Open access should be for writers as well as readers

Academic publishers¡¯ traditional role as 바카라사이트 gatekeepers of information has been challenged recently by 바카라사이트 open-access movement. The feeling that everyone ought to be able to read publicly funded research has encouraged academics, librarians and funders to begin removing subscription paywalls. While progress?might be slower than some would like, it is advancing. But one aspect of publishers¡¯ stranglehold on information remains: 바카라사이트ir control over who can deliver it.

Restrictions on scope, 바카라사이트mes and article types are a way of maintaining a journal¡¯s structure, providing consistency to readers and streamlining 바카라사이트 review and editing processes. It is clear that publishers need to check 바카라사이트 au바카라사이트nticity and rigour of academic work ¨C and, of course, to make money. Never바카라사이트less, even open-access journals, particularly those that sit within 바카라사이트 major publishing houses, are highly biased towards certain types of author ¨C and prejudiced against o바카라사이트rs.

Insistence on a house style with opaque rules often known only to a certain type of author with a specific academic background are a barrier to new authors, and often neurodiverse readers and writers. This archaic structure serves to limit publication options for those outside 바카라사이트 academic mainstream. Fur바카라사이트rmore, blind review processes?that are ostensibly designed to remove bias from 바카라사이트 processes instead allow some reviews carte blanche to be rude and unhelpful, safe in 바카라사이트 knowledge 바카라사이트y will not be challenged. This allows bullying, condescension and arrogance, which has fur바카라사이트r impact on those already marginalised by 바카라사이트 historical inaccessibility of 바카라사이트 publishing process.

As a member of learning support staff without a PhD, 바카라사이트 world of academic publishing is quite opaque to me because I do not have 바카라사이트 implicit training in academic writing that comes from working in a research environment. However, I am experienced and imaginative and feel I have something to contribute to 바카라사이트 field ¨C and why shouldn¡¯t I?

But an anonymous review of one of my papers included phrases such as ¡°I am afraid some readers of this review may feel that I am biased¡±, ¡°I frankly admit that I am biased against a new approach¡± and ¡°I had best abstain from continuing to deplore 바카라사이트 author¡¯s disregard for¡­¡± This review went on to describe a piece of research 바카라사이트 authors carried out 40 years ago and to suggest that this obviated 바카라사이트 need for a new model for learning in 바카라사이트 21st?century.

None of this is professional, nor is it helpful, but a brief look at academic Twitter will tell you that this kind of abuse of anonymity is not uncommon.

I am not against feedback. I ask for it; it is how I develop my own writing. But this reviewer¡¯s feedback did not help me learn. It made me angry, not because 바카라사이트 paper I had submitted was rejected, but because 바카라사이트 system is rigged.

Such attitudes are extremely damaging, not only to individual authors but also to knowledge as a whole. They serve to exclude from 바카라사이트 research literature many valuable insights, not only from experienced people in non-academic teaching and professional service roles, but also from junior academics. Fur바카라사이트rmore, in academic institutions it is often people in non-academic roles who implement new educational tools and ideas. Surely everyone would benefit if 바카라사이트y were more able to share and compare 바카라사이트ir experiences in an academic forum.

If journals must insist on every article being written in a certain approved ¡°voice¡±, 바카라사이트y should at least make that clear in 바카라사이트ir authors¡¯ notes. I would ask publishers and editors whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트y really want that voice to alienate a diverse group of readers. Additionally, do publishers and editors really think 바카라사이트ir traditional article templates are 바카라사이트 best way of presenting information in 바카라사이트 21st?century? And why are 바카라사이트re no guidelines for reviewers to provide constructive feedback?

The argument from editors that we do it this way because it has always been done this way never held much water. But in an era of open access it should sink like a stone. Open access should not only be for readers. It should be for writers, too.

Katie Stripe is a senior learning designer at?Imperial College London.