Friday 29th of November 2024
Home » Blogs » Gus Leonisky's blog

simply a way for universities to share knowledge....

Recently, the issue of “Publish-or-Perish” has come back onto the Australian science policy agenda, with the Chief Scientist, Dr Cathy Foley, saying that existing narrow research metrics are creating a “Publish-or-Perish” culture, perversely incentivising researchers to “publish iteratively”, chasing publication volume and citations rather than quality research.

 

Publish or Perish: Escaping the hamster wheel of academic research pursuits    By John Howard

 

Dr Foley was referring to the recent ACOLA publication, Research Assessment in Australia: Evidence for Modernisation. ACOLA proposes a research assessment system driven by leadership, collaboration, transparency, collegiality, integrity, and equity and diversity. The Council acknowledges that introducing changes may not be easy, as much depends on the culture within organisations, but “the results could be significant for Australia’s research and innovation ecosystem”.

In addition to addressing organisational culture, implementation will require addressing some serious systemic and embedded behavioural barriers.

Decades ago, academic publishing was simply a way for universities to share knowledge and contribute to the academic community. Academics were generally appointed with permanent tenure, and influential publications, often published by university presses, were a marker of eminence and prestige. This evolved as publication records and citations became a key criterion for hiring, promotion, tenure decisions, and grant funding.

More recently, publications and citations have become central metrics in international university ranking systems.

Besides the UK, Australia seems to be obsessed with university rankings. It has the highest proportion of Times Higher Education (THE) ranked universities, with 84% of Australian universities ranked, compared to 78% in the UK, 29% in Canada, 17% in South Korea, 15% in Japan, 13% in Germany, 4% in the US, and 3% in China.

We are now seeing rankings within rankings. For example, we have rankings that single out young universities/universities under 50, discipline rankings, regional university rankings, and so on. Many Australian universities have, as a publicly stated strategic objective, to increase their positions on global rankings scales.

International rankings in Australia are the entry point to what has emerged as a self-perpetuating cycle, or “Hamster Wheel” of academic research pursuit: institutions strive to enhance their reputation and brand through publications and citations, which will, in turn, attract more international students, who pay fees crucial for financing further research and publication, generating more citations, and so on. This is now the predominant business model of many Australian universities.

In addition, the Australian shift towards viewing education as a market commodity has also placed a premium on rankings and reputation, further fuelling the cycle. The reliance on external funding, often tied to publication outputs, has increased the pressure on academics to produce more and faster.

Early career academics, particularly, must Publish-or-Perish to stay on the tenure track. The recent US Academy of Management Meeting in Boston was attended by over 10,000 predominantly early-career researchers aiming to build their publication portfolio and a secure pathway towards tenure. The competition to stay on the tenure track is intense; this is a well-established aspect of academic culture across many disciplines.

Academic rankings implicitly favour uninterrupted, time-intensive research productivity, typically measured through publication counts, which can disadvantage those balancing family obligations with an academic workload. This can manifest in gender and other biases.

What’s worse, early career researchers are motivated to publish highly empirical research often disconnected from mid-level theory development. The result is that much research is simply “science as usual”, adhering to existing paradigms. This suits academic supervisors and research groups invested in maintaining their status quo of established research areas and methods.

Perhaps even more worrying are the behavioural tactics that academics and institutions deploy to artificially inflate citation metrics. These include excessive self-citation, the formation of citation rings or cartels where groups of academics collude to cite each other’s work, and selective journal submissions, where academics choose to publish in journals based more on the likelihood of receiving higher citation rates.

These and other methods can misrepresent the true academic value and impact of research and give authors unfair advantages in career progression, funding, and recognition. They can also lead to the erosion of trust in academic research and a distorted perception of an institution’s academic standing. The Australian Financial Review Rankings are an important step forward but apply only to Australian universities.

Publish-or-Perish is unlikely to break through paradigmatic barriers or reflect innovative research, resulting in intellectual conservatism and the perpetuation of disciplinary silos where new ideas or unconventional approaches are not pursued vigorously. It is also a ‘safer’ path to publication, as it typically involves well-established methodologies and poses less risk of rejection from academic journals. These observations are explored more fully in the ACOLA report for the Chief Scientist.

Addressing this issue is crucial and requires a collective effort not only from the academic community and institutions but also from research investors, book and journal publishers, and ranking bodies to develop more robust and ethical methods for evaluating academic impact and quality.

Over the years, numerous reports and papers have seriously attempted to shift the Publish-or-Perish culture, but their impact has been limited. Studies and discussions have contributed valuable insights into the limitations of the culture, including the recent work from ACOLA. But the dial has not shifted, and many apparently insurmountable barriers stand in the way. These can be shifted with time, resources, and commitment.

Over the longer term, however, greater diversification in Australia’s higher education landscape would seem to be the only viable strategy to permanently escape the Publish-or-Perish Hamster Wheel with its constraining impact on innovative and paradigm-shifting research. This diversification could involve stronger support for universities specialising in applied sciences and technology, requiring much less focus on global rankings and more on industry collaboration.

Strategically targeted public and industry research investment would reduce the pressure to obtain research income from international students in these institutions.

Germany, for example, has a highly diversified higher education system that includes 108 universities (which teach theoretical knowledge and emphasise research), 210 universities of applied sciences (which focus on professional application of knowledge rather than theory), and 52 colleges of art and music (to train young artists such as musicians, architects, fine artists and designers).

Only a few of these higher education institutions feel compelled to participate in international ranking systems, but the country has an R&D proportion of 3.14% in GDP—compared to Australia’s current 1.68%. This is in addition to comprehensive public funding of university education alongside apprenticeship support. Many would attribute Germany’s economic success to this approach.

With a diminishing public commitment to research and education in Australia, Vice-Chancellors are locked into the hamster wheel of investing in research-focused rankings to attract international student fee income to invest in further rankings-related research. The Government could free universities from the hamster wheel and emphasise achieving improved social and economic outcomes. However, it will have to choose to do so through a sustained program of public funding increases.

https://johnmenadue.com/publish-or-perish-escaping-the-hamster-wheel-of-academic-research-pursuits/

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE TODAY...................

 

CARTOON AT TOP FROM THE NEW YORKER CIRCA 1960s.....

objectively....

 

Only journalists who support the Gaza war can report “objectively” on it…      By Paul Malone

 

Objectivity does not exist – it cannot exist… The word is a hypocrisy which is sustained by the lie that the truth stays in the middle. No sir: sometimes truth stays on one side only.
– Oriana Fallaci

The journalist who penned an open letter to Australian media organisations calling for ethical reporting of the Gaza war were probably not aware of Italian journalist and partisan, Oriana Fallaci’s quote, when they rightly called for adherence to truth over ‘both-sidesism’ in reporting of the war.

“Both-sidesism,” the letter said, “is not balanced or impartial reporting; it acts as a constraint on truth by shrouding the enormous scale of the human suffering currently being perpetrated by Israeli forces. The immense and disproportionate human suffering of the Palestinian civilian population in Gaza should not be minimised.”

I was not one of the authors of the letter, but signed it when I found it.

As you’d expect, reactionaries around the country immediately called into question the impartiality of those who signed.

It’s long been the case that reactionaries claim to be objective or impartial. Those opposed to the Vietnam war, the Iraq weapons-of-mass-destruction war, or apartheid, or in favour of indigenous land rights, are said to be biased and accordingly not entitled to report on such matters.

As a cadet working in the finance section of the Sydney Morning Herald I was first told by SMH editor, Guy Harriott that I would not get on in journalism when, I wore a Moratorium anti-Vietnam war badge back in the seventies. When I sought a one-on-one meeting with Mr Harriot to discuss his views, delivered at a cadet training lecture, he made it clear that only those who supported the war could report “objectively” on it.

It seems nothing has changed. According to a report in Crikey, editors for Nine’s metro papers, the SMH, The Age, Brisbane Times and WAToday reacted to the Gaza war letter by saying they would remove any staff who signed the letter from reporting, or producing content, related to the war.

These editors are of course “objective” in the same way as Rupert Murdoch’s editors were in relation to the Iraq war in 2003. When the population in Western countries was roughly divided on support, or opposition to the war, all 175 Murdoch media outlets worldwide were pro-war. That’s a “free” press for you!

At roughly the same time as the journalists’ letter was circulating, another open letter calling for people to “Say no to antisemitism” was published and signed by prominent Australians.

I would happily sign this letter. It stated that the signatories were unequivocal in their resolve that racism in all its forms was deplorable and abhorrent. “To our Jewish employees, business partners, customers and all who are affected, we acknowledge the heightened feelings of threat being felt by your community right now and affirm your right to physical and psychological safety. All Australians are entitled to be treated with respect, free from offensive, hostile and intimidating behaviour. We stand against antisemitism, Islamophobia and any form of racism in our workplaces, hiring practices and business dealings.”

Those who signed this letter should be every bit as free to report on the Gaza war as those who signed the journalists’ letter. Signing either, or both, does not mean that the signatory cannot observe and report on the facts of the war.
The journalists’ letter called for an end to attacks on journalists. It also called for an end to violence against civilians in Gaza, the West Bank, Israel and Lebanon. Surely we can all agree on that? Nor should anyone object to the call to have the perpetrators of crimes against journalists and civilians held to account.

It is also perfectly reasonable to ask Australian newsroom leaders to be as clear-eyed in their coverage of atrocities committed by Israel, as they are of those committed by Hamas.

Journalists should be aware of their biases and the limits of their coverage. Those who claim to be objective, or suggest that they present the full picture, are either kidding themselves, or lying.

In the 2003 Shock and Awe attack on Baghdad we saw factual live footage of cruise missiles raining down on the city. But this was less than half the picture. What we did not see was footage of those killed and maimed by the light-show.

The media in Australia rightly ran footage of the horror of the Hamas October 7 killings and kidnapping of hostages.

Also deserving full coverage is the Israeli killings of civilians, the bombing of schools and hospitals, the policy of driving people from their homes and the denial of food and water to the people of Gaza.

The condemnation of these atrocities from independent organisations is also news.

Not only have journalists witnessed the slaughter, Amnesty International has documented unlawful indiscriminate Israeli attacks, causing mass civilian casualties.

“Our research points to damning evidence of war crimes in Israel’s bombing campaign that must be urgently investigated,” Amnesty said in a statement on October 20.

Contrary to the popular saying, there are not “two sides to every story.”

There are many, many sides. The war in Gaza did not begin on 7 October. The history is a key part of the current story. The treatment of Palestinians living in Israel, and in the occupied territories, is another part. Before October 7, did the Australian public know of the Palestinian women and children held, without charge or trial, in Israeli military detention? Why was that not a well-reported story?

Three million Palestinians live in the occupied West Bank, ruled by military law and prosecuted in military courts. By contrast, nearly half a million Israeli settlers have moved into the West Bank but are governed under civil and criminal law and tried in Israeli civil courts. Such discrimination is part of the story.

Amnesty called upon the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court to urgently investigate the crimes of all parties. The sluggish response from the ICC is another matter that deserves media attention.

The policy of the Israeli government is also part of the story. What is the Netanyahu Government’s real objective in prosecuting the war by indiscriminate bombing of civilians, driving the people of Gaza from their homes and denying them food, water and shelter?

“Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?” Hitler is said to have remarked when preparing for the invasion of Poland in 1939

Today, with the endorsement of the West Bank settlements there is no hint that Netanyahu, or anyone in his government has any intention of finding a two-state solution to the situation in Israel/Palestine.

His policy is to continue the process of driving Palestinians from their ancestral homes. And “Who will remember the Palestinians?” is his final solution.

Objectively report that!

https://johnmenadue.com/only-journalists-who-support-the-gaza-war-can-report-objectively-on-it/

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE TODAY...................

love of russia....

Germany’s BILD newspaper has sacked its reporter Juergen Helfricht after it emerged that he’d co-authored a book titled ‘To learn to love Russia’ in 2018 without informing the editors about the project. The media outlet explained that the book “exalts” the Kremlin, and represents a “worldview” which “has no place” in Bild. 

Last month, German media outlet NDR reported that it was considering launching legal action against a documentary filmmaker it had partnered with, after it came to light that the man had allegedly received money from a Russian businessman on at least two occasions.  

In a statement published on Friday, BILD said that its editorial team “decided on Tuesday to dismiss Dresden chief reporter Juergen Helfricht with immediate effect.” The reason for the decision was Helfricht’s “participation in a book project, which the editorial team was not informed of, and which it would never have approved,” the media outlet insisted.

At the center of the story is a book titled ‘To learn to love Russia,’ written by former Dresden Opera Ball chief Hans-Joachim Frey, and co-authored by Helfricht. The German edition saw the light of day in 2018 and the Russian one three years later. 

The preface to the Russian-language version was penned by President Vladimir Putin, and the one to the German language book by then Russian Culture Minister Vladimir Medinsky. The official, among other things, denounced the “fallacious [and] superficial” notions of Russia that foreigners tend to have. Medinsky also said that these misconceptions are often used for “propaganda purposes.” 

According to BILD, the book carries multiple “exalting perceptions of the Kremlin.”

“Such a world view… has no place in a publication like BILD,” the statement concluded.  

In a separate case last month, media outlet NDR reported that it had been confronted with allegations that documentary filmmaker Hubert Seipel, who it had partnered with, had received Russian money.

Seipel, who produced such films as ‘I, Putin: A Portrait,’ (2012), as well as interviews with the Russian president and US whistleblower Edward Snowden two years later, “admitted to NDR that he had received money from the Russian entrepreneur Alexey Mordashov in the form of two ‘sponsorship contracts’ in 2013 and 2018” for two book projects.

The German broadcaster noted that the filmmaker had failed to inform NRD of these contracts – something it sees as a “significant conflict of interest that challenges Seipel’s journalistic independence.” 

Late last month, President Putin said that “Russophobia… has become almost the official ideology of the Western ruling elites,” adding that it is directed not only at ethnic Russians, but also at all the other peoples inhabiting the country.

The Russian head of state went on to claim that the West wants to dismember Russia by attempting to sow discord among its population.

https://www.rt.com/news/588391-germany-bild-fires-reporter-russia-book/

 

SEE ALSO: https://www.rt.com/russia/576641-british-university-block-russian-writer/

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE TODAY...................