Does Academic Publishing Pass the Real Market Test?

The academic market test is dissected here into its componentdecision-making processes to establish a basis for comparingthe commercial market test that we know, with the one we seekto pass in academia. Important differences between the twomarkets exist, but the market test for academic publishingdoes pass muster and may surpass that of the commercialmarket. This provides an analytical foundation for resolvingissues of professional debate concerning who passes theacademic market test.     

Global governance and communicative action: a study of democratic participation during planning for the Lyon–Turin rail link

Organisation–stakeholder engagement during planning of a high‐speed rail link between France and Italy is described and analysed in this paper. Conceptualising organisation–citizen engagement as a form of deliberative democracy, the study's theoretical framework draws upon literature from communication, social and political science. Following a review of governance for transnational organisation–stakeholder engagement, communication methods used by one transnational organisation, Lyon‐Turin Ferroviaire (LTF), to engage in ‘discursive legitimacy’ with affected parties, is studied. A qualitative case study approach examines whether LTF's engagement with stakeholders provides opportunities for democratic participation rather than creating a democratic deficit in the public sphere. Results point to a lack of mechanisms through which transnational policy makers can be held accountable‐leading in this case, to a legitimacy crisis for institutions involved, threatening their ability to justify the economic and transportation viability of the project. This article is of interest to academics in communication and social sciences, managers working in an international context and communication professionals. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Judicial Conversations With Children in Parenting Disputes: The Views Of Australian Judges

In an article in the last issue of this Journal, we reportedon a study of parents' and children's views about whether theywould like judges to talk with children in chambers. This articlereports on a related study of the views of Australian judgesconcerning the issue. It explores the reasons that judges gavefor being opposed to or cautiously in favour of having conversationswith children before and after making their decisions. On thebasis of these views, and the views of the parents and childrendiscussed in the earlier article, we propose guidelines on whenand how judges should engage in ‘conversations’with children in chambers if they consider it appropriate todo so.