How might we reduce or eliminate the role of subscription/commercial publishing and the associated corporate oligopoly in the academic tenure and promotion system.

[willaliburd]

Confused? New to Github? Visit the GitHub help page on our site for more information!

At a glance

• Submission Name: How might we reduce or eliminate the role of subscription publishing and the associated corporate oligopoly in the academic promotion and tenure system?
• Contact Lead: [email protected], [email protected] (Willa Tavernier & Jenny Hoops)
• Region:#NorthernAmerica
• Issue Area: #OpenAccess, #OpenData, #OpenEducation, #OpenResearch
• Issue Type: #Challenge

Description

Here are some facets of the problem:

1 - (a) a culture of inertia within certain disciplines that have been “married” to the concept of publishing in discipline-specific high impact factor journals for generations; and
(b) the unfortunate association of open access publishing with low quality research or predatory publishers (article processing fees - pay-to-publish viewed by some as unethical or resulting in anyone who can pay being able to publish regardless of quality)

create resistance to open access publishing;

2 - pressure to publish for academic promotion and tenure leads to the publication of work that is sub-standard or is not (or only very incrementally) novel, leads to strain on the scholarly communications system (anxious researchers, burned out peer reviewers, frustrated students);

3 - Journal Impact Factor is being used by promotion and tenure committees as a surrogate for scrutinizing the body of work of an academic professional, despite the fact that such metrics can be gamed or skewed;

4 - classes with hundreds of students inhibit meaningful discourse between professors and students and cause professors to increasingly rely on publisher resources not just for the text, but for other tools such as testing and analytics; and

5 - proliferation of the adjunct economy in academia puts pressure on academics just to make ends meet and makes it more difficult to do the work needed to adopt, adapt or create OER

What are we working on during the do-a-thon? What kinds of support do we need?

We want to work on any ideas that the participants may bring for addressing the challenges. We are also very interested in-
(1) STORYTELLING. We would love to hear stories of both successes, failures and persistent challenges
(2) BRAINSTORMING around the topic “How would I want my academic work to be evaluated?”
(3) PROPOSING (a) ways to get access to platforms for OEP&R advocacy in resistant disciplines; (b) make it easy for academics to use OEP&R; (c) new models for OEP&R, and tenure and promotion

How can others contribute?

Let’s discuss the best way to contribute, in the do-a-thon.

Open to all ideas! We are also interested in using design thinking tools to model the persona of an academic dean who is resistant to OEP&R. How might we (a) convict or (b) work around that Dean to effect change in tenure, promotion, and use of OEP&R in the Dean’s school.

This post is part of the OpenCon Do-A-Thon. Not sure what's going on? Head here.

[JenHoops]

We are at Table 3!

[JenHoops]

We are looking for stories with tenure/promotion- come tell us your frustrations in the process, including publishing, expectations, and anything else!

[JenHoops]

Here's our note taking place: https://docs.google.com/document/d/19K7JUWmJdCs8FD2_-vDJSp8wNInYsI2eWzGhwQjdt6U/edit?usp=sharing

[willaliburd]

Here are some takeaways for changing the way education, tenure and promotion takes place in academia

• Emphasis should shift to give more importance to teaching
• Incorporate factors like development of open data (creation/reuse), and OER
• Moving away from volume and sensationalism of publishing and prestige/glamour journals, to favor transparency and reproducibility. Don’t hire persons who cannot speak to the transparency and reproducibility of research. One group member was part of a team that investigated a paper which fabricated data and was ultimately retracted, but you need resources - it took a year and a half to prove that the data was non-existent. Massive amount of time and energy is needed.
• Reward supervisory success and have repercussions for supervisory failures rather than just moving bad supervisors around
• Incorporate Altmetrics
• Tweets
• Magazine articles
• Acknowledge that at present the system works toward the “Natural Selection of Bad Science” and recognize that takes a lot longer to do good research. Commercial publishers want sensationalism but universities should reward good science.
  -Make it easy for faculty to adopt OER by giving them time off to investigate it and adapt it, and by enabling OER librarians to create the full suite of tools that teachers need for specific subjects.
  -Direct outreach to schools and departments to educate them about Open Practices & Resources with concrete examples where possible, of open projects or publications in disciplines that have had demonstrable impact.

[willaliburd]

UPDATE
The information gathered in the do-a-thon fed into our assessment of the draft OA fund policy review at IU which we expect will be launched in 2019. We will send an update when it is launched.

I am in the process of forming a new listserv for constructive discourse on finding sustainable models for open access publishing in conjunction with a colleague at University of Utah. It will have an explicit focus on models for open access, unless there are good reasons for the information not being open, and explicit ground rules for making propositions, critical examination and rational discourse. I will also send an update when that is launched. It may also be on GitHub but taking into account some of the issues raised during this do-a-thon, the focus will shift away from commercial publishers per se to fixing the ecosystem.