tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-825564497920015595.post8197412156725871741..comments2024-03-28T07:56:38.659+00:00Comments on The View from the Blue House: Balancing and redistributing ‘additional’ academic workRob Kitchinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05567424969308636082noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-825564497920015595.post-65517569883871539702017-07-21T02:22:50.657+01:002017-07-21T02:22:50.657+01:00I argued that radical scholars (incl. geographers)...I argued that radical scholars (incl. geographers) can demonstrate commitment by refusing neoliberal pressures to advance personal research above all else, and actually pull their weight on tasks that are not self-interested and careerist. This includes refereeing and so-on. A rather unconventional position. https://thewinnower.com/papers/327-who-are-the-radical-academics-today<br /><br />In accord with this, I have a huge 'service' workload, although certainly less in demand than Rob, and I do less personal research as a result. It can peak at a day a week, plus managing and laying up 30-40 articles for the J of PE, plus all of those promotion/tenure type tasks. I still see people that don't do any of these things though, which seems unjust, especially when they are full profs. Generally they are unpleasant types that I cannot work with. <br /><br />On refereeing for JPE, junior faculty have generally proven more helpful; so have previous journal authors. The worst for not even replying to referee requests have been academics from China, Italy, France and Scandinavia. the most thorough reviews come from the US. n=c500 over 15 years but I am still not sure if there is a real pattern. One way to 'count' refereeing it is to log it on Publons, although this startup company was recently purchased. <br /><br />I would set a non-quantified limit on service activity. Everybody has their limits. simon bhttp://simonbatterbury.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-825564497920015595.post-21516391793405503602017-07-06T20:38:21.023+01:002017-07-06T20:38:21.023+01:00I wonder if part of the problem is that increasing...I wonder if part of the problem is that increasing pressure to publish and bid, from various sources, means on average academics are producing more 'outputs' than ever. I'd be interested to see data on the average number of articles per academic over the last 50 years. <br /><br />A slow approach would not only reduce the amount of reviewing that requires doing, but it might spread around the opportunities to do research in the first place, e.g. research funding more be more evenly spread across the sector.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-825564497920015595.post-82007367023081596612017-07-05T23:10:54.227+01:002017-07-05T23:10:54.227+01:00Jon, I can see the logic in your proposal, but I t...Jon, I can see the logic in your proposal, but I think it would be a very large and costly undertaking and I'd also be worried that it would provide Elsevier, Thomson, etc. with another set of metrics to sell (at exorbitant price) to universities/governments with which to beat academics with - it won't be an open process in that sense. It's also not just a numbers/allocation problem, but one of matching of expertise to paper content, etc. which would be more tricky. <br /><br />I suspect that many people are not serial offenders in that they submit more than they review where they turn down refereeing, but rather that they are not asked to review (e.g., they submit one paper that needs 3 reviews, but are asked to only review one paper in return). The system does rely at present on good samaritans. However, as someone pointed out to me on twitter, these can act as gatekeepers - just because someone does the work doesn't mean they do it well or without an agenda. Which is a whole other bugbear issue with refereeing!<br />Rob Kitchinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05567424969308636082noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-825564497920015595.post-12507353863339791962017-07-05T22:59:07.641+01:002017-07-05T22:59:07.641+01:00Dydia, thanks for the comments. I think a session ...Dydia, thanks for the comments. I think a session to discuss is a good idea. We had a seminar the other week about the 'slow university' and there are other related issues that need a bit of thought and action. Not at all easy to solve mind.Rob Kitchinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05567424969308636082noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-825564497920015595.post-60694809307637771042017-07-05T21:58:28.976+01:002017-07-05T21:58:28.976+01:00Last year our department adopted a Google spreadsh...Last year our department adopted a Google spreadsheet for workload allocation -- every staff member's teaching obligations were visible for everyone else to see, and it transformed the way that that I go about finding people to staff my complex methods module: instead of going to my 'usual suspects' of people who I know well and who I knew would be willing to help me out, I started looking at what people were actually teaching, how many hours they were signed up for, and when. It gave me much more traction when asking for contributions and, as a result, greater depth on the bench.<br /><br />Perhaps what's needed is a 'simple' (insert long, arduous process here) database that uses ORCID and other UIDs to assemble a joined-up profile of submitters and reviewers: each journal uploads data on a quarterly basis on its reviews and submissions so that anyone can see how many articles a person has submitted, against how many they've reviewed (with asked in column 3 and declined in column 4?). It wouldn't even be necessary to see which journals the submissions or reviews had been made. Individual reports could be suppressed entirely until someone reached a minimum 'k' in both columns. <br /><br />I suspect we'd find that there are some 'serial offenders' who submit far more than they review, and also that there are 'serial samaritans' who do the reverse. Or perhaps I'm completely wrong about that, so the nice thing is that this fits with the growing 'openness' of academic work in many fields and I'd welcome the chance to be proved wrong by data.JonRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14967780413046918402noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-825564497920015595.post-9638896580998379482017-07-04T18:56:48.820+01:002017-07-04T18:56:48.820+01:00Thank you for airing this issue, Rob. Your case, w...Thank you for airing this issue, Rob. Your case, with its meticulous record keeping and dramatic numbers, definitely highlights just how out of hand things can get! <br /><br />As a journal editor myself, I'm aware that is has gotten harder to secure reviews -- you have to ask more people, and you have to nag them more often to get the review in a "timely" manner. Most people remain good natured and willing to help, but some are so highly impacted that they have to decline, or say Yes to too much and end up late. <br /><br />You're right that explicitly working to expand the pool of reviewers is wise, and it does help. But another part of it is the nature of scholarship, where "key" ideas are engaged by certain authors and those authors end up in high demand. Like you, Rob!<br /><br />Since the pressures on our research and teaching have not diminished, how can we balance these additional service pressures -- and still do the other service (and community engagement) work we'd like to be doing, and still have lives? I think many of us are struggling with these issues. <br /><br />The challenge is that when one person makes the wise decision to say No, it passes the work along the chain. So it solves the problem only locally -- and of course it does not stop the number of requests, which, as you rightly point out, take time even to politely decline. <br /><br />I think a lot of academics share these concerns and I'd love to discuss them further. Perhaps at an AAG session in New Orleans next year? <br /><br />Dydia DeLyserDydia DeLyserhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07824366223698856620noreply@blogger.com