Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Reimaging Academic Publishing from Perspectives of Academia in Australia

  • Published:
Publishing Research Quarterly Aims and scope

Abstract

Academic publishing discussed in scholarships from the industry perspectives is reimagined to explore the academic publishing field from the perspectives of academics. Academic publishing is a ‘communication circuit’ in which the roles of varied the stakeholders, government, universities, publishers and libraries, are not only significant but also need to be adhered to by the academics. The significance of research publications due to the various factors, such as performance-based approach in allocation of research grants, university publishing policies contributing towards the tenure of academics require diligent analysis for understanding of the academic publishing field. A holistic approach from using the social theories is quintessential for examining the academic publishing environment inculcating the role of higher education institutes and its governing policies. This article through reimaging the academic publishing field establishes that though academic publishers are global, the publishing practices of academics are distinct to each country because academics are interdependent on the stakeholders, namely universities and government.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Adapted from ERA 2015 Evaluation Handbook, p. 24 [47]

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Research output is linked to funding not only in Australia but also in the UK and many European Union countries. However, the method followed in evaluating the funding applications and factors that contribute toward evaluation are different for each country.

  2. Australia is considered as a research-focused nation when compared other nations such as India, China, South Africa or Brazil.

  3. The journal-based publication metrics in evaluation have increased journal publications. Therefore, the discussions in the present study are predominantly based on journal publications.

  4. Although the ERA guidelines are revised in 2018 and include assessment of ‘engagement and impact’, the previous ERA guideline published in 2016 is analysed and discussed in the present study as the publishing habits gathered from the collected data are for the period 2014–2016.

  5. A two-digit code is used for identifying or categorising the broader area of research, while four-digit codes are used for classifying the research into specific sub-disciplines. The FoR list is available in ERA Handbook.

References

  1. Kronman U. Managing your assets in the publication economy. Confero Essays Educ Philos Polit. 2013;1(1):91–128.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Jubb M. Introduction: scholalry communications—disruptions in a complex ecology. In: Shorley D, Jubb M, editors. Future of scholarly communication. London: Facet Publishing; 2013. p. 8–13.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Joseph RP. Higher education book publishing—from print to digital: a review of the literature. Publ Res Q. 2015;31(4):264–74.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Padmalochanan P. Academics and the field of academic publishing: challenges and approaches. Publ Res Q. 2019;35:87–107.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Fligstein N, McAdam D. A theory of fields. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Jubb M. The scholarly ecosystem. In: Campbell R, Pentz E, Borthwick I, editors. Academic and professional publishing. Sawston‎: Chandos Publishing; 2012. p. 53–77.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Jubb M, Shorley D. The future of scholarly communication. London: Facet Publishing; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Emirbayer M, Johnson V. Bourdieu and organizational analysis. Theory Soc. 2008;37(1):1–44.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Giddens A. New rules of sociological method: a positive critique of interpretative sociologies. New York: Wiley; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Martin-Sardesai A, Guthrie J. Human capital loss in an academic performance measurement system. J Intellect Cap. 2018;19(1):53–70.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Bourdieu P. Some properties of fields. Sociol. Quest. 1993;1993:72–7.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Fischer J, Ritchie EG, Hanspach J. Academia’s obsession with quantity. Trends Ecol Evolut. 2012;27(9):473–4.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Pop-Vasileva A, Baird K, Blair B. The work-related attitudes of Australian accounting academics. Acc Educ. 2014;23(1):1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Godin B. The knowledge-based economy: conceptual framework or buzzword? J Technol Transf. 2006;31(1):17–30.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Miller K, McAdam R, McAdam M. A systematic literature review of university technology transfer from a quadruple helix perspective: toward a research agenda. R&D Manag. 2018;48(1):7–24.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Hemmings BC, Rushbrook P, Smith E. Academics’ views on publishing refereed works: a content analysis. High Educ. 2007;54(2):307–32.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Auranen O, Nieminen M. University research funding and publication performance—an international comparison. Res Policy. 2010;39(6):822–34.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Liedman SE. Pseudo-quantities, new public management and human judgement. Confero Essays Educ Philos Polit. 2013;1(1):45–67.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Geuna A, Martin BR. University research evaluation and funding: an international comparison. Minerva. 2003;41(4):277–304.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Carter IM. Changing institutional research strategies. In: Shorley D, Jubb M, editors. The future of scholarly communications. London: Facet Publishing; 2013. p. 145–55.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Naidoo R. Fields and institutional strategy: Bourdieu on the relationship between higher education, inequality and society. Br J Sociol Educ. 2004;25(4):457–71.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Bourdieu P. The logic of practice. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press; 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Crespo RF. Aristotle on agency, habits and institutions. J Inst Econ. 2016;12(4):867–84.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Bögenhold D, Michaelides PG, Papageorgiou T. Schumpeter, Veblen and Bourdieu on institutions and the formation of habits. Munich Personal RePEc Archive; 2016.

  25. DiMaggio PJ, Powell WW, editors. The new institutionalism in organizational analysis, vol. 17. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Hicks D. Performance-based university research funding systems. Res Policy. 2012;41(2):251–61.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Nylander E, et al. Managing by measuring: academic knowledge production under the ranks. Confero Essays Educ Philos Polit. 2013;1(1):5–18.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Hewitt-Dundas N. Research intensity and knowledge transfer activity in UK universities. Res Policy. 2012;41(2):262–75.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Al-Khatib A, da Silva JAT. Threats to the survival of the author-pays-journal to publish model. Publ Res Q. 2017;33(1):64–70.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Marinova D, Newman P. The changing research funding regime in Australia and academic productivity. Math Comput Simul. 2008;78(2):283–91.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Nicholls MG, Cargill BJ. Establishing best practice university research funding strategies using mixed-mode modelling. Omega. 2011;39(2):214–25.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Herbert DL, et al. Using simplified peer review processes to fund research: a prospective study. BMJ Open. 2015;5(7):e008380.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Ware M, Mabe M, Report TS. International association of scientific. Amsterdam: Technical and Medical Publishers; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Das DN, Chattopadhyay S. Academic performance indicators: straitjacketing higher education. Econ Pol Wkly. 2014;49:68–71.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Sørensen MP, Bloch C, Young M. Excellence in the knowledge-based economy: from scientific to research excellence. Eur J Higher Educ. 2016;6(3):217–36.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Söderlind J, et al. National performance-based research funding systems: constructing local perceptions of research? In: Pinheiro R, et al., editors. Reforms, organizational change and performance in higher education. Berlin: Springer; 2019. p. 111–44.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Hasselberg Y. Drowning by numbers: on reading writing and bibliometrics. Confero Essays Educ Philos Polit. 2013;1(1):19–44.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Butler L. Explaining Australia’s increased share of ISI publications—the effects of a funding formula based on publication counts. Res Policy. 2003;32(1):143–55.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Butler L. Impacts of performance-based research funding systems: a review of the concerns and the evidence. In: Performance-based funding for public research in Tertiary Education Institutions: workshop proceedings; 2010. OECD Publishing: Paris.

  40. Martin-Sardesai A, et al. Accounting for research: academic responses to research performance demands in an Australian University. Aust Account Rev. 2016;27:329–43.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Martin-Sardesai A, et al. Organizational change in an Australian university: responses to a research assessment exercise. Br Account Rev. 2017;49(4):399–412.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Cooper C, Coulson AB. Accounting activism and Bourdieu’s ‘collective intellectual’—reflections on the ICL case. Crit Perspect Account. 2014;25(3):237–54.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Sheil M. Perspective: on the verge of a new ERA. Nature. 2014;511(7510):S67.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Martin-Sardesai A, et al. Government research evaluations and academic freedom: a UK and Australian comparison. Higher Educ Res Dev. 2017;36(2):372–85.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Neave L. A recent history of Australian scholarly publishing. In: Neave L, Connor J, Crawford A, editors. Arts of publication: scholarly publishing in Australia and beyond. Melbourne: Australain Scholarly Publishing; 2007. p. 191.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Australian Research Council. State of Australian University Research 2015–16. Australian Research Council: Australia; 2015.

  47. Australian Research Council. ERA 2015 evaluation handbook. Australian Government: Australia; 2016. p. 135.

  48. Crowe SF, Watt S. Excellence in research in Australia 2010, 2012, and 2015: the rising of the Curate’s Soufflé? Aust Psychol. 2016;51:380–8.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Bonnell AG. Tide or tsunami? The impact of metrics on scholarly research. Aust Univ Rev. 2016;58(1):54.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Trounson A. Swinburne accused of research ratings ploy. In: The Australian; 2015.

  51. Wilsdon J, et al. The metric tide: report of the independent review of the role of metrics in research assessment and management. London: Sage Publications; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Australian Research Council. Open access policy. Australian Research Council: Australia; 2015. p. 5.

  53. Harley D. Scholarly communication: cultural contexts, evolving models. Science. 2013;342:80.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Petit-dit-Dariel O, Wharrad H, Windle R. Using Bourdieu’s theory of practice to understand ICT use amongst nurse educators. Nurse Educ Today. 2014;34(11):1368–74.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Vaughan D. Bourdieu and organizations: the empirical challenge. Theory Soc. 2008;37(1):65–81.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. RMIT University, City Campus, Melbourne, VIC, 3053, Australia

    Padmapriya Padmalochanan

Authors
  1. Padmapriya Padmalochanan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Padmapriya Padmalochanan.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Padmalochanan, P. Reimaging Academic Publishing from Perspectives of Academia in Australia. Pub Res Q 35, 710–725 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-019-09690-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-019-09690-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation