[Humanist] 25.428 open access

Humanist Discussion Group willard.mccarty at mccarty.org.uk
Sat Oct 29 10:33:08 CEST 2011


                 Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 25, No. 428.
            Department of Digital Humanities, King's College London
                       www.digitalhumanities.org/humanist
                Submit to: humanist at lists.digitalhumanities.org

  [1]   From:    D.Allington <d.allington at open.ac.uk>                      (27)
        Subject: RE: [Humanist] 25.419 open access

  [2]   From:    "Prescott, Andrew" <andrew.prescott at kcl.ac.uk>            (13)
        Subject: Open Access


--[1]------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 13:33:52 +0100
        From: D.Allington <d.allington at open.ac.uk>
        Subject: RE: [Humanist] 25.419 open access
        In-Reply-To: <20111027071344.0FCC11DFC4A at woodward.joyent.us>

Thanks for the last point, Micah: speaking as very junior faculty, I wouldn't have felt quite comfortable making it myself. Of course - in the UK at least - when senior faculty evaluate the work of their juniors they are often in large part attempting to second-guess the priorities of the Research Excellence Framework panel members whose judgements will shape the public funding landscape from 2014. The rule of thumb I've most often heard is that a peer reviewed article trumps a chapter in an edited collection, a longer article trumps a shorter one, and an authored monograph trumps everything else; digital objects have no clear place in that hierarchy, and are unlikely, therefore, to be considered a very safe bet. So the question of whose support must be engaged is deferred - until eventually we reach the Olympian heights at which the rules of the game are decided. (Although this opens yet another can of worms, by raising the question of whether we should be playing at all. The Research Excellence Framework is a zero-sum game, so if all scholars collectively decided to ignore it, there would be no net loss and an immense gain in terms of academic freedom - small chance of that happening, however.)

Best wishes

Daniel

Dr Daniel Allington
Lecturer in English Language Studies and Applied Linguistics
Centre for Language and Communication
The Open University
+44 (0) 1908 332 914

http://open.academia.edu/DanielAllington
________________________________________

[...] Promotion and tenure boards will eventually have to acknowledge that 
a digital object in NINES is *valuable* (to the field and the public) in the 
same way that a monograph can be, but that will only happen if/when 
senior faculty become engaged in these new scholarly methods or express 
support of junior faculty who do so. (And trust me, I know exactly the can of 
worms I’m opening up by stating that!).

Sincerely,

Micah Vandegrift
Scholarly Communications Project Manager
Florida State University



--[2]------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 14:02:15 +0100
        From: "Prescott, Andrew" <andrew.prescott at kcl.ac.uk>
        Subject: Open Access
        In-Reply-To: <20111027071344.0FCC11DFC4A at woodward.joyent.us>

Dear Willard,

The following recent listing on the very interesting 'Impact of Social
Sciences' blog by librarians at the LSE may be of interest in relationship
to our recent exchanges on open access:

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2011/10/28/championing-open-access/

Andrew

Professor Andrew Prescott
Department of Digital Humanities
King's College London
28-29 Drury Lane
London WC2B 5RL

http://www.kcl.ac.uk/artshums/depts/ddh/





More information about the Humanist mailing list