By Sarah N. KorteFor every one who has published a piece of intellectual work, there are at least a thousand more who are not.
The average academic’s output is more than ten times that of an organic reader.
This imbalance is not new.
In the past century, the average academic has published more than a million articles.
But as we have seen in the case of the organic intellectual, these authors are not the only ones who have a large share of the intellectual content.
Most of the content they publish is from their own networks of peers.
In the past decade, the number of organic and public intellectual (PUI) authors has surged, as have the authors of the academic publishing industry, which now accounts for about 40 percent of all scholarly work.PUIs are the latest crop of academic authors who have become part of a new phenomenon: a new breed of scholarly writers who are increasingly publishing directly in the public domain.
In 2015, for example, a group of prominent researchers published an open letter to the editors of Nature, arguing that their findings should be published in the peer-reviewed journal.
The letter urged Nature to “recognize the importance of being transparent about our work” and “allow us to use the work of our colleagues in the scientific community to inform policymaking.”
The authors of that letter were, as the New York Times reported, “a small group of academic scholars who published the letter anonymously, saying it had no influence over the journal’s editorial process.”
The letter was published on the Nature’s website, but the fact that it was published by a small group was not surprising.
The Nature is, after all, a prestigious journal whose primary purpose is to publish research results.
In this case, the Nature authors had the option of posting the letter on its website, rather than having it published in a journal with a larger audience.
This is not to say that the letter had no impact on the journal.
Its inclusion in the journal is a reminder that many scholars are deeply interested in the work they publish, and that many institutions are deeply committed to making that work freely available for peer review.
But that does not mean that the vast majority of authors who publish in Nature, or those whose work is published in other journals, are actually the people who produce the scientific work that their peers publish in.
The number of PUIs who produce their own scholarly works has not grown, and the number who are independent has not shrunk.
The share of PUI authors who write in the popular media and other social media is, on average, less than 1 percent.
In contrast, the share of authors in the academic media who write directly in print has grown from around 3 percent in the early 2000s to almost 7 percent in 2016.
The rise of PUAs is not a coincidence.
The rise of the PUIs has coincided with the rise of a whole new generation of researchers, who have found themselves in a precarious position: the authors who are working in their own communities are not receiving as much exposure as their peers in academia.
The fact that the academic world is increasingly dominated by academic writers who write online, rather of those who do not, indicates that the situation has reached a point where academic publishing is no longer a sustainable model.
The problem has its roots in two ways.
First, academic publishing has been heavily dominated by a handful of institutions.
As this New York University sociologist, Elizabeth L. Soskin, points out, universities have been able to create “a model in which academics are given prestige in the marketplace, and they are given the resources to do research.”
But as more and more of the world’s scholars are increasingly coming from small or even marginal institutions, this model is no more sustainable than it was for the academic past.
Second, the nature of the work is changing.
The online publishing model is not only a product of a time when academic publishing was dominated by large universities, but it is also a product that is changing rapidly.
As the number and type of researchers and the size of their research projects grow, the amount of time they have to dedicate to their work has also increased.
The fact that academics are not as likely to publish directly in a prestigious academic journal has had a significant impact on their careers.
It is true that many PUIs are publishing in journals that are more prestigious than their own institutions.
But this is a far cry from being in the same boat as a traditional academic writer who has been writing in a smaller institution for decades.
PUIs, by contrast, have had a long time to accumulate a significant amount of work before they are faced with a problem of access and a lack of funding.
In short, they have a long way to go to compete with academic publishing that is increasingly driven by a large number of small, private institutions.
The number of authors with the most influence over a journal’s content is not simply determined by their ability to publish more and to attract the best scholars.
PUI writers are also likely to be more influenced