![]()
|
| Table of contents |
Main article: Peer review
Peer review is a central concept for most academic publishing; other scholars in a field must find a work sufficiently high inquality for it to merit publication. The process also guards against plagiarism . Failures in peer review, while they are probably common, are sometimes scandalous (the Sokal Affair is arguably one example, though this controversy also involved manyother issues).
Main article: Scientific literature
Most scientific research isinitially published in scientific journals ; see that articlefor much more information on publishing in the sciences.
Alternative forms of publication in the sciences include Tech Notes , for minor research results and engineering and design work (including computer software), and books for large projects, broad arguments, or compilations of articles.
Publishing in the social sciences is very different in differentfields. Some fields, like economics , may have very "hard" or highly quantitativestandards for publication, much like the natural sciences . Others, like anthropology or sociology , emphasize field work andreporting on first-hand observation as well as quantitative work. Some social-science fields, such as public health or demographics , have significant shared interests with professions like law and medicine , and scholars in these fields often also publish in professionaljournals.
Publishing in the humanities is in principle similar to publishing elsewherein the academy; a range of journals, from general to extremely specialized, are available, and university presses print many new humanities books every year.
However, scholarly publishing requirements in the humanities (as well assome social sciences ) are currently a subject of significantcontroversy within the academy . In many fields, such as literature and history , several published articles aretypically required for a first tenure-track job, and a published orforthcoming book is now often required before tenure . Some critics complainthat this de facto system has emerged without thought to its consequences; they claim that the predictable result is thepublication of much shoddy work, as well as unreasonable demands on the already limited research time of young scholars. To makematters worse, the circulation of many humanities journals in the 1990s declined toalmost untenable levels, as many libraries cancelled subscriptions, leaving fewer and fewer peer-reviewed outlets forpublication; and many humanities professors' first books sell only a few hundred copies, which often does not pay for the cost oftheir printing. Some scholars have called for a publication subvention of a few thousand dollars to be associated with each graduate student fellowship or new tenure-track hire, inorder to alleviate the financial pressure on journals.