Advertisement

Writing Scholars on the Status of Academic Publications: Implications for Digital Future(s)

  • Elisabeth H. Buck
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter articulates the results from an international survey distributed to the Writing Program Administration listserv (WPA-L), Writing Center listserv (Wcenter), Writing Across the Curriculum listserv (WAC-L), and Graduate Writing Program Administration listserv (gWPA-L) that was ultimately taken by 232 writing scholars. It contextualizes some of the perceptions about print versus digital publishing that emerge throughout the book. The results of the survey indicate, for example, that although institutions increasingly value digital publications for the purposes of tenure and promotion, scholars are still hesitant to refer and submit to digital publications with the same frequency as traditional publications that primarily produce print copies of articles.

Keywords

Survey Print journals Open-access Digital journals Tenure requirements 

Works Cited

  1. Anderson, Daniel, Anthony Atkins, Cheryl E. Ball, Krista Homicz Millar, Cynthia Selfe, and Richard Selfe. 2006. Integrating Multimodality into Composition Curricula: Survey Methodology and Results from a CCCC Research Grant. Composition Studies 34 (2): 59–84.Google Scholar
  2. Ball, Cheryl. 2004. Show, Not Tell: The Value of New Media Scholarship. Computers and Composition 21 (4): 403–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blakeslee, Ann, and Cathy Fleischer. 2007. Becoming a Writing Researcher. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. @ElisabethHBuck. 2015. Are You a Reader of and/or Writer in Rhetoric and Composition Journals? If So, Please Take My (Very Short!) Survey! http://goo.gl/VpNh0O. Twitter, April 23, 11:04 am.
  5. Groundbreaking University of California Policy Extends Free Access to All Scholarly Articles Written by UC Employees. 2015. Office of Scholarly Communication. University of California, October 28. http://osc.universityofcalifornia.edu/2015/10/groundbreaking-presidential-oa-policy-covers-all-employees/. Accessed 1 Nov 2015.
  6. Hawisher, Gail E., and Cynthia L. Selfe. 2001. Dispatches from the Middlewor(l)ds of Computers and Composition: Experimenting with Writing and Visualizing the Future. In New Worlds, New Words: Exploring Pathways for Writing About and in Electronic Environments, ed. John F. Barber and Dene Grigar, 185–209. Cresskill: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
  7. Jackson, Rebecca, and Jackie Grutsch McKinney. 2011. Beyond Tutoring: Mapping the Invisible Landscape of Writing Center Work. Praxis: A Writing Center Journal 9 (1). http://www.praxisuwc.com/jackson-mckinney-91/. Accessed 16 May 2017.
  8. Lauer, Claire. 2012. What’s in a Name? The Anatomy of Defining New/Multi/Modal/Digital/Media Texts. Kairos: A Journal of Rhetoric, Technology, and Pedagogy 17 (1). http://kairos.technorhetoric.net/17.1/inventio/lauer/. Accessed 27 Feb 2016.
  9. Selfe, Cynthia, ed. 2007. Multimodal Composition: Resources for Teachers. Cresskill: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
  10. Straumsheim, Carl. 2015. Canadian Funding Agencies Release Open-Access Policy. Inside Higher Education, March 2. https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2015/03/02/canadian-funding-agenciesrelease-open-access-policy. Accessed 20 July 2015.
  11. Vie, Stephanie. 2015. What’s Going On?: Challenges and Opportunities for Social Media Use in the Writing Classroom. Journal of Faculty Development 29 (2): 33–44.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elisabeth H. Buck
    • 1
  1. 1.Writing and Reading CenterUniversity of MassachusettsDartmouthUSA

Personalised recommendations