Business as usual? Taking stock of submissions and reviews two years after the first coronavirus lockdowns

IF 3.1 1区 文学 Q1 COMMUNICATION
V. Karnowski, Thilo von Pape
{"title":"Business as usual? Taking stock of submissions and reviews two years after the first coronavirus lockdowns","authors":"V. Karnowski, Thilo von Pape","doi":"10.1177/20501579221080594","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Academic publishing is under increasing scrutiny for its role in reproducing gender inequality among academics (Lundine et al., 2019) and other inequalities related to such differences as authors ’ ethnicity and geographic context (Collyer, 2018). Not only are scholarly publications a critical success factor at various stages of the academic career (Winslow & Davis, 2016), but they also constitute the very corpus of our knowl-edge, which may therefore directly suffer from given biases. This reality imposes a responsibility on the institutions and individuals involved in producing and selecting academic publications to re fl ect on their part in perpetuating or countering existing inequalities. Beyond public academic discussions (e.g., #CommunicationSoWhite), such introspection within the fi eld of communication research has been realized through investigations into the differential representations of genders (e.g., Trepte & Loths, 2020) and geographic contexts (e.g., Demeter, 2019) in scholarly publications. The need for such investigations has further gained urgency through the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic since disasters generally tend to increase existing cleavages (Bolin & Kurtz, 2018; Ward & Shively, 2017). Institutions and individuals have indeed reacted to the situation by producing rich evidence, from individual fi rst-hand accounts of scholars ’ personal experiences, shared through social media or elaborated into auto-ethnographic studies, to analyses of massive data that was publicly available.","PeriodicalId":46650,"journal":{"name":"Mobile Media & Communication","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Mobile Media & Communication","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20501579221080594","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Academic publishing is under increasing scrutiny for its role in reproducing gender inequality among academics (Lundine et al., 2019) and other inequalities related to such differences as authors ’ ethnicity and geographic context (Collyer, 2018). Not only are scholarly publications a critical success factor at various stages of the academic career (Winslow & Davis, 2016), but they also constitute the very corpus of our knowl-edge, which may therefore directly suffer from given biases. This reality imposes a responsibility on the institutions and individuals involved in producing and selecting academic publications to re fl ect on their part in perpetuating or countering existing inequalities. Beyond public academic discussions (e.g., #CommunicationSoWhite), such introspection within the fi eld of communication research has been realized through investigations into the differential representations of genders (e.g., Trepte & Loths, 2020) and geographic contexts (e.g., Demeter, 2019) in scholarly publications. The need for such investigations has further gained urgency through the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic since disasters generally tend to increase existing cleavages (Bolin & Kurtz, 2018; Ward & Shively, 2017). Institutions and individuals have indeed reacted to the situation by producing rich evidence, from individual fi rst-hand accounts of scholars ’ personal experiences, shared through social media or elaborated into auto-ethnographic studies, to analyses of massive data that was publicly available.
一切如常?评估第一次冠状病毒封锁两年后的提交和审查
学术出版因其在再现学术界性别不平等方面的作用(Lundine et al.,2019)以及与作者种族和地理背景等差异相关的其他不平等(Collyer,2018)而受到越来越多的审查。学术出版物不仅是学术生涯各个阶段的关键成功因素(Winslow&Davis,2016),而且它们也构成了我们知识优势的主体,因此可能直接受到特定偏见的影响。这一现实要求参与制作和选择学术出版物的机构和个人有责任反思其在延续或消除现有不平等方面的作用。除了公开的学术讨论(例如,#CommunicationSoWhite)之外,通过对学术出版物中性别差异表征(例如,Trepte&Loths,2020)和地理背景(例如,Demeter,2019)的调查,在传播研究领域实现了这种反思。由于灾难通常会增加现有的裂缝,因此新冠肺炎大流行进一步增加了此类调查的紧迫性(Bolin&Kurtz,2018;Ward&Shively,2017)。机构和个人确实通过提供丰富的证据对这种情况做出了反应,从通过社交媒体分享或阐述到汽车民族志研究的学者个人经历的个人第一手描述,到对公开可用的大量数据的分析。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
16.30%
发文量
36
期刊介绍: Mobile Media & Communication is a peer-reviewed forum for international, interdisciplinary academic research on the dynamic field of mobile media and communication. Mobile Media & Communication draws on a wide and continually renewed range of disciplines, engaging broadly in the concept of mobility itself.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信