Houston, we have a problem: Enhancing academic freedom and transparency in publishing through post-publication debate

Journal article

Gleditsch, Kristian Skrede (2020) Houston, we have a problem: Enhancing academic freedom and transparency in publishing through post-publication debate, Political Studies Review. DOI: 10.1177/1478929919889309.

Download Reviewed, pre-typeset version
.pdf

This is the Reviewed, pre-typeset version of the article. The final, definitive version can be found at the journal’s website. This publication may be subject to copyright: please visit the publisher’s website for details. All rights reserved.

Download Final publication
.pdf

This is the Version of Record of the publication, available here in accordance with the publisher’s self-archiving policy. This version is free to view and download for private research and study only. This publication may be subject to copyright: please visit the publisher’s website for details. All rights reserved.

Read the article here

Debates over controversial articles often highlight important issues regarding academic freedom, transparency, and how to handle disagreements in publishing. I argue that a response outlining criticism is generally a more productive course of action than calling for retraction. However, there are a number of constraints that impede meaningful debates, and a problematic divergence between our common ideals of open research and free debate and the actual practices that we see in academic publishing, where our current practices often undermine transparency, replication, and scientific debate. I argue that research can benefit from more explicit recognition of politics and preferences in how we evaluate research as well greater opportunities for post-publication debate. The successful initiatives to promote data replicability over the past decade provide useful lessons for what improved post-publication transparency may look like.

An error has occurred. This application may no longer respond until reloaded. Reload 🗙