| 1. |
- Nylander, Erik, 1982-, et al.
(author)
-
The use of bibliometrics in adult education research
- 2020. - 1
-
In: Doing critical and creative research in adult education. - : Brill Academic Publishers. - 9789004420731 - 9789004420731 ; , s. 139-150
-
Book chapter (other academic/artistic)abstract
- The aim of this chapter is to introduce a methodological approach that can be used in order to analyze how the adult education research field is shaped through research practices, measurement standards and indexation. More specifically, we focus on three formative dimensions that we argue play a significant role in constructing “the rules of the game” in contemporary academia: (i) indexation, (ii) publications and (iii) citations. Our account is nowhere close to exhaustive but outlines how bibliographic data and bibliometric methodology can be used. Hence, to build our argument we draw on the research traditions of bibliometrics which, in the last few decades, has become linked to a highly controversial subject. Namely, how the reward system of the modern university should function. What will be the basis of ‘quality’ assessments of universities? How will merit be fought about and money distributed across different universities and disciplines?
|
|
| 2. |
- Olsson, Lisa, et al.
(author)
-
Cancelling with the world's largest scholarly publisher : lessons from the Swedish experience of having no access to Elsevier
- 2020
-
In: Insights. - : Ubiquity Press, Ltd.. - 2048-7754. ; 33:1
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- This article covers the consequences of the decision of the Bibsam consortium to cancel its journal licence agreement with Elsevier, the world's largest scholarly publisher, in 2018. First, we report on how the cancellation affected Swedish researchers. Second, we describe other consequences of the cancellation. Finally, we report on lessons for the future. In short, there was no consensus among researchers on how the cancellation affected them or whether the cancellation was positive or negative for them. Just over half (54%) of the 4,221 researchers who responded to a survey indicated that the cancellation had harmed their work, whereas 37% indicated that it had not. Almost half (48%) of the researchers had a negative view of the cancellation, whereas 38% had a positive view. The cancellation highlighted the ongoing work at research libraries to facilitate the transition to an open access publishing system to more stakeholders in academia than before. It also showed that Swedish vice-chancellors were prepared to suspend subscriptions with a publisher that could not accommodate the needs and requirements of open science. Finally, the cancellation resulted in the signing of a transformative agreement which started on 1 January 2020. If it had not been for the cancellation, the reaching of such an agreement would have been unlikely.
|
|
| 3. |
- Olsson, Lisa, et al.
(author)
-
Swedish researchers' responses to the cancellation of the big deal with Elsevier
- 2020
-
In: Insights: the UKSG journal. - : Ubiquity Press, Ltd.. - 2048-7754. ; 33
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- In 2018, the Swedish library consortium, Bibsam, decided to cancel big deal subscriptions with Elsevier. Many researchers (n = 4,221) let their voices be heard in a survey on the consequences of the cancellation. Almost a third of them (n = 1,241) chose to leave free-text responses to the survey question 'Is there anything you would like to add?'. A content analysis on these responses resulted in six themes and from these, three main conclusions are drawn. First, there is no consensus among researchers on whether the cancellation was for good or evil. The most common argument in favour of the cancellation was the principle. The most common argument against cancellation was that it harms researchers and research. A third of the free-text responses expressed ambivalence towards the cancellation, typically as a conflict between wanting to change the current publishing system and simultaneously suffering from the consequences of the cancellation. The general support for open access in principle reveals a flawed publishing system, as most feel the pressure to publish in prestigious journals behind paywalls in practice. Second, it was difficult for researchers to take a position for or against cancellation due to their limited knowledge of the ongoing work of higher education institutions and library consortia. Finally, there are indications that the cancellation made researchers reflect on open access and to some extent alter their publication pattern through their choice of copyright licence and publication channel.
|
|
