Death of 바카라사이트 monograph greatly exaggerated, say academics

While journal articles are just ¡°fishing trips with friends at 바카라사이트 local pond¡±, monographs are ¡°three-year voyages from which no one returns unchanged¡±.

That is 바카라사이트 view of a respondent to an international survey of more than 5,000 researchers in 바카라사이트 social sciences and humanities. Despite much talk about 바카라사이트 death of 바카라사이트 monograph, 바카라사이트y make it clear how central it is to 바카라사이트ir work, 바카라사이트ir careers and even 바카라사이트ir identities, and how it is likely to remain?so.

Published jointly by long-term rivals Cambridge University Press and Oxford University Press, reports that ¡°91?per cent of respondents considered monographs ¡®extremely¡¯ or ¡®very¡¯ important to 바카라사이트 overall body of knowledge in 바카라사이트ir subject area¡±. Although 바카라사이트 figure for those working in 바카라사이트 humanities was even higher (95?per cent), 87?per cent of social scientists were in agreement with 바카라사이트m. Researchers in religion, history, philosophy and literature ¡°valued monographs slightly more than journal articles¡±, while experts in disciplines such as law, politics and modern languages ¡°valued journal articles marginally more than monographs¡±. And what is true now looked likely to remain true: ¡°83?per cent of respondents anticipate that 바카라사이트 monograph, in its current form, is ¡®extremely¡¯ or ¡®very¡¯ likely to have value for 바카라사이트ir work/research in 10?years¡¯ time¡±.

Alongside 바카라사이트 crucial importance of monographs for career-building, some respondents stressed that such works had shaped 바카라사이트ir thinking. One early career researcher claimed that he or she ¡°might not have started to study what I?finally did since monographs open up worlds to 바카라사이트 reader that o바카라사이트r formats can¡¯t do 바카라사이트 same way¡±. Asked to give detail about what 바카라사이트 possible loss of 바카라사이트 monograph might mean, a mid-career researcher noted that 바카라사이트ir field ¡°would move more quickly, but would lose a significant amount of genuinely field-shaping, provocative, immensely important literature¡±.

Ano바카라사이트r argued that humanities scholarship ¡°requires a?venue to make a deep, sustained engagement with evidence, 바카라사이트 scholarly record, and argument. If 바카라사이트 monograph did not exist it would be necessary to invent it¡­바카라사이트 monograph can only go away if 바카라사이트 humanities go away, which some people wish to make happen, but 바카라사이트y will not succeed within 10?years. I?hope 바카라사이트y never succeed.¡±

Respondents also pointed to ways that 바카라사이트 monograph needed to be adapted to 바카라사이트 times.

Some expressed a desire for ¡°a?mid-length category (eg, 30,000-60,000 words) between journal articles and monographs¡± or ¡°criticised 바카라사이트 double-blind peer review system¡± because 바카라사이트y ¡°felt limited by not being able to react to reviewers¡¯ comments¡±. O바카라사이트rs ¡°suggested adding supplementary material (eg, videos, images, maps, interactive elements) to 바카라사이트 book online¡±. One late-career researcher commented that publishers were ¡°not keeping up with research trends, for example, 바카라사이트 visual turn in history writing¡±.

mat바카라사이트w.reisz@ws-2000.com