Publishing Research Quarterly

, Volume 35, Issue 4, pp 710–725 | Cite as

Reimaging Academic Publishing from Perspectives of Academia in Australia

  • Padmapriya PadmalochananEmail author


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.


Academic publishing Academic publishers Research framework of Australia Research funding Social field theories Stakeholders of publishing 



  1. 1.
    Kronman U. Managing your assets in the publication economy. Confero Essays Educ Philos Polit. 2013;1(1):91–128.Google Scholar
  2. 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. 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. 4.
    Padmalochanan P. Academics and the field of academic publishing: challenges and approaches. Publ Res Q. 2019;35:87–107.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fligstein N, McAdam D. A theory of fields. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2012.Google Scholar
  6. 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. 7.
    Jubb M, Shorley D. The future of scholarly communication. London: Facet Publishing; 2013.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Emirbayer M, Johnson V. Bourdieu and organizational analysis. Theory Soc. 2008;37(1):1–44.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Giddens A. New rules of sociological method: a positive critique of interpretative sociologies. New York: Wiley; 2013.Google Scholar
  10. 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. 11.
    Bourdieu P. Some properties of fields. Sociol. Quest. 1993;1993:72–7.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fischer J, Ritchie EG, Hanspach J. Academia’s obsession with quantity. Trends Ecol Evolut. 2012;27(9):473–4.Google Scholar
  13. 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. 14.
    Godin B. The knowledge-based economy: conceptual framework or buzzword? J Technol Transf. 2006;31(1):17–30.Google Scholar
  15. 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. 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. 17.
    Auranen O, Nieminen M. University research funding and publication performance—an international comparison. Res Policy. 2010;39(6):822–34.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Liedman SE. Pseudo-quantities, new public management and human judgement. Confero Essays Educ Philos Polit. 2013;1(1):45–67.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Geuna A, Martin BR. University research evaluation and funding: an international comparison. Minerva. 2003;41(4):277–304.Google Scholar
  20. 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. 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. 22.
    Bourdieu P. The logic of practice. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press; 1990.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Crespo RF. Aristotle on agency, habits and institutions. J Inst Econ. 2016;12(4):867–84.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bögenhold D, Michaelides PG, Papageorgiou T. Schumpeter, Veblen and Bourdieu on institutions and the formation of habits. Munich Personal RePEc Archive; 2016.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    DiMaggio PJ, Powell WW, editors. The new institutionalism in organizational analysis, vol. 17. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 2012.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hicks D. Performance-based university research funding systems. Res Policy. 2012;41(2):251–61.Google Scholar
  27. 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. 28.
    Hewitt-Dundas N. Research intensity and knowledge transfer activity in UK universities. Res Policy. 2012;41(2):262–75.Google Scholar
  29. 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. 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. 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. 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. 33.
    Ware M, Mabe M, Report TS. International association of scientific. Amsterdam: Technical and Medical Publishers; 2015.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Das DN, Chattopadhyay S. Academic performance indicators: straitjacketing higher education. Econ Pol Wkly. 2014;49:68–71.Google Scholar
  35. 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. 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. 37.
    Hasselberg Y. Drowning by numbers: on reading writing and bibliometrics. Confero Essays Educ Philos Polit. 2013;1(1):19–44.Google Scholar
  38. 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. 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.Google Scholar
  40. 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. 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. 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. 43.
    Sheil M. Perspective: on the verge of a new ERA. Nature. 2014;511(7510):S67.Google Scholar
  44. 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. 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. 46.
    Australian Research Council. State of Australian University Research 2015–16. Australian Research Council: Australia; 2015.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Australian Research Council. ERA 2015 evaluation handbook. Australian Government: Australia; 2016. p. 135.Google Scholar
  48. 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. 49.
    Bonnell AG. Tide or tsunami? The impact of metrics on scholarly research. Aust Univ Rev. 2016;58(1):54.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Trounson A. Swinburne accused of research ratings ploy. In: The Australian; 2015.Google Scholar
  51. 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. 52.
    Australian Research Council. Open access policy. Australian Research Council: Australia; 2015. p. 5.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Harley D. Scholarly communication: cultural contexts, evolving models. Science. 2013;342:80.Google Scholar
  54. 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. 55.
    Vaughan D. Bourdieu and organizations: the empirical challenge. Theory Soc. 2008;37(1):65–81.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.RMIT UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations