The field of applied linguistics is increasingly adopting open science practices. As open access publication gains traction, ethical issues emerge that need to be addressed by the field. This viewpoint paper addresses the concern that open science is not equally open for everyone. This paper describes how open access publication is increasingly being commercialized and explains how open access publication coincides with systemic inequality. We offer the following viewpoints for the field to consider:1.) We are morally obligated to make our research output accessible.2.) Hybrid, Gold, and Green open access publishing lead to systemic inequality in open access publishing, benefiting commercial publishers and those working in research-intensive universities and rich countries.3.)Diamond open access publication removes the systemic inequalities; hence, Diamond open access should be prioritized over Hybrid, Gold, and Green open access publication models.4.)We should move away from publish-and-read agreements and Green open access publishing, because they prevent system change.5.)Through our choices in our work as researchers, editors, reviewers, authors and teachers, we can contribute to the transition towards truly equitable open access publishing practices.6.)Senior researchers are in the position and have the moral obligation to be drivers of these changes.
DOCUMENT
Purpose – Information verification is an important factor in commercial valuation practice.Valuers use their professional autonomy to decide on the level of verification required, thereby creating an opportunity for client-related judgement bias in valuation. The purpose of this paper is to assess the manifestation of client attachment risks in information verification. Design/methodology/approach – A case-based questionnaire was used to retrieve data from 290 commercial valuation professionals in the Netherlands, providing a 15 per cent response rate of the Dutch commercial valuation population. Descriptive and inferential statistics have been used to test research hypotheses involving relations between information verification and professional features that may indicate client attachment such as an executive job level and brokerage experience. Findings – The results reveal that valuers acting at partner level within their organisation obtain lower scores on information verification compared to lower-ranked valuers. Also, brokerage experience correlates negatively to information verification of valuation professionals. Both findings have statistical significance. Research limitations/implications – The results reflect valuers’ reasoning behaviour rather than actual behaviour. Replication of findings through experimental design will contribute to research validity. Practical implications – Maintaining close client contact in a competitive environment is important for business continuity yet may foster client attachment.The associated downside risks in valuation practice call for higher awareness of (subconscious) client influence and the development of attitudinal scepticism in valuer training programmes. Originality/value – This paper is one of the few that explore possible sources of valuer judgement bias by relating client-friendly valuer features to a key area of valuation i.e. information verification.
LINK
Open access combined with Web 2.0 networking tools is fast changing the traditional journal's functions and framework and the publisher's role. As content is more and more available online in digital repositories and on the web, an integrated, interconnected, multidisciplinary information environment is evolving and Oldenburg's model disintegrates: the journal is no longer the main referring unit for scholarly output, as it used to be, for Scientific, Technical, and Medical disciplines, but scholars' attention is now more focused on the article level. New journals models are thus evolving. The first part of this paper discusses these new experimental journal models, i.e. overlay journals, interjournals and different levels journals. The second part directs readers' attention to the role commercial publishers could play in this digital seamless writing arena. The authors consider that publishers should concentrate much more on value-added services for authors, readers and libraries, such as navigational services, discovery services, archiving and evaluation services.
LINK
The scientific publishing industry is rapidly transitioning towards information analytics. This shift is disproportionately benefiting large companies. These can afford to deploy digital technologies like knowledge graphs that can index their contents and create advanced search engines. Small and medium publishing enterprises, instead, often lack the resources to fully embrace such digital transformations. This divide is acutely felt in the arts, humanities and social sciences. Scholars from these disciplines are largely unable to benefit from modern scientific search engines, because their publishing ecosystem is made of many specialized businesses which cannot, individually, develop comparable services. We propose to start bridging this gap by democratizing access to knowledge graphs – the technology underpinning modern scientific search engines – for small and medium publishers in the arts, humanities and social sciences. Their contents, largely made of books, already contain rich, structured information – such as references and indexes – which can be automatically mined and interlinked. We plan to develop a framework for extracting structured information and create knowledge graphs from it. We will as much as possible consolidate existing proven technologies into a single codebase, instead of reinventing the wheel. Our consortium is a collaboration of researchers in scientific information mining, Odoma, an AI consulting company, and the publisher Brill, sharing its data and expertise. Brill will be able to immediately put to use the project results to improve its internal processes and services. Furthermore, our results will be published in open source with a commercial-friendly license, in order to foster the adoption and future development of the framework by other publishers. Ultimately, our proposal is an example of industry innovation where, instead of scaling-up, we scale wide by creating a common resource which many small players can then use and expand upon.
