Publications

Knöchelmann M & Schendzielorz C: Writing in the Sciences: Scientists as Writers, Scientific Writing, and the Persuasive Story. Preprint: https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/fmcsp/ 

Writing in the sciences transcends the notion of sticking to the data; writing is a complex transformation of a wealth of semi-structured information into a clear and persuasive scientific story. The formalised form of a research article contains this story and, if published, legitimises it; this yields authorship. This article provides a nuanced, empirically-driven appreciation of scientific writing. It elucidates the hermeneutics of the scientific story and showcases different modes of writing as iteration and collaboration, spanning across levels of seniority and position, or re-emphasising them. Furthermore, it delivers a new perspective on professional scientific writers, who provide writing-as-a-service.

Knöchelmann M: Science In Formation: The Indexed Scientist and the Inaccessibility of Scientific Information. Invited contribution to an edited volume, to be published  with De Gruyter in Autumn 2023.

Knöchelmann M: Herausgeberschaft und Verantwortung: Über die Un-/Abhängigkeit wissenschaftlicher Fachzeitschriften. In Bibliothek in Forschung und Praxis.  Online at: https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/bfp-2022-0090/html

Technical advances enable open access as well as independence from established publishers. This results questions of responsible editorship. What does independence mean in terms of the design of quality assurance processes, handling of bibliometrics, foremost the Journal Impact Factor, or visibility? This article showcases and critically reflects the findings of an empirical study on the responsibility of editorship in medicine and philosophy. They point towards the critical role of libraries with their publishing consultation services.

Knöchelmann M, Hesselmann F, Reinhart M and Schendzielorz C (2022): The Rise of the Guest Editor—Discontinuities of Editorship in Scholarly Publishing. In Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics 6. Online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frma.2021.748171/full.

Scholarly publishing lives on traditioned terminology that gives meaning to subjects such as authors, inhouse editors and external guest editors, artifacts such as articles, journals, special issues, and collected editions, or practices of acquisition, selection, and review. These subjects, artifacts, and practices ground the constitution of scholarly discourse. And yet, the meaning ascribed to each of these terms shifts, blurs, or is disguised as publishing culture shifts, which becomes manifest in new digital publishing technology, new forms of publishing management, and new forms of scholarly knowledge production. As a result, we may come to over- or underestimate changes in scholarly communication based on traditioned but shifting terminology. In this article, we discuss instances of scholarly publishing whose meaning shifted. We showcase the cultural shift that becomes manifest in the new, prolific guest editor. Though the term suggests an established subject, this editorial role crystallizes a new cultural setting of loosened discourse communities and temporal structures, a blurring of publishing genres and, ultimately, the foundations of academic knowledge production.

Knöchelmann, Marcel (2021): Systemimmanenz und Transformation: Die Bibliothek der Zukunft als lokale Verwalterin? In Bibliothek Forschung und Praxis 45 (1). Online at: https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/bfp-2020-0101/html.

Germany as a unified site for science and scholarship aims to enlarge its share of open access publications by means of transformative agreements with large publishers. This, however, is but a transformation in the sense of a soft evolution within the existing system. It prohibits the notion of equity that was once foundational for open access. The future of the library seems to be reduced to the role of the local administrator instead of it being an integrative institution with the ability to change the system.

Knöchelmann, Marcel (2021): The Democratisation Myth: Open Access and the Solidification of Epistemic Injustices. In Science and Technology Studies 34 (2). Online at: https://sciencetechnologystudies.journal.fi/article/view/94964.

Open access (OA) in the Global North is considered to solve an accessibility problem in scholarly communication. But this accessibility is restricted to the consumption of knowledge. Epistemic injustices inhering in the scholarly communication of a global production of knowledge remain unchanged. This underscores that the commercial or big deal OA dominating Europe and North America have little revolutionary potential to democratise knowledge. Academia in the Global North, driven by politics of progressive neoliberalism, can even reinforce its hegemonic power by solidifying and legitimating contemporary hierarchies of scholarly communication through OA. In a critique of the notion of a democratisation of knowledge, I showcase manifestations of OA as either allowing consumption of existing discourse or as active participation of discourse in the making. The latter comes closer to being the basis for a democratisation of knowledge. I discuss this as I issue a threefold conceptualisation of epistemic injustices comprising of testimonial injustice, hermeneutical injustice, and epistemic objectification. As these injustices prevail, the notion of a democratisation of knowledge through OA is but another form of technological determinism that neglects the intricacies of culture and hegemony.

Knöchelmann, Marcel (2019): Open Science in the Humanities, or: Open Humanities? In Publications 7 (4), DOI: 10.3390/publications7040065.

Open science refers to both the practices and norms of more open and transparent communication and research in scientific disciplines and the discourse on these practices and norms. There is no such discourse dedicated to the humanities. Though the humanities appear to be less coherent as a cluster of scholarship than the sciences are, they do share unique characteristics which lead to distinct scholarly communication and research practices. A discourse on making these practices more open and transparent needs to take account of these characteristics. The prevalent scientific perspective in the discourse on more open practices does not do so, which confirms that the discourse’s name, open science, indeed excludes the humanities so that talking about open science in the humanities is incoherent. In this paper, I argue that there needs to be a dedicated discourse for more open research and communication practices in the humanities, one that integrates several elements currently fragmented into smaller, unconnected discourses (such as on open access, preprints, or peer review). I discuss three essential elements of open science—preprints, open peer review practices, and liberal open licences—in the realm of the humanities to demonstrate why a dedicated open humanities discourse is required.