Post Office Box FW 22,
Effiduase-Koforidua, Eastern Region, Ghana.
Tel: +233 246 485 735
info.cbwa@mail.com
Management BoardOur JournalReview ProcessSubmission of ManuscriptAuthorsConferences and ProjectsResearch Associates and FellowsConferences and ProjectsContact Information
1 April 23, 2019
Editorial
1. Jacob Owusu Sarfo
Who is to Blame for the Dearth of Viable Local Journals in Africa? A Desperate Call
Number of views: 770 Download in PDF
Number of views: 770 Download in PDF
Articles and Statements
2. Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva
Leonid Schneider calls Springer Nature’s Science and Engineering Ethics Predatory, Without Proof
Journal of Advocacy, Research and Education, 2019, 6(1): 5-14.
Number of views: 850 Download in PDF
3. Olga MishchenkoJournal of Advocacy, Research and Education, 2019, 6(1): 5-14.
Abstract:
In the world of academic publishing, to refer to a journal or publisher (or any other scholarly entity) as “predatory” carries with it a very serious and negative connotation, and can damage its reputation if that claim is made in public. If such a claim is supported by clear evidence, then it becomes a valid critical opinion because it is substantiated. Even if others share different opinions, the original claim cannot be false if clearly substantiated by evidence. However, if such a claim is made without solid support, then such a claim can be defamatory. Academics are weary of the nature of such claims from the Jeffrey Beall era. Between May and December of 2017, Leonid Schneider, currently one of science’s most vocal watchdogs, Tweeted on several occasions that Springer Nature’s Science and Engineering Ethics (SEE) was “predatory”, in one Tweet even stating that “They are deeply unethical crooks at Science & Eng Ethics!” These are not light claims to be made in public. Moreover, Twitter is not simply a private communication medium, it is a powerful disseminative social media tool that is used by academics, and others, to give maximum exposure to a message. In this case, Tweets were likely made to cause reputational damage. Academia has entered a new phase in its evolution where polite communication about the issues to save the image of the for-profit publishing model is being tested by select individuals or groups, who sacrifice political correctness in the name of truth. If Schneider were to provide clear proof of his claims that SEE is predatory, then this would rock the world of ethics publishing, because SEE represents one of the most established academic ethics journals globally, ranked third based on its Clarivate Analytics journal impact factor. On September 16, 2017, the author contacted Schneider to request a full and thorough list of properties that led him to make these accusations in public. In that email, the SEE co-editors-in-chief, Raymond Spier and Stephanie Bird, Springer Nature, COPE and other related individuals were copied, with a formal request to offer feedback. Almost two years after that email, not a single entity has ever responded. Spier deceased at the end of April 2018, leaving a vacuum in this challenge by Schneider on SEE. This paper offers some perspectives about this case, and the wider implications of making accusations in public, especially using Twitter, which is now clamping down on social media aggression, of a potentially defamatory nature, without proof or substantiation.
In the world of academic publishing, to refer to a journal or publisher (or any other scholarly entity) as “predatory” carries with it a very serious and negative connotation, and can damage its reputation if that claim is made in public. If such a claim is supported by clear evidence, then it becomes a valid critical opinion because it is substantiated. Even if others share different opinions, the original claim cannot be false if clearly substantiated by evidence. However, if such a claim is made without solid support, then such a claim can be defamatory. Academics are weary of the nature of such claims from the Jeffrey Beall era. Between May and December of 2017, Leonid Schneider, currently one of science’s most vocal watchdogs, Tweeted on several occasions that Springer Nature’s Science and Engineering Ethics (SEE) was “predatory”, in one Tweet even stating that “They are deeply unethical crooks at Science & Eng Ethics!” These are not light claims to be made in public. Moreover, Twitter is not simply a private communication medium, it is a powerful disseminative social media tool that is used by academics, and others, to give maximum exposure to a message. In this case, Tweets were likely made to cause reputational damage. Academia has entered a new phase in its evolution where polite communication about the issues to save the image of the for-profit publishing model is being tested by select individuals or groups, who sacrifice political correctness in the name of truth. If Schneider were to provide clear proof of his claims that SEE is predatory, then this would rock the world of ethics publishing, because SEE represents one of the most established academic ethics journals globally, ranked third based on its Clarivate Analytics journal impact factor. On September 16, 2017, the author contacted Schneider to request a full and thorough list of properties that led him to make these accusations in public. In that email, the SEE co-editors-in-chief, Raymond Spier and Stephanie Bird, Springer Nature, COPE and other related individuals were copied, with a formal request to offer feedback. Almost two years after that email, not a single entity has ever responded. Spier deceased at the end of April 2018, leaving a vacuum in this challenge by Schneider on SEE. This paper offers some perspectives about this case, and the wider implications of making accusations in public, especially using Twitter, which is now clamping down on social media aggression, of a potentially defamatory nature, without proof or substantiation.
Number of views: 850 Download in PDF
Development of Future English Language Teachers’ Communicative Competence in Higher Pedagogical Institutions: A Review
Journal of Advocacy, Research and Education, 2019, 6(1): 15-19.
Number of views: 837 Download in PDF
4. Evans Frimpong Kyei, Edward Appiah Boateng, Abigail Kusi-Amponsah DijiJournal of Advocacy, Research and Education, 2019, 6(1): 15-19.
Abstract:
This review explored the actual problems identified in the formation of future English Language teachers’ communicative competence in Higher Pedagogical Institutions. The factors affecting the formation of English communicative competencies of future teachers have been reviewed in this paper. Also, the purposeful formation of the English language competence among future teachers is possible through the development of a culturological component. This will help advance the level of intercultural competence and pedagogical tolerance.
This review explored the actual problems identified in the formation of future English Language teachers’ communicative competence in Higher Pedagogical Institutions. The factors affecting the formation of English communicative competencies of future teachers have been reviewed in this paper. Also, the purposeful formation of the English language competence among future teachers is possible through the development of a culturological component. This will help advance the level of intercultural competence and pedagogical tolerance.
Number of views: 837 Download in PDF
“I experience very sharp pain but it’s on and off”: A Phenomenological Study of Postoperative Pain Experiences of Patients in Ghana
Journal of Advocacy, Research and Education, 2019, 6(1): 20-27.
Number of views: 827 Download in PDF
5. Journal of Advocacy, Research and Education, 2019, 6(1): 20-27.
Abstract:
Postoperative pain has been a challenge for the healthcare industry for many years in Africa especially Ghana. However, its management has not received adequate attention like other aspects in the industry as it is evident that clients who undergo surgery continually experience much pain after surgery. The study sought to explore patients’ experiences with postoperative pain management. The study employed a qualitative research design with a phenomenological approach. In all twelve (12) participants were recruited for this study using purposive sampling approach. Participants were interviewed in a face to face manner with the help of a semi-structured interview guide. These were patients who had survived more than twenty-four (24) hours after surgery. Interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) guided the active generation of four themes which described participants’ postoperative pain management experiences. Pain disability, dualistic engagement with nurses, drivers and discomforts of analgesic intake and casting the mind off pain characterized participants’ postoperative pain management experiences in the current study. Pain disability represented the debilitating nature of the postoperative pain experience which affected their activities of daily living. Participants described both positive and negative nursing encounters which were covered under the dualistic engagement with nurses. The drivers and discomforts of analgesic intake related to participants’ motivation for taking prescribed pain medications and some of the untoward effects they experienced with such drugs. Casting the mind off pain illustrated participants’ engagement in non-drug techniques due to their potential in distracting them from their prevailing postoperative pain. Unrelieved postoperative pain and its undesirable effects persist despite decades of advanced technologies and research on pain. Postoperative pain care should be individualized to meet the unique comfort needs of patients. Analgesics and non-drug techniques should be encouraged to maximize postoperative pain relief with minimal or no untoward effects.
Postoperative pain has been a challenge for the healthcare industry for many years in Africa especially Ghana. However, its management has not received adequate attention like other aspects in the industry as it is evident that clients who undergo surgery continually experience much pain after surgery. The study sought to explore patients’ experiences with postoperative pain management. The study employed a qualitative research design with a phenomenological approach. In all twelve (12) participants were recruited for this study using purposive sampling approach. Participants were interviewed in a face to face manner with the help of a semi-structured interview guide. These were patients who had survived more than twenty-four (24) hours after surgery. Interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) guided the active generation of four themes which described participants’ postoperative pain management experiences. Pain disability, dualistic engagement with nurses, drivers and discomforts of analgesic intake and casting the mind off pain characterized participants’ postoperative pain management experiences in the current study. Pain disability represented the debilitating nature of the postoperative pain experience which affected their activities of daily living. Participants described both positive and negative nursing encounters which were covered under the dualistic engagement with nurses. The drivers and discomforts of analgesic intake related to participants’ motivation for taking prescribed pain medications and some of the untoward effects they experienced with such drugs. Casting the mind off pain illustrated participants’ engagement in non-drug techniques due to their potential in distracting them from their prevailing postoperative pain. Unrelieved postoperative pain and its undesirable effects persist despite decades of advanced technologies and research on pain. Postoperative pain care should be individualized to meet the unique comfort needs of patients. Analgesics and non-drug techniques should be encouraged to maximize postoperative pain relief with minimal or no untoward effects.
Number of views: 827 Download in PDF
Copyright © 2014-2024 Centre for Behaviour and Wellness Advocacy. All Rights Reserved.