当前位置: X-MOL 学术Mobile Media & Communication › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
Business as usual? Taking stock of submissions and reviews two years after the first coronavirus lockdowns
Mobile Media & Communication ( IF 3.859 ) Pub Date : 2022-02-25 , DOI: 10.1177/20501579221080594
Veronika Karnowski 1 , Thilo von Pape 2
Affiliation  

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 knowledge, 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 reflect on their part in perpetuating or countering existing inequalities. Beyond public academic discussions (e.g., #CommunicationSoWhite), such introspection within the field 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 first-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.

中文翻译:

照常营业?在第一次冠状病毒封锁两年后评估提交和审查

学术出版因其在再现学者之间的性别不平等(Lundine 等,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)中的作用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 年),而且它们也构成了我们知识的主体,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他们在延续或对抗现有不平等方面的作用。除了公开的学术讨论(例如#CommunicationSoWhite),通过对学术出版物中性别(例如,Trepte & Loths,2020 年)和地理环境(例如,Demeter,2019 年)的差异表示的调查,实现了传播研究领域的这种自省。通过持续的 COVID-19 大流行,对此类调查的需求变得更加紧迫,因为灾难通常会增加现有的乳沟(Bolin 和 Kurtz,2018 年;Ward 和 Shivery,2017 年)。机构和个人确实通过提供丰富的证据来应对这种情况,从个人对学者个人经历的第一手资料,通过社交媒体分享或阐述到自动民族志研究,到对公开可用的大量数据的分析。2020)和学术出版物中的地理背景(例如,Demeter,2019)。通过持续的 COVID-19 大流行,对此类调查的需求变得更加紧迫,因为灾难通常会增加现有的乳沟(Bolin 和 Kurtz,2018 年;Ward 和 Shivery,2017 年)。机构和个人确实通过提供丰富的证据来应对这种情况,从个人对学者个人经历的第一手资料,通过社交媒体分享或阐述到自动民族志研究,到对公开可用的大量数据的分析。2020)和学术出版物中的地理背景(例如,Demeter,2019)。通过持续的 COVID-19 大流行,对此类调查的需求变得更加紧迫,因为灾难通常会增加现有的乳沟(Bolin 和 Kurtz,2018 年;Ward 和 Shivery,2017 年)。机构和个人确实通过提供丰富的证据来应对这种情况,从个人对学者个人经历的第一手资料,通过社交媒体分享或阐述到自动民族志研究,到对公开可用的大量数据的分析。夏弗利,2017)。机构和个人确实通过提供丰富的证据来应对这种情况,从个人对学者个人经历的第一手资料,通过社交媒体分享或阐述到自动民族志研究,到对公开可用的大量数据的分析。夏弗利,2017)。机构和个人确实通过提供丰富的证据来应对这种情况,从个人对学者个人经历的第一手资料,通过社交媒体分享或阐述到自动民族志研究,到对公开可用的大量数据的分析。
更新日期:2022-02-25
down
wechat
bug