In practice the way in which research impacts and influences policy and society is often thought to be a rational, ordered and linear process. Whilst this might represent a ‘common sense’ understanding of research impact, this post reflects on how upending the primacy of data and embracing complexity can lead to a more nuanced and effective understanding of research impact. 

One of the foundational aims of the open access movement, set out in the Budapest Open Access Initiative, was to provide access to research not only to scholars, but to “teachers, students and other curious minds” and in so doing “enrich education”. However almost two decades on from the declaration access to the research literature for educational purposes remains limited. 

This blog post highlights the historical precedent of Mary Quayle Innis and the unrecognised impact she had on her husband Harold Adams Innis’ career and suggests that the social sciences and humanities would benefit from a wider interpretation of scholarly attribution than is currently practiced.

As flaws in the peer review process are highlighted and calls for reform become more frequent, it may be tempting for some to denigrate and dismiss the contributions of the reviewers themselves.

The future of the academic monograph has been questioned for over two decades. At the heart of this 'monograph crisis' has been a publishing industry centred on the print publication of monographs.

Plan S will also influence how learned societies, the organisations tasked with representing academics in particular disciplines, operate, as many currently depend on revenues from journal subscriptions to cross-subsidise their activities. 

The purpose of peer review is often portrayed as being a simple ‘objective’ test of the soundness or quality of a research paper. However, it also performs other functions primarily through linking and developing relationships between networks of researchers. 

Whilst a shift to gold (pay to publish) open access would deliver wider access to research, the lack of price sensitivity amongst academics presents a risk that they will be locked into a new escalating  pay to publish system.

The progress of Open Access (OA) is often measured by the proportion of journals that have transitioned to OA publication models. However, a number of journals have made the opposite choice and moved from open to closed access.

When social scientists think about big data, they often think in terms of quantitative number crunching. However, the growing availability of ‘big’ qualitative datasets presents new opportunities for qualitative research. 

Financial and social burdens of academic travel add an additional barrier to participation in research. If academia wants to address issues of diversity and equity in research, it must first acknowledge the effects of academic travel culture.

Gender bias in peer review has been much discussed in the wider research community. However, there have been few attempts to analyse the issue within the social sciences. This post highlights research undertaken by the Regional Studies Association to investigate the effect of gender on peer review outcomes.

Reflections on the recent consultation period for Plan S, a funder led proposal for achieving universal open access to research papers.

Academic hiring and promotion committees and funding bodies often use publication lists as a shortcut to assessing the quality of applications. In order to avoid bias towards prestigious titles, plain language statements should become a standard feature of academic assessment.