Melissa LAYNE, Phil ICE


This article explores how digital scholarship, teaching and learning is dramatically changing the educational landscape. New pedagogies and philosophies in the area of digital publishing vis-à-vis technological advancements are being examined through a different lens--one in which obliges scholars to reimagine and restructure scholarship in ways never before conceptualized. As stated in the introduction, despite the expeditious need to transform current traditional models of scholarship, scholars and publishers alike have been surprisingly sluggish to do so. Following the introduction, the review of literature sheds some light upon this hesitation, thus revealing two prominent themes: 1) the lack of incentives for moving scholarship beyond the traditional prerequisite criteria for promotion and tenure, and 2) perceived lack of technical skills sufficient to create rich, digital works. The remainder of the article explores these themes further by closely analyzing the current state of digital scholarship by highlighting supporting topics such as the democratization of digital publication, paradigmatic shifts, and digital spaces. The authors suggest contemporary and future pathways for change in the areas of accessibility, the need for academe to follow magazine publishers’ lead for reimagining the digitization of scholarly work, and to include analytics in publication. The authors conclude by reiterating that although new methods of communication will yield new methods of how our society is organized, the essence of scholarship will what remains constant is that academics will continue to converse, address a problem with supporting evidence, and disseminate findings to others. Digital scholarship must support all of these tasks if it is to merge or even replace traditional scholarship and adhere to the mission of education alongside present-day opportunities.

Full Text:



{1} 2011 & 2012 Journal Cost Comparison. UCSF Library. Received from

{2} Ayers, E. (2013). Does digital scholarship have a future? Educause Review. Retrieved from

{3} Beverungen, A., Böhm, S. and Land, C. (2012) The poverty of journal publishing, Organization, 19(6): 929-938. DOI PDF-preprint

{4} Bohannon, J. (2014). Uprising: Less prestigious journals publishing greater share of high-impact papers. Science Insider. Retrieved from

{5} Gross, A. and Harmon, J. (2013). The future is already here: The Internet revolution in science and scholarship. Retrieved from

{6} Ford, E. (2013). Defining and characterizing open peer review: A review of the literature. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 44 (4), 311-326 DOI: 10.3138/jsp.44-4-001

{7} Godlee, F. (2002). Making reviewers visible: Openness, accountability, and credit. JAMA 287, 2762–2765.

{8} Hargittai, E. (2011, September 26). From review to publication. Retrieved from

{9} Housewright, R., Schonfeld, R. C., and Wulfson, K. (2013, April 8). Ithaka S+R US Faculty Survey 2013. (New York: Ithaka S+R, 2012). Retrieved from

{10} Johnson, L. and Adams Becker, S. (2014). Enter the anti MOOCS: The reinvention of online learning as a form of social commentary. Internet Learning, 3(2).

{11} Ice, P. & Burgess, M. (2012). Through the looking glass: Emerging technologies and the Community of Inquiry Framework. In Z. Akyol & R. Garrison (Eds.). Educational Communities of Inquiry: Theoretical Framework, Research, and Practice. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

{12} Ioannidis J. P. A., Boyack, K. W., and Klavans, R. (2014). Estimates of the Continuously Publishing Core in the Scientific Workforce. PLoS ONE 9(7): e101698. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0101698

{13} Layne, M. (2014, January 24). Trends in digital scholarship--Authorship part I. [blog entry]. Retrieved from

{14} McKeachie, W. (Ed.) (1986). Teaching and learning in the college classroom: A review of the research literature. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan

{15} Monbiot, G. (2011, August 29). Academic publishers make Murdoch look like a socialist. Retrieved from

{16} Oblinger, D. (2014, September 15). Designing a future of digital engagement. Educause Review. Retrieved from

{17} Stokstad, E. (2014, July 14). The 1% of Scientific Publishing. ScienceInsider. Retrieved from

{18} The Cost of Journals from the University of Illinois (2009, June 11). Retrieved from

{19} Walsh, E., Rooney, M., Appleby, L., and Wilkinson, G. (2000). Open peer review: a randomised controlled trial. Br. J. Psychiatry 176, 47–51.

{20} Ware, M., and Monkman, M. (2008). Peer Review in Scholarly Journals: Perspective of the Scholarly Community – An International Study. Survey Commissioned by the Publishing Research Consortium. Retrieved from


  • There are currently no refbacks.

>> JADLET is indexed by EBSCO

Published by Romania Advanced Distributed Learning Partnership Lab


>>How to use this site