你可能不得不反驳,但不幸的是,这样做的路径可能并不那么清晰:一个案例研究

IF 1.2 4区 管理学 0 HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
M. Wyatt
{"title":"你可能不得不反驳,但不幸的是,这样做的路径可能并不那么清晰:一个案例研究","authors":"M. Wyatt","doi":"10.3138/jsp-2023-0004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Refutation articles may be unpopular with journal editors for various reasons, not only because refutations dwell on the already-published rather than present alluring new findings. Refutations can generate discomfort in casting a harsh spotlight on screening processes and may not fare well in editorial decisions regarding acceptance/rejection. This is unfortunate, since refutations are vital to healthy open debate, allowing academics with genuine concerns about published research a voice. Consequently, there should be a place for carefully researched, thoroughly peer-reviewed refutations. This article explores these issues with reference to an illustrative case study of a rejected refutation. This refutation was produced in response to a misleading claim about an English language teacher education project in Oman. The reader is invited to consider whether this refutation, which was favourably peer-reviewed but then rejected by the editor, deserved closer consideration.","PeriodicalId":44613,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Scholarly Publishing","volume":"9 1","pages":"-"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"You Might Have to Refute, but Unfortunately the Path to Doing So May Not Be So Clear: A Case Study\",\"authors\":\"M. Wyatt\",\"doi\":\"10.3138/jsp-2023-0004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Refutation articles may be unpopular with journal editors for various reasons, not only because refutations dwell on the already-published rather than present alluring new findings. Refutations can generate discomfort in casting a harsh spotlight on screening processes and may not fare well in editorial decisions regarding acceptance/rejection. This is unfortunate, since refutations are vital to healthy open debate, allowing academics with genuine concerns about published research a voice. Consequently, there should be a place for carefully researched, thoroughly peer-reviewed refutations. This article explores these issues with reference to an illustrative case study of a rejected refutation. This refutation was produced in response to a misleading claim about an English language teacher education project in Oman. The reader is invited to consider whether this refutation, which was favourably peer-reviewed but then rejected by the editor, deserved closer consideration.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44613,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Scholarly Publishing\",\"volume\":\"9 1\",\"pages\":\"-\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Scholarly Publishing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp-2023-0004\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Scholarly Publishing","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp-2023-0004","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

由于各种原因,反驳文章可能不受期刊编辑的欢迎,不仅仅是因为反驳文章关注的是已经发表的文章,而不是提出诱人的新发现。在筛选过程中,反驳可能会让人感到不舒服,也可能在编辑决定接受或拒绝时表现不佳。这是不幸的,因为反驳对于健康的公开辩论至关重要,它让对已发表研究有真正担忧的学者有了发言权。因此,应该为经过仔细研究、经过彻底同行评审的反驳留出一席之地。这篇文章探讨了这些问题,参考一个说明性的案例研究,拒绝反驳。这一反驳是针对关于阿曼英语教师教育项目的误导性说法而提出的。请读者考虑一下,这一反驳是否值得更仔细地考虑,它得到了同行的好评,但后来被编辑拒绝了。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
You Might Have to Refute, but Unfortunately the Path to Doing So May Not Be So Clear: A Case Study
Refutation articles may be unpopular with journal editors for various reasons, not only because refutations dwell on the already-published rather than present alluring new findings. Refutations can generate discomfort in casting a harsh spotlight on screening processes and may not fare well in editorial decisions regarding acceptance/rejection. This is unfortunate, since refutations are vital to healthy open debate, allowing academics with genuine concerns about published research a voice. Consequently, there should be a place for carefully researched, thoroughly peer-reviewed refutations. This article explores these issues with reference to an illustrative case study of a rejected refutation. This refutation was produced in response to a misleading claim about an English language teacher education project in Oman. The reader is invited to consider whether this refutation, which was favourably peer-reviewed but then rejected by the editor, deserved closer consideration.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
15.40%
发文量
12
期刊介绍: For more than 40 years, the Journal of Scholarly Publishing has been the authoritative voice of academic publishing. The journal combines philosophical analysis with practical advice and aspires to explain, argue, discuss, and question the large collection of new topics that continually arise in the publishing field. JSP has also examined the future of scholarly publishing, scholarship on the web, digitization, copyright, editorial policies, computer applications, marketing, and pricing models. It is the indispensable resource for academics and publishers that addresses the new challenges resulting from changes in technology and funding and from innovations in production and publishing.
×
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