Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Scientific Publishing as the Arena of Power and Caring

  • Chapter
The Basics of Caring Research

Part of the book series: Bold Visions in Educational Research ((BVER))

  • 247 Accesses

Abstract

Scientific publishing has become one of the most important means of not only advancing researchers’ careers but also securing funding for universities. Therefore, the atmosphere in academic communities often appears very competitive, which can weaken trust and open collaboration between colleagues.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Achor, S. (2010). The happiness advantage. The seven principles of positive psychology that fuel success and performance at work. New York, NY: Crown Business.

    Google Scholar 

  • Avey, J. B., Luthans, F., Smith, R. M., & Palmer, N. F. (2010). Impact of positive psychological capital on employee well-being over time. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 15, 17–28. doi:10.1037/a0016998

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bakanic, V., McPhail, C., & Simon, R. J. (1987). The manuscript review and decision-making process. American Sociological Review, 52, 631–642. doi:10.2307/2095599

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumeister, R. F. (1993). Self-esteem: The puzzle of low self-regard. New York, NY: Plenum. doi:10.1007/978-1-4684-8956-9

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Baumeister, R. F., Smart, L., & Boden, J. M. (1996). Relation of threatened egotism to violence and aggression: The dark side of high self-esteem. Psychological Review, 103(1), 5–33. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.103.1.5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumeister, R. F., Twenge, J. M., & Nuss, C. K. (2002). Effects of social exclusion on cognitive processes: Anticipated aloneness reduces intelligent thought. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(4), 817–827. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.83.4.817

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boreham, N. (2004). The theory of collective competence: Challenging the neo-liberal individualization of performance at work. British Journal of Educational Studies, 52(1), 5–17. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8527.2004.00251.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bedeian, A. G. (1996). Improving the journal review process: The question of ghostwriting. American Psychologist, 51(11), 1189. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.51.11.1189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bedeian, A. G. (2003). The manuscript review process: The proper roles of authors, referees, and editors. Journal of Management Inquiry, 20(10), 1–8. doi:10.1177/1056492603258974

    Google Scholar 

  • Benos, D. J., Kirk, K. L., & Hall, J. E. (2003). How to review a paper? Advances in Physiology Education, 27(2), 47–52. doi:10.1152/advan.00057.2002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beyer, J. M., Chanove, R. G., & Fox, W. B. (1995). The review process and the fates of manuscripts submitted to AMJ. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), 1219–1260. doi:10.2307/256856

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Black, N., van Rooyen, S., Godlee, F., Smith, R., & Evans, S. (1998). What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal? The Journal of the American Medical Association, 280(3), 231–233. doi:10.1001/jama.280.3.231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blank, R. M. (1991). The effects of double-blind versus single-blind reviewing: Experimental evidence from The American Economic Review. The American Economic Review, 81(5), 1041–1067.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bornman, L., & Daniel, H.-D. (2009). The luck of the referee draw: The effect of exchanging reviews. Learned Publishing, 22, 117–125. doi:10.1087/2009207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, D. (2011). The social animal. The hidden source of love, character, and achievement. New York, NY: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campanario, J. M. (1996). Have referees rejected some of the most-cited articles of all times? Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 47(4), 302–310. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199604)47:4<302::AID-ASI6>3.0.CO;2-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ching, G. S. (2013). Unraveling issues behind ISI misconceptions: An empirical study on the practical effects of academic publication. International Journal of Research Studies in Education, 2(3), 51–64. doi:10.5861/ijrse.2012.288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, M. L. (2009). Problems, pitfalls, and promise in the peer-review process: Commentary on Trafimow & Rice (2009). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(1), 84–90. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01109.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L., & Moller, A. C. (2005). The concept of competence. A starting place for understanding intrinsic motivation and self-determined extrinsic motivation. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 579–597). New York, NY & London: The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Egan, R., Stockley, D., Brouwer, B., Tripp, D., & Stechyson, N. (2009). Relationships between area of academic concentration, supervisory style, student needs and best practices. Studies in Higher Education, 34(3), 337–345. doi:10.1080/03075070802597143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenberg, E. M., Goodall Jr., H. L., & Trethewey, A. (2010). Organizational communication. Balancing creativity and constraint (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhart, M. (2002). The paradox of peer review: Admitting too much or allowing too little? Research in Science Education, 32, 241–255. doi:10.1023/A:1016082229411

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferres, N., Connell, J., & Travaglione, A. (2004). Co-worker trust as a social catalyst for constructive employee attitudes. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19(6), 608–622. doi:10.1108/02683940410551516

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fortanet, I. (2008). Evaluative language in peer review referee reports. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7, 27–37. doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2008.02.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glenn, N. D. (1976). The journal article review process: Some proposals for change. The American Sociologist, 11(3), 179–185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gosden, H. (2001). “Thank you for your critical comments and helpful suggestions”: Compliance and conflict in authors’ replies to referees’ comments in peer reviews of scientific research papers. Ibérica, 3, 3–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gosden, H. (2003). “Why not give us the full story?” Functions of referees’ comments in peer reviews of scientific research papers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2, 87–101. doi:10.1016/S1475-1585(02)00037-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grimm, D. (2005). Suggesting or excluding reviewers can help get your paper published. Science, 309, 1974. doi:10.1126/science.309.5743.1974

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haack, S. (2006). Peer review and publication: Lessons for lawyers. Stetson Law Review, 789, 792–793.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harnad, S. (1996). Implementing peer review on the net: Scientific quality control in scholarly electronic journals. In R. Peek & G. Newby (Eds.), Scholarly publication: The electronic frontier (pp. 103–108). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hojat, M., Gonnella, J. S., & Caelleigh, A. (2003). Impartial judgment by the “gatekeepers” of science: Fallibility and accountability in the peer review process. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 8(1), 75–96. doi:10.1023/A:1022670432373

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Isen, A. M., & Reeve, J. (2006). The influence of positive affect on intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: Facilitating enjoyment of play, responsible work behavior, and self-control. Motivation and Emotion, 29, 297–325.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanfer, R., & Ackerman, P. L. (2005). Work competence: A person-oriented perspective. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 336–353). New York, NY & London: The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kramer, R. M. (1999). Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging perspectives, enduring questions. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 569–598. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.50.1.569

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumashiro, K. (2005). Thinking collaboratively about the peer-review process for journal-article publication. Harvard Educational Review, 75(3), 257–285. doi:10.17763/haer.75.3.h317564n18346928

    Google Scholar 

  • Larochelle, M., & Désautels, J. (2002). On peers, those ‘particular friends’. Research in Science Education, 32, 181–189. doi:10.1023/A:1016026011664

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lock, S. (1982). Peer review weighed in the balance. British Medical Journal, 285, 1224–1226. doi:10.1136/bmj.285.6350.1224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Losada, M., & Heaphy, E. (2004). The role of positivity and connectivity in the performance of business teams: A nonlinear dynamics model. The American Behavioral Scientist, 47(6), 740–765. doi:10.1177/0002764203260208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lotriet, C. J. (2012). Reviewing the review process: Identifying sources of delay. Australasian Medical Journal, 5(1), 26–29. doi:10.4066/AMJ.2012.1165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lutgen-Sandvik, P., Riforgiate, S. E., & Flecther, C. V. (2011). Work as a source of positive emotional experiences and the discourses informing positive assessment. Western Journal of Communication, 75(1), 2–27. doi:10.1080/10570314.2010.536963

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, H. W., Jayasinghe, U. W., & Bond, N. W. (2008). Improving the peer-review process for grant applications. Reliability, validity, bias, and generalizability. American Psychologist, 63(3), 160–168. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.63.3.160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayya, S. S., & Roff, S. (2004). Students’ perceptions of educational environment. Education for Health, 17(3), 280–291. doi:10.1080/13576280400002445

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 24–59. doi:10.2307/256727

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mäkikangas, A. (2007). Personality, wellbeing and job resources. From negative paradigm towards positive psychology. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nahata, M. C. (2008). Tips for writing and publishing an article. The Annals of Pharmacotherapy, 42, 1–5. doi:10.1345/aph.1K616

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neff, B. D., & Olden, J. D. (2006). Is peer review a game of chance? Professional Biologist, 56(4), 333–340. doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2006)56[333:iprago]2.0.co;2

    Google Scholar 

  • Pajares, F. (2001). Toward a positive psychology of academic motivation. The Journal of Educational Research, 95(1), 27–35. doi:10.1080/00220670109598780

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pulverer, B. (2010). Transparency showcases strength of peer review. Nature, 468, 29–31. doi:10.1038/468029a

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Regehr, G., & Bordage, G. (2006). To blind or not to blind? What authors and reviewers prefer. Medical Education, 40(9), 832–839. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02539.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roth, W.-M. (2002). Editorial power/authorial suffering. Research in Science Education, 32, 215–240. doi:10.1023/A:1016030212572

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seligman, M. E. P. (2011). Flourish. A visionary new understanding of happiness and well-being. New York, NY: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seligman, M. E. P., Steen, T. A., Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2005). Positive psychology progress. Empirical validation of interventions. American Psychologist, 60(5), 410–421. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.60.5.410

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tenopir, C., Mays, R., & Wu, L. (2011). Journal article growth and reading patterns. New Review of Information Networking, 16(1), 4–22. doi:10.1080/13614576.2011.566796

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsang, E. W. K., & Frey, B. S. (2007). The as-is journal review process: Let authors own their ideas. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 6(1), 128–136. doi:10.5465/AMLE.2007.24401710

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uusiautti, S. (2008). “Today, I’ll work better than ever” Success at work described by the employees of the year (PhD Dissertation). University of Lapland, Rovaniemi, Finland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uusiautti, S. (2013). On the positive connection between success and happiness. International Journal of Research Studies in Psychology, 3(1), 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uusiautti, S. (2014). Scientific publication as the scene of power and caring. In K. Määttä & S. Uusiautti (Eds.), Strength from caring research. Educational Conference 6–7 Oct 2014 (pp. 45–54). Rovaniemi: University of Lapland. [In Finnish]

    Google Scholar 

  • Uusiautti, S. (2015). The pressure of publishing. In S. Uusiautti & K. Määttä (Eds.), Critical eye on education (pp. 79–96). Tallinn: United Press Global.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uusiautti, S., & Määttä, K. (2013). Does success at work produce well-being and happiness or vice versa? The International Journal of Interdisciplinary Organizational Studies, 7(3), 11–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uusiautti, S., & Määttä, K. (2015). The psychology of becoming a successful worker. Research on the changing nature of achievement at work. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaarala, M., Uusiautti, S., & Määttä, K. (2013). College students’ experiences of and coping with loneliness – possibilities of peer support. International Journal of Research Studies in Education, 2(4), 13–28. doi:10.5861/ijrse.2013.510

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Varila, J., & Lehtosaari, K. (2001). Joy of work – earned by diligence, occurs by accidence or required by learning organization? [In Finnish]. Joensuu: University of Joensuu.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wen, T. S., Ching, G. S., & Tang, J. W. (2013). Realities in scholarly publication trends: A case study of a social science university in Taiwan. International Journal of Research Studies in Education, 2(2), 31–42. doi:10.5861/ijrse.2012.146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winter, R., & Sarros, J. (2002). The academic work environment in Australian universities: A motivating place to work? Higher Education Research & Development, 21(3), 241–258. doi:10.1080/0729436022000020751

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Satu Uusiautti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Lapland, Finland

    Satu Uusiautti

  2. University of Lapland, Finland

    Kaarina Määttä

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Sense Publishers

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Uusiautti, S. (2016). Scientific Publishing as the Arena of Power and Caring. In: Uusiautti, S., Määttä, K. (eds) The Basics of Caring Research. Bold Visions in Educational Research. SensePublishers, Rotterdam. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6300-597-5_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6300-597-5_8

  • Publisher Name: SensePublishers, Rotterdam

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-6300-597-5

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation