Signs of epistemic disruption: Transformations in the knowledge system of the academic journal

The Future of the Academic Journal

Volumn , Issue , 2009, Pages 13-61

  Cope, Bill ^a   Kalantzis, Mary ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACADEMIC JOURNAL; KNOWLEDGE SYSTEM;

EID: 84864080721     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.5210/fm.v14i4.2309     Document Type: Chapter

References (83)

1. Albanese A. Harvard slams Google settlement; others react with caution. Library Journal 2008, available at:, (accessed 1 September 2008). http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6610115.html.
2. Bacon F. The New Organon 1620, available at:. http://www.constitution.org/bacon/nov_org.htm.
3. Bauwens M. The political economy of peer production. CTheory 2005, available at:, (accessed 1 September 2008). http://www.ctheory.net/articles.aspx?id=499.
4. Benkler Y. The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom 2006, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.
5. Bergman S.S. The scholarly communication movement: highlights and recent developments. Collection Building 2006, 25:108-128.
6. Bergstrom C.T., Bergstrom T.C. The economics of ecology journals. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 2006, 4:488-495.
7. Bergstrom T., Lavaty R. How often do economists selfarchive? 2007, available at:, (accessed 1 September 2008). http://www.repositories.cdlib.org/ucsbecon/bergstrom/2007a/.
8. Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities 2003, Available at:, (accessed 1 September 2008). http://www.oa.mpg.de/openaccess-berlin/berlindeclaration.html.
9. Bethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing 2003, Available at:, (accessed 1 September 2008). http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/bethesda.htm.
10. Biagioli M. From book censorship to academic peer review. Emergences: Journal for the Study of Media & Composite Cultures 2002, 12:11-45.
11. Bornmann L., Mutz R., Neuhaus C., Daniel H.-D. Citation counts for research evaluation: standards of good practice for analyzing bibliometric data and presenting and interpreting results. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics 2008, 8:93-102.
12. Incentivizing the open access research web: publicationarchiving, data-archiving and scientometrics. CTWatch Quarterly 2007, available at:, (accessed 1 September 2008). http://www.ctwatch.org/quarterly/articles/2007/08/incentivizing-the-open-access-research-web/.
13. Browman H.I., Stergiou K.I. Factors and indices are one thing, deciding who is scholarly, why they are scholarly, and the relative value of their scholarship is something else entirely. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics 2008, 8:1-3.
14. Initiative Budapest Open Access Available at:, (accessed 1 September 2008). http://www.soros.org/openaccess/read.shtml.
15. Burnham J.C. The evolution of editorial peer review. Journal of the American Medical Association 1990, 263. available at:, (accessed 1 September 2008). http://www.jama.amaassn.org/cgi/content/abstract/263/10/1323.
16. Butler L. Using a balanced approach to bibliometrics: quantitative performance measures in the Australian research quality framework. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics 2008, 8:83-92.
17. Campbell P. Escape from the impact factor. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics 2008, 8:5-7.
18. Clarke R. The cost profiles of alternative approaches to journal publishing 2007, 12. First Monday, available at:, (accessed 1 September 2008). http://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2048/1906.
19. Cope B. Content development and rights in a digital environment. Digital Rights Management and Content Development, Technology Drivers Across the Book Production Supply Chain, From the Creator to the Consumer 2001, 2.4:3-16. Common Ground, Melbourne. B. Cope, R. Freeman (Eds.).
20. Cope B., Kalantzis M. Multiliteracies: Literacy Learning and the Design of Social Futures 2000, Routledge, London.
21. Cope B., Kalantzis M. Designs for social futures. Multiliteracies: Literacy Learning and the Design of Social Futures 2000, 203-234. Routledge, London. B. Cope, M. Kalantzis (Eds.).
22. Cope B., Kalantzis M. Text-made text. E-Learning 2004, 1:198-282.
23. Cope B., Kalantzis M. New media, new learning. International Journal of Learning 2007, 14:75-79.
24. Dewatripont M., Ginsburgh V., Legros P., Walckiers A. Study on the Economic and Technical Evolution of the Scientific Publication Markets in Europe 2006, European Commission, Brussels.
25. Edlin A.S., Rubinfeld D.L. Exclusion or efficient pricing? The "big deal" bundling of academic journals 2004, available at:, (accessed 1 September 2008). http://www.repositories.cdlib.org/blewp/art167/.
26. Evans J.A. Electronic publication and the narrowing of science and scholarship. Science 2008, 321:395-399.
27. Fink J.L., Bourne P.E. Reinventing scholarly communication for the electronic age. CTWatch Quarterly 2007, available at:. http://www.ctwatch.org/quarterly/articles/2007/08/reinventing-scholarlycommunication-for-the-electronic-age/.
28. Fitzgerald B., Pappalardo K. The law as cyberinfrastructure. CTWatch Quarterly 2007, available at:, (accessed 1 September 2008). http://www.ctwatch.org/quarterly/articles/2007/08/the-law-as-cyberinfrastructure/.
29. Foray D. The Economics of Knowledge 2004, MIT Press, Cambridge MA.
30. Galloway A.R., Thacker E. The Exploit: A Theory of Networks 2007, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN.
31. Ginsparg P. Next-generation implications of open access'. CTWatch Quarterly 2007, available at:, (accessed 1 September 2008). http://www.ctwatch.org/quarterly/articles/2007/08/next-generation-implications-of-open-access/.
32. Grafton A. The Footnote: A Curious History 1997, Faber and Faber, London.
33. Guédon J.-C. In Oldenburg's long shadow: librarians, research scientists, publishers, and the control of scientific publishing 2001, available at:, (accessed 1 September 2008). http://www.arl.org/resources/pubs/mmproceedings/138guedon.shtm.
34. Hannay T. Web 2.0 in science. CTWatch Quarterly 2007, available at:, (accessed 1 September 2008). http://www.ctwatch.org/quarterly/articles/2007/08/web-20-in-science/.
35. Harnad S. Validating research performance metrics against peer rankings. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics 2008, 8:103-107.
36. Harzing A.-W.K., van der Wal R. Google Scholar as a new source for citation analysis. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics 2008, 8:61-73.
37. Horrobin D.F. The philosophical basis of peer review and the suppression of innovation. Journal of the American Medical Association 1990, available at:, (accessed 1 September 2008). http://www.jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/263/10/1438.
38. Husserl E. The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology 1970, Northwestern University Press, Evanston, IL.
39. Ioannidis J.P.A. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med 2005, 2:696-701.
40. Jefferson T., Wager E., Davidoff F. Measuring the quality of editorial peer review. Journal of the American Medical Association 2002, 287:2786-2790.
41. Judson H.F. Structural transformations of the sciences and the end of peer review. Journal of the American Medical Association 1994, 272:92-94.
42. Kalantzis M., Cope B. New Learning: Elements of a Science of Education 2008, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
43. Kapitzke C., Peters M.A. Global Knowledge Cultures 2007, Sense, Rotterdam.
44. Kousha K., Thelwall Google Scholar citations and Google Web/URL citations: a multi-discipline exploratory analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2007, 58:1055-1065.
45. Kress G. Design and transformation: new theories of meaning. Multiliteracies: Literacy Learning and the Design of Social Futures 2000, 153-161. Routledge, London. B. Cope, M. Kalantzis (Eds.).
46. Lawrence P.A. The mismeasurement of science. Current Biology 2007, 17:583-585.
47. Lawrence P.A. Lost in publication: how measurement harms science. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics 2008, 8:9-11.
48. Lee K., Bero L. What authors, editors and reviewers should do to improve peer review 2006, available at, (accessed 1 September 2008). http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/nature05007.html.
49. Lessig L. The Future of Ideas: The Fate of the Commons in a Connected World 2001, Random House, New York.
50. Lessig L. Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy 2008, Penguin Press, New York.
51. Linklider J.C.R. Libraries of the Future 1965, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
52. Lynch C. The shape of the scientific article in the developing cyberinfrastructure. CTWatch Quarterly 2007, available at:, (accessed 1 September 2008). http://www.ctwatch.org/quarterly/articles/2007/08/the-shape-of-the-scientificarticle-in-the-developing-cyberinfrastructure/.
53. Mabe M.A., Amin M. Dr Jekyll and Dr Hyde: authorreader asymmetries in scholarly publishing. Aslib Proceedings 2002, 54:149-157.
54. McCabe M.J., Nevo A., Rubinfeld D.L. The pricing of academic journals 2006, available at:, (accessed 1 September 2008). http://www.repositories.cdlib.org/blewp/art199/.
55. Meho L.I. The rise and rise of citation analysis. Physics World 2007, 20:32-36.
56. Meyers B. Peer review software: has it made a mark on the world of scholarly journals? 2004, available at:, (accessed 1 September 2008). http://www.editorialmanager.com/homepage/resources.html.
57. Stanley Morgan Scientific Publishing: Knowledge Is Power 2002, Morgan Stanley Equity Research Europe, London.
58. Norris M., Oppenheim C. Comparing alternatives to the Web of Science for coverage of the social sciences' literature. Journal of Informetrics 2007, 1(2):161-169.
59. Opderbeck D.W. The penguin's paradox: the political economy of international intellectual property and the paradox of open intellectual property models. Stanford Law & Policy Review 2007, 18 available at:, (accessed 1 September 2008). http://www.papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=927261.
60. Van Orsdel L.C., Born K. Library Journal. Periodicals price survey 2006: journals in the time of Google 2006, available at:, (accessed 1 September 2008). http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6321722.html.
61. Van Orsdel L.C., Born K. Library Journal. Periodicals price survey 2008: embracing openness 2008, available at, (accessed 1 September 2008). http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6547086.html?q=periodicals+price+survey+2008.
62. Pauly D., Stergiou K.I. Re-interpretation of 'influence weight' as a citation-based index of new knowledge (INK). Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics 2008, 8:75-78.
63. Pellegrino J.W., Chudowsky N., Glaser R. Knowing what Students Know: The Science and Design of Educational Assessment 2001, National Academies Press, Washington, DC.
64. Peters M.A. Knowledge Economy, Development and the Future of Higher Education 2007, Sense Publishers, Rotterdam.
65. Peters M.A., Marginson S., Murphy P. Creativity and the Global Knowledge Economy 2008, Peter Lang, New York.
66. Raymond E. The Cathedral and the Bazaar: Musings on Linux and Open Source by an Accidental Revolutionary 2001, O'Reilly, Sebastapol, CA.
67. Rowland F. The peer-review process. Learned Publishing 2002, 15:247-258.
68. Schroeder R. Pointing users toward citation searching: using Google Scholar and Web of Science. Libraries and the Academy 2007, 7:243-248.
69. Simons K. The misused impact factor. Science 2008, 322(5899):165.
70. Van de Sompel H., Lagoze C. Interoperability for the discovery, use, and re-use of units of scholarly communication. CTWatch Quarterly 2007, available at:, (accessed 1 September 2008). http://www.ctwatch.org/quarterly/articles/2007/08/interoperability-for-the-discovery-use-and-re-use-ofunits-of-scholarly-communication/.
71. Sosteric M. Interactive peer review: a research note. Electronic Journal of Sociology 1996, available at:, (accessed 1 September 2008). http://www.socserv.socsci.mcmaster.ca/EJS/vol002.001/SostericNote.vol002.001.html.
72. Spier R. The history of the peer-review process. Trends in Biotechnology 2002, 20:357-358.
73. Stallman R. Free Software 2002, GNU Press, Free Society, Boston, MA.
74. Stallman R. The GNU Project available at:, (accessed 1 September 2008). http://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html.
75. Stanley C.A. When counter narratives meet master nparratives in the journal editorial-review process. Educational Researcher 2007, 36:14-24.
76. Suber P. Trends favoring open access 2007, available at:, (accessed 1 September 2008). http://www.ctwatch.org/quarterly/articles/2007/08/trends-favoring-openaccess/.
77. Todd P.A., Ladle R.J. Hidden dangers of a "citation culture". Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics 2008, 8:13-16.
78. Wager E., Jefferson T. Shortcomings of peer review in biomedical journals. Learned Publishing 2001, 14:257-263.
79. Wilbanks J. Cyberinfrastructure for knowledge sharing 2007, available at:, (accessed 1 September 2008). http://www.ctwatch.org/quarterly/articles/2007/08/cyberinfrastructure-for-knowledge-sharing/.
80. Williams S. Free as in Freedom: Richard Stallman's Crusade for Free Software 2002, O'Reilly, Sebastapol CA.
81. Willinsky J. The Access Principle: The Case for Open Research and Scholarship 2006, MIT Press, Cambridge MA.
82. Willinsky J. The properties of Locke's common-wealth of learning. Policy Futures in Education 2006, 4:348-365.
83. Wooding S., Grant J. Assessing research: the researchers' view. Joint Funding Bodies 2003, Review of Research Assessment, UK, available at:, (accessed 1 September 2008). http://www.ra-review.ac.uk/reports/.