this critical and fundamental academic endeavour?</p> <p>We knew that maintaining the journal's reputation and profile hinged on publishing interesting and well-written research papers or conceptual pieces. This was not easy, and the first 4 years were particularly difficult because we did not have a profile in the field and established scholars tended to send their material to 'safe' journals. New scholars sent us work that, while interesting, often revealed a lack of expertise in writing that was commensurate with their range of experiences and opportunities. Hence, we were faced with a severe lack of suitable material to publish. Luckily, our own broad professional networks sustained the journal in these early years and took up a lot of our time in the process.</p> <p>Our professional networks not only provided us with content but also they enabled us to form an editorial board and collect reviewers. Their expertise, and the time they spent to give detailed feedback to authors so that each paper might be revised, or not, for publication, was vital to the early success of the journal. We also spent a great deal of time with authors from a variety of countries such as Turkey, Greece, Nigeria, Tanzania, Ghana, Singapore, Nepal (to name a few), so that we were able to publish their papers and/or colloquia. The issues associated with this were complex and we faced a number of dilemmas. The range of articles that we worked on with these authors had rarely been published in 'western' scholarly journals. The topics, while new and forward thinking in their own environs, were often uncritical of change and purely descriptive in nature. A new genre of thinking and writing was needed for them to be relevant to the readers of CIEC. This often took large amounts of our time but we believed it was worth pursuing and the authors indicated that the learning process had been valuable to them in terms of creating a broader readership for their work. The pressure on these authors to garner publications seemed to be similar to our own. This in turn led us to consider the ethics of university management in non-western countries who required academics to publish an article a year in western journals, usually in English. Naturally, as the scholars we worked with became part of the professional network of early childhood education scholars, the journal was enriched and became much more representative of the global context we had hoped to connect with.</p> <p>In an increasingly competitive climate, we have maintained this mentoring style of working. It has been difficult but important to maintain in terms of what we set out to do. Creating a professional network of scholars and reviewers to support publication requires an extensive amount of hard work and time spent researching potential reviewers to insure that they are sympathetic to the aims and scope of the journal. It is much harder to do this now, a decade on from when we started, since the ranking of journals, citation indexes, and national audits of research performance (e.g. the RAE exercises in the UK and the ERA in Australia) dominate the performance of academics who want to publish in established outlets. More recently, due to our high (A) ranking, as well as our large readership, we have been inundated with more submissions, many of which are not aligned with our aims and scope, while being in the broad area that is early childhood education. In this way we have taken the decision, as the editors, not to send them out for review, since they would be better aligned with more traditional ECE journals. It was imperative for us to establish our 'identity' as a journal that was synonymous with quality and cutting edge work in the field. Our work over the past 11 years has grown from being one of the first online fully refereed international research journals in ECE to one of many.</p> <hd id="AN0069700489-7">Working with international and early career authors to develop work for publication</hd> <p>Dr. Tracey Bretag, University of South Australia, founding editor, <emph>International Journal of Educational Integrity</emph></p> <p>My first experience of working on an academic journal involved being a member of the editorial board of the small Australian journal, <emph>Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) in Context</emph>, at that time being edited by colleagues at the University of Adelaide. Although my colleagues and I, many of whom had not yet completed their PhDs, struggled through the process, this apprenticeship proved very useful when my colleague Helen Marsden and I decided to launch an online journal dedicated to the field of academic integrity. One lesson I had taken away from my <emph>TESOL in Context</emph> days, and perhaps this was to be expected of a journal that targeted both teachers of English to speakers of other languages, and learners of English as an additional language, was the value of the generous mentoring that the executive editors provided to authors.</p> <p>Given the trans-disciplinary nature of our topic, when the first issue of <emph>International Journal for Educational Integrity</emph> (IJEI) was launched in December 2005, my co-editor and I had almost no idea what to expect in terms of who might submit papers for review and what those submissions might look like. Submissions for the first three issues came from mostly unsurprising quarters – researchers, practitioners, and others working in language and academic skills or teaching and learning units, with a focus largely on student plagiarism. However, by Volume 3(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref20">1</reflink>) in 2007, and having become sole editor due to my co-founder's career change, submissions were coming in from eclectic and far-ranging disciplines, including health sciences, mathematics, online learning, moral education, and librarianship. Furthermore, I was receiving papers from countries all over the world.</p> <p>In 2007, I received a potentially very important paper from academics in Nigeria. The paper detailed egregious breaches of integrity in virtually every aspect of the Nigerian education system, which made the issues previously canvassed by the journal (plagiarism, citation practices, second language writing issues) look almost insignificant. I wanted very much to publish the paper, and believed I had a moral responsibility to do so. However, the paper in its original form was nowhere near the standards required for publication, nor even suitable to be sent to a kindly reviewer. Following the lead of my <emph>TESOL in Context</emph> colleagues, I chose to work closely over a 12-month period with the authors to develop the paper, so that it could at least be sent for review. The review process then resulted in further extensive and multiple revisions with the result that the paper was finally published in Volume 4(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref21">1</reflink>) in June 2008. The sense of jubilation expressed in an email by the authors and the immediate impact it had on their own research and teaching contexts in terms of a call at the highest level for a review of policy, convinced me of the importance of the mentoring role that editors can play in working with less experienced authors.</p> <p>Of course, I am not suggesting that all editors can or even should provide such labor-intensive support to new authors. In fact, since the Nigerian paper was published I have received an inordinate number of submissions from African countries, most of which are very far from an appropriate standard to be sent for review. My own limited resources as the editor of an open access, online and unfunded journal, has meant that I have had to reject most of these papers outright. I do believe, however, that in some cases authors have such an important or original story to tell that journal editors should consider how best to support the publication process, rather than stop it in its tracks. Of all the research published in the IJEI to date, it is the Nigerian paper which best encapsulates the mission of the journal and my own aspirations as an academic.</p> <hd id="AN0069700489-8">The ethics of editing postgraduate and early career researcher publications</hd> <p>Dr. Anthony Lambert, Macquarie University, editor, <emph>NEO: Journal for Higher Degree Research Students in the Social Sciences and Humanities</emph></p> <p>When approaching the notion of 'an ethics of editing', especially within the context of the university and certainly with respect to work of postgraduates and early career researchers (ECRs), one invariably draws upon discursive constructions of stewardship and responsibility – in both descriptions of the work of editing and the enactment of the role of editor itself. In my role as Director of Higher Degree Research in Critical and Cultural Studies at Macquarie University (2004–2009), I edited the work of many postgraduates both prior to and during the publication process. Since 2007, I have been co-editor of the journal <emph>NEO: Journal for Higher Degree Research Students in the Social Sciences and Humanities</emph> (with Willa McDonald), and have been sole-editor of the inaugural issues of that journal in 2008 and 2010.</p> <p>The stated aim of <emph>NEO</emph> is to promote, develop, and disseminate the work of progressing postgraduate and Honours students. To this end, the ethics of editorial work are both similar and different with respect to the treatment of established authors and the content of their work. Certainly the familiar constraints of time, genre, and 'quality' still apply. The same processes of refereeing and insuring stylistic compliance also apply. Yet with emerging scholars, this process of 'judging', communicating outcomes and redrafting work holds the extra dimension of <emph>fostering</emph>: one that a quick rejection or the reinforcement of a generic template with respect to scholarly articles might actually work against. More in-depth communication is required with a view to understanding the ways this could be considered a testing of the research, a test of self even, to see if the work is 'worthy' or (as in the case of Honours students) to see if one should even go any further with writing and research.</p> <p>Language is an issue too. As other editors have found when publishing journals in the English language, both those who do and who do not have English as their first language can frequently find themselves challenged. Requests for authors to revise their work in accordance with 'acceptable' publishing standards require careful consideration so that suggested changes do not impinge on the argument and the sense of the text. In the case of <emph>NEO</emph>, I recently allowed a postgraduate to publish in both French and English simultaneously. No doubt this might be considered a dangerous precedent, but one that invites the question: how might the reinforcement of linguistic norms in some cases silence the researcher, and how might it constitute another form of socio-linguistic (neo)colonialism?</p> <p>The editorial and review processes play a significant role in 'roping in' developing research through an adherence to the generic expectations of traditional scholarly/critical writing. In at least two of the years <emph>NEO</emph> has been published, rejections have been premised on the basis of not replicating the hypothesis-testing model and/or the introduction-body-conclusion writing structure. Fostering new research requires an editorial openness to different methods of information gathering and the different forms that research can take. In 2010, I created a section in <emph>NEO</emph> for other types of research work that fell outside the traditional critical essay – work based around interviews, the photographic essay or the research report for instance. As new critical work in the social sciences and humanities develops and changes, the ethical position of the editor is indeed one of responsibility to authors and subjects, but with it comes a required sensitivity and flexibility that differentiates the process from traditional editorial practice.</p> <hd id="AN0069700489-9">Pushing epistemological, methodological or political boundaries</hd> <p>Associate Professor Anthony Burke, University of New South Wales, founding editor, <emph>Borderlands e-journal</emph></p> <p>What is the boundary, and how does it work in relation to knowledge? Does it keep us safe, or endanger us? What are the ethics of the boundary, and of crossing the boundary?</p> <p>These questions lie at the core of the <emph>Borderlands</emph> project, for a number of reasons. Firstly, because the journal was consciously established to create 'transdisciplinary spaces' for scholars to think and imagine beyond the invisible (and sometimes very tangible) boundaries that have been erected between various forms of the humanities and social sciences. Secondly, because so much about modern political and economic life seems to function according to boundaries, borders and distinctions, which in turn activate dynamic structures of privilege, violence, and power that all too often present themselves as the natural way of things. And thirdly, because a project which sought to open up intellectual space to deconstruct and challenge such boundaries would, in turn, raise the question of politics and responsibility when putting new ideas, connections, truths and possibilities into the world. Such a project is both hopeful, and dangerous.</p> <p>The context in which <emph>Borderlands</emph> came into being was geopolitically intense: the 9/11 attacks, the declaration of a 'war on terror', the <emph>Tampa</emph> crisis in Australia and a renewed push there and in parts of Europe to lock the door to asylum seekers; humans, who through their very existence called for a new kind of justice, challenged the restrictive ontology of the modern nation-state and deconstructed the boundaries that apparently kept the world solid. Matching theory with reality was a challenge both for established forms of social science and ideology, and insurrectionist ones as well. Events were outpacing theory. At the heart of the <emph>Borderlands</emph> project, and problem, is the fact that the forms, structures and uses of knowledge are utterly political, at least in their effects and often in their construction and operation. Foucault's question of power and truth (1991, 2000, 2003) is not just visible in public debate and policy, inflected by news values and extremist ideology, but in routine practices of grant, journal, and manuscript assessment, in the everyday judgments about what methodologies are legitimate routes to knowledge, and what kind of norms matter; in short, about how reality is to be understood and described through social science.</p> <p>Against this background, <emph>Borderlands</emph> sought, as I wrote in its original 'manifesto', to enable a 'a blurring of disciplinary boundaries in a way that both creates new hybrids of knowledge and practice, and forces a recasting of the internal rules which govern disciplinary truths – rules which define their boundaries, their shared norms and biases, permissible research projects and forms of writing':</p> <p>For too long some of the most influential disciplines in the humanities [and social sciences] – disciplines such as politics and economics, which determine the course of nations and the human possibilities of millions – have shared more with the enterprise of 'Newspeak' in which the boundaries of the thinkable perpetually contract and ossify. As Orwell implicitly understood, this is a serious political danger, both for the practice of democracy and the enterprise of policy. It reduces knowledge to an instrumental tool, a political commodity, and mouths an arrogant rebuke to the liberal premises of the university as a free space of intellectual inquiry (Burke [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref22">6</reflink>]).</p> <p>After 10 years of publication (we celebrate our anniversary this year), <emph>Borderlands</emph> is certainly a success, with a strong identity, a global readership, and thriving scholarship traversing many forms of politics and transdisciplinary knowledge. Even as culture wars over both political ideology and the disciplinary identity of the social sciences will continue to flow around the journal, my feeling is that a deeper ethical dilemma lies with the political consequences of the thinking spaces – the new forms of knowledge – that we have opened up, invented, and found. Streams of recent scholarship, some of which has appeared in <emph>Borderlands</emph>, make me wonder if after the critiques of globalization and biopolitics, are liberalism, enlightenment, and the human, now passé? Or do they have critical potentials which must be nurtured and rethought (Burke forthcoming)? In grappling with the interconnected ecological, conflict, sovereign, and market crises that we face, will we respond with what Ulrich Beck calls a 'deformed cosmopolitanism' that 'is passively and unwillingly suffered ... something deformed and profane, cloaked in the anonymity of a side effect" ' (2010, pp. 20–21), or rise to its complexities with a work of careful deconstruction that truly understands the complexity of the jagged relationship between theory and event? As a response to the crisis in the global ecology, an argument for the global suicide of humanity (Kochi and Ordan [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref23">19</reflink>]) brings us to the lip of an abyss, toward a politics of destruction rather than patient remaking amid unavoidable undecidability.</p> <hd id="AN0069700489-10">Conclusion</hd> <p>Journals have a significant influence in shaping the epistemological assumptions and normative practices of a discipline. As such, journal editing is necessarily tied to the establishment of boundaries – around the discipline or field in which content is to be published, around the relationships that can be ethically maintained between editors, reviewers, and contributors and what constitutes knowledge and research itself. In order to manage these boundaries, journal editing involves both formal and informal ethical practices and responsibilities. For the contributors in this article, ethical conduct in the editorial policies and practices of a journal is tied to quality of content; a quality journal and exemplary ethical standards go hand in hand. Yet, the maintenance of these standards relies largely on informal collegiality and an editor's professional networks. David Saltmarsh finds this collegiality threatened by ranking exercises which decrease incentives for editors as well as reviewers to participate in journal publishing. As others have noted, assessment exercises create a research culture where 'publication itself ... [is] the objective of [academics'] work, rather than the dissemination of knowledge and ideas for which publication is really only the vehicle and initial stage' (Mynott [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref24">23</reflink>], 131). A number of contributors in this article also point to the adverse effects these exercises have on the establishment of new journals or specialized fields of research. Conversely, pressure to publish in high ranked journals means that the editors of those journals face increasing numbers of submissions that add to the (unpaid and unrecognized) labor of journal management.</p> <p>Many of the contributors also cited a respect for diversity and equity that is difficult to maintain within a journal publication system that more often than not reinforces rather than challenges the discursive privileges of an Anglophone academy. Anglophone conventions of language and journal publishing often prove exclusionary in terms of contributions from non-western scholars, who face their own institutional requirements to publish in English-speaking journals. Provided editors have the time to mentor and support this research, it is possible to foster a diverse publishing environment. If however, the time-constraints placed on editors and the increasing pressure placed on academics to publish in high-ranking journals threatens the mentoring and support of emerging scholars, then it seems likely that benchmarking exercises will further cement the Euro-centric focus of journal publishing (Paasi [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref25">24</reflink>]). Anthony Burke's critique of the boundaries placed around the types of knowledge permitted, in epistemological, political, and institutional terms, to understand and describe our reality is salient. Ultimately, it is the scholarly and personal investment in maintaining an equitable, generous, and rigorous publishing environment, evidenced by the contributors to this article, that is required to challenge the stratification of academic scholarship that benchmarking exercises serve to entrench.</p> <hd id="AN0069700489-11">Acknowledgments</hd> <p>Holly Randell-Moon extends her warmest thanks to Sue Saltmarsh and Wendy Sutherland-Smith for commissioning her to coordinate this paper. Their guidance, insight and support significantly shaped the paper's themes. She also thanks the paper's contributors who generously offered their observations and reflections in an exercise of multi-authored transdisciplinarity that constitutes a small, but important, challenge to the increasingly stratified publishing environment we find ourselves in.</p> <ref id="AN0069700489-12"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref3" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Aalbers, MB and Rossi, U. 2007. A coming community: Young geographers coping with multi-tier spaces of academic publishing across Europe. Social and Cultural Geography, 82: 283–302.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref12" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Bazeley, P. 2010. Conceptualising research performance. Studies in Higher Education, 35(8): 889–903.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Beck, U. 2010. Cosmopolitan vision, Cambridge: Polity.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref9" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Bence, V and Oppenheim, C. 2004. The role of academic journal publications in the UK Research Assessment Exercise. Learned Publishing, 17: 53–68.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref16" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bredekamp, S. 1987. Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs serving children from birth through age 8, Washington, DC: NAEYC.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref22" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Burke, A. 2001. The Borderlands manifesto. <ulink href="http://www.borderlands.net.au/about/manifesto.html">http://www.borderlands.net.au/about/manifesto.html</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Burke, A. Humanity after biopolitics: On the global politics of human being. Angelaki, 16(4)Forthcoming</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref8" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Campbell, K, Vick, DW, Murray, AD and Little, GF. 1999. Journal publishing, journal reputation, and the United Kingdom's Research Assessment Exercise. Journal of Law and Society, 26(4): 470–501.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref17" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Copple, C and Bredekamp, S. 2009. Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs serving children from birth through age 8, Washington, DC: NAEYC.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Derrida, J. 1992a. Given time: I. Counterfeit money, trans. P. Kamuf, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Derrida, J. 1992b. "Force of law, trans. M. Quaintance". In Deconstruction and the possibility of justice, Edited by: Cornell, D, Rosenfeld, M and Carlson, DG. 3–67. New York: Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Derrida, J. 1995. The gift of death, trans. D. Wills, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Derrida, J. 1999. Adieu to Emmanuel Levinas, trans. P.A. Brault and M. Naas, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Derrida, J. 2000. Of hospitality, trans. R. Bowlby, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Foucault, M. 1991. "Governmentality". In The Foucault effect: Studies in governmentality, Edited by: Burchell, G, Gordon, C and Miller, P. 87–104. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Foucault, M. 2000. "Truth and juridical forms". In Power: Essential works of Foucault, 1954–1984, Edited by: Faubion, JD and Rainbow, P. 1–89. New York: New Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Foucault, M. 2003. "14 January 1976". In In "Society Must Be Defended": Lectures at the Collège de France, 1975–1976, trans. M. Bertani and A. Fontana, 23–41. London: The Penguin Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hitt, MA. 2008. Editorial judgements, quality scholarship, and the academy of management's journals. Organizational Resarch Methods, 12(2): 253–8.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kochi, T and Ordan, N. 2008. An argument for the global suicide of humanity. Borderlands, 7(3.)<ulink href="http://www.borderlands.net.au/vol7no3%5f(2008)/kochiordan%5fargument.pdf">http://www.borderlands.net.au/vol7no3%5f(2008)/kochiordan%5fargument.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lillis, T, Magyar, A and Robinson-Pant, A. 2010. An international journal's attempts to address inequalities in academic publishing: Developing a writing for publication programme. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 40(6): 781–800.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lumpkin, A. 2009. Follow the yellow brick road to a successful professional career in higher education. The Educational Forum, 73(3): 200–14.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Meriläinen, S, Tienari, J, Thomas, R and Davies, A. 2008. Hegemonic academic practices: Experiences of publishing from the periphery. Organization, 15(4): 584–97.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mynott, J. 1999. Publishing: A view from Cambridge University Press. History of the Human Sciences, 12(4): 127–31.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Paasi, A. 2005. Globalisation, academic capitalism, and the uneven geographies of international journal publishing spaces. Environment and Planning A, 37: 769–89.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saltmarsh, D, McMaugh, A, Symes, C and Sumsion, J. 2005. 'Disgusting', 'abominable' and 'pathetic': Making teacher education presentable. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 33(2): 111–13.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stanley, C. 2007. When counter narratives meet master narratives in the journal editorial-review process. Educational Researcher, 36(14): 14–24.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sumsion, J, Symes, C, Saltmarsh, D and McMaugh, A. 2005. Editorial: Generational and situational change. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 33(1): 1–3.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wellington, J and Nixon, J. 2005. Shaping the field: The role of academic journal editors in the construction of education as a field. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 26(5): 643–55.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yeatman, A. 1993. Corporate managerialism and the shift from the welfare to competition state. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 13(2): 3–9.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yokoyama, K. 2006. The effect of the research assessment exercise on organisational culture in English universities: Collegiality versus managerialism. Tertiary Education and Management, 12(4): 311–22.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Holly Randell-Moon; Nicole Anderson; Tracey Bretag; Anthony Burke; Sue Grieshaber; Anthony Lambert; David Saltmarsh and Nicola Yelland</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref25"></nolink> |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: eric DbLabel: ERIC An: EJ949914 AccessLevel: 3 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: Journal Editing and Ethical Research Practice: Perspectives of Journal Editors – Name: Language Label: Language Group: Lang Data: English – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Randell-Moon%2C+Holly%22">Randell-Moon, Holly</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Anderson%2C+Nicole%22">Anderson, Nicole</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Bretag%2C+Tracey%22">Bretag, Tracey</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Burke%2C+Anthony%22">Burke, Anthony</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Grieshaber%2C+Sue%22">Grieshaber, Sue</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Lambert%2C+Anthony%22">Lambert, Anthony</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Saltmarsh%2C+David%22">Saltmarsh, David</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Yelland%2C+Nicola%22">Yelland, Nicola</searchLink> – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Ethics+and+Education%22"><i>Ethics and Education</i></searchLink>. 2011 6(3):225-238. – Name: Avail Label: Availability Group: Avail Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals – Name: PeerReviewed Label: Peer Reviewed Group: SrcInfo Data: Y – Name: Pages Label: Page Count Group: Src Data: 14 – Name: DatePubCY Label: Publication Date Group: Date Data: 2011 – Name: TypeDocument Label: Document Type Group: TypDoc Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Descriptive – Name: Audience Label: Education Level Group: Audnce Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink> – Name: Subject Label: Descriptors Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Writing+for+Publication%22">Writing for Publication</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Research%22">Research</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Periodicals%22">Periodicals</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Editing%22">Editing</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Role%22">Role</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Faculty+Publishing%22">Faculty Publishing</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Academic+Discourse%22">Academic Discourse</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Scholarship%22">Scholarship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Ethics%22">Ethics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Integrity%22">Integrity</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Competition%22">Competition</searchLink> – Name: Subject Label: Geographic Terms Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Australia%22">Australia</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Nigeria%22">Nigeria</searchLink> – Name: DOI Label: DOI Group: ID Data: 10.1080/17449642.2011.632717 – Name: ISSN Label: ISSN Group: ISSN Data: 1744-9642 – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: This article offers perspectives from academics with recent journal editing experience on a range of ethical issues and dilemmas that regularly pose challenges for those in editorial roles. Each contributing author has provided commentary and reflection on a select topic that was identified in the research literature concerning academic publishing and journal editing. Topics discussed include the ethical responsibilities of working with international and early career contributors to develop work for publication, balancing influence and responsibility to a journal's disciplinary field while maintaining the integrity of editorial and review processes, and the challenges of promoting scholarly research that pushes epistemological, methodological, and political boundaries in an increasingly competitive publishing climate. This article aims to stimulate discussion concerning the roles, responsibilities, and ethical challenges faced by journal editors, and the implications of these for ethical practices in academic publishing today. – Name: AbstractInfo Label: Abstractor Group: Ab Data: As Provided – Name: Ref Label: Number of References Group: RefInfo Data: 30 – Name: DateEntry Label: Entry Date Group: Date Data: 2012 – Name: AN Label: Accession Number Group: ID Data: EJ949914 |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ949914 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Identifiers: – Type: doi Value: 10.1080/17449642.2011.632717 Languages: – Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 14 StartPage: 225 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Writing for Publication Type: general – SubjectFull: Research Type: general – SubjectFull: Periodicals Type: general – SubjectFull: Editing Type: general – SubjectFull: Role Type: general – SubjectFull: Faculty Publishing Type: general – SubjectFull: Academic Discourse Type: general – SubjectFull: Scholarship Type: general – SubjectFull: Ethics Type: general – SubjectFull: Integrity Type: general – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries Type: general – SubjectFull: Competition Type: general – SubjectFull: Australia Type: general – SubjectFull: Nigeria Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: Journal Editing and Ethical Research Practice: Perspectives of Journal Editors Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Randell-Moon, Holly – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Anderson, Nicole – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Bretag, Tracey – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Burke, Anthony – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Grieshaber, Sue – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Lambert, Anthony – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Saltmarsh, David – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Yelland, Nicola IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 01 Type: published Y: 2011 Identifiers: – Type: issn-print Value: 1744-9642 Numbering: – Type: volume Value: 6 – Type: issue Value: 3 Titles: – TitleFull: Ethics and Education Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
