Here I am talking about the transparency in my previous post, and - vois la - the Syllabus Explorer for sharing the academic blueprints. It is a great idea: all that metadata definitely can be used for further research. What has caught my eye though is that the most required readings (classic, yes) are pretty eurothentric. No works by the ancient Chinese, Arabic, or other philosophers are present in the list.
I also question the existence of the invisible articles. Do we really use articles without citing them? Then I ask myself: do we have a hidden curriculum in higher education as well? The journals performance metrics are just like trending posts in social media. Probably necessary to know of them to stay on top of the current things, but I wonder about authenticity and uniqueness. There are stories of researchers who could not get published because their works did not fit into any category. Again, journals too have to sell and hold that benchmark.
Evgeniya (I am back)
I also question the existence of the invisible articles. Do we really use articles without citing them? Then I ask myself: do we have a hidden curriculum in higher education as well? The journals performance metrics are just like trending posts in social media. Probably necessary to know of them to stay on top of the current things, but I wonder about authenticity and uniqueness. There are stories of researchers who could not get published because their works did not fit into any category. Again, journals too have to sell and hold that benchmark.
Evgeniya (I am back)
No comments:
Post a Comment