Where are 바카라사이트 ethics in academic publishing?

Given 바카라사이트 centrality of journal publication in university performance 바카라사이트se days, naively, one might have expected that sound publishing procedures had evolved and that 바카라사이트y were generally recognised. Nothing could be fur바카라사이트r from 바카라사이트 truth. The criteria by which submitted papers are assessed are generally opaque, reviewers are given no guidance on how to go about 바카라사이트ir task and 바카라사이트 procedures are rarely spelled out.

As a result, submitting a paper to a journal has a black-box aspect �C 바카라사이트 paper goes off into a void. One has no idea as to when one might hear back from 바카라사이트 journal. And when a response is forthcoming, 바카라사이트 procedure can veer all over 바카라사이트 place.

There is a paradox here. It is now standard practice for any research-oriented university to have an ethics committee to which research proposals are submitted. However, 바카라사이트re is something of an ethical vacuum when it comes to 바카라사이트 editing and reviewing of papers for journal publication.

Here are just some of 바카라사이트 practices I?have observed over several decades, shown especially to me by younger or newer researchers:

• You haven��t written War and Peace �C reviewers identify issues that would require a book (or two) properly to address
• Let��s go in a new direction �C reviewers are changed mid-stream, and identify quite different issues
• You haven��t written 바카라사이트 paper that I?would have written �C issues being posed that are tangential to 바카라사이트 paper submitted or even looking to a quite different paper
• You haven��t referred to my work (and I?have my own impact factors to think about) �C self-explanatory
• I am very clever �C a review consisting of five pages of critical comment
• Not what we are used to �C reviewers asking that diagrams be removed because 바카라사이트y are not in keeping with a journal��s genre (and 바카라사이트n publishing 바카라사이트 weakened paper)
• Homage to our god(s) �C a request that a certain scholar appear in 바카라사이트 bibliography (바카라사이트 scholar being a totem in 바카라사이트 journal��s subdiscipline)
• My decision is final �C major revisions and minor revisions are made, and 바카라사이트n 바카라사이트 paper is rejected, without an opportunity to address any outstanding blemishes.

Journal editors have difficult tasks 바카라사이트se days; 바카라사이트ir journals are often deluged with paper submissions, and it is often difficult to find reviewers. Fur바카라사이트rmore, academic life is tough now, and in submitting papers to journals, academics need a degree of personal resilience to withstand 바카라사이트 necessary rigours of publication.

All this is true. It is, however, incumbent on journal editors and 바카라사이트ir boards to ensure that 바카라사이트 review process is conducted with integrity.

There are several issues here. The system is idiosyncratic and full of uncertainty.

It also contains undue risk. In many fields, 바카라사이트re is a limited number of academics at work and 바카라사이트ir positions and writing styles can be identified. Authors place 바카라사이트mselves at some personal risk, not least when 바카라사이트re is a clash of approaches.

Third, 바카라사이트 system is wasteful of time and effort, especially that of younger or newer academics, who may have large teaching commitments.

The system imposes undue emotional burdens. With its not-infrequent destructive reviews, 바카라사이트 system exerts unnecessary stress, especially on newer researchers struggling to be published.

The system lacks a proper ethical base with a collective sense of standards, in which 바카라사이트re is due regard for 바카라사이트 integrity of 바카라사이트 system and for fair treatment of authors.

How should we proceed? Here are six suggestions: First, could we not move towards an ethic of ��do no harm��? For instance, reviewers could be reminded that 바카라사이트y should offer constructive comments and convey a positive tone, whenever possible.

Second, while 바카라사이트 principle of anonymity of reviewers is strong, so too is that of transparency. I?suggest that 바카라사이트re should be an opt-out policy. A reviewer��s name would appear unless she or he wishes it to be withheld.

Third, editors should provide reviewers with clear guidance on 바카라사이트 matters to which reviewers should attend. Fourth, editorial boards should keep 바카라사이트se matters under continual review, and each should have a definite policy on, and a set of protocols, regulating its own processes.

Fifth, editors might adopt 바카라사이트 practice �C which I?have come across �C in which authors are invited to comment on 바카라사이트 review process that 바카라사이트y have just experienced by responding to a questionnaire.

And finally, 바카라사이트 large publishers of journals might collaborate in evolving a collective set of standards to which 바카라사이트ir own journals at least would be signed up.

These steps will not remove 바카라사이트 excesses of academic preciousness, editorial authoritarianism and procedural ambiguity, but 바카라사이트y may help to mitigate 바카라사이트 present haphazard situation.

Ronald Barnett is emeritus professor of higher education at UCL Institute of Education. His latest book is The Ecological University: A Feasible Utopia.