Fennia - International Journal of Geography 2018-05-21T11:30:39+03:00 Kirsi Pauliina Kallio Open Journal Systems <p align="left">FENNIA is a non-profit peer-review journal published by the Geographical Society of Finland since 1889. It is an international scientific publication dedicated to all fields of geography with attentiveness to northern dimensions. In 2010, FENNIA became an open access electronic journal with two yearly issues. It is devoted to a fast publication process, including the open access publication of forthcoming papers before inclusion in an issue. The journal has no submission or article processing charges, and authors ratain all rights to their work throughout the publication process and after publication. The fully open access papers are published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (<a href="" target="_blank" rel="noopener">CC BY 4.0</a>). FENNIA is member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (<a href="" target="_blank" rel="noopener">COPE</a>) and follows the peer review standards set by the Federation of Finnish Learned Societies (<a href="" target="_blank" rel="noopener">TSV</a><a href=";Word=fennia" target="_self">)</a>. It is indexed in the Directory of Open Access Journals (<a href="" target="_blank" rel="noopener">DOAJ</a>) and&nbsp;the Thomson Reuters Emerging Sources Citation Index (<a href=";Word=fennia" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ESCI</a>), and is part of the <a href="">Free Journal Network</a>. The language of the journal is English.</p> <p align="left">FENNIA publishes papers of high scholarly merit in three categories: research papers, reviews and essays, and reflections.&nbsp;Research papers are original full-length articles that make a significant contribution to geographic and related research. Reviews and essays introduce empirical, theoretical or methodological insights from ongoing research. Reflections section includes commentaries, debates, discussion pieces, interventions and other argumentative short texts related to contemporary issues. With these three publication formats, FENNIA seeks to take forward geographical research and discussion in a critical and responsible spirit. In addition to individual contributions, the journal welcomes proposals for special issues and sections.</p> A question of time – or academic subjectivity? 2018-05-21T11:30:33+03:00 Kirsi Pauliina Kallio Pieta Hyvärinen <p>N/A</p> 2017-12-15T00:00:00+02:00 ##submission.copyrightStatement## Translating EU renewable energy policy for insular energy systems: Reunion Island's quest for energy autonomy 2018-05-21T11:30:39+03:00 Matthew Sawatzky Moritz Albrecht <p class="BodyA">Recognition of the negative impacts of climate change has led to agreement on the need to decarbonise energy systems through the employment of renewable energy. With many national and transnational policies in place, the options available to insular energy systems (IES) differ from those of interconnected areas due to fragility in their production and distribution networks. Based on the concepts of policy mobility and translation, this study examines the interplay of EU renewable energy policy and insular governance processes aimed at achieving energy autonomy through renewable energy development. Reunion Island, a French Overseas Department and Region, is used as a case study to examine local energy governance processes, aspects that shape regional translation of national and EU policy, and the potential effects that create structures and pathways of energy transition. The study shows that Reunion Island’s regional Energy Governance Committee has significant application potential as a governance tool in other IES and small islands within the EU, but that renewable energy development is restricted due to national policy measures and path dependent governance structural constraints.</p> 2017-12-15T00:00:00+02:00 ##submission.copyrightStatement## Ready for more-than-human? Measuring urban residents’ willingness to coexist with animals 2018-05-21T11:30:38+03:00 Christoph D. D. Rupprecht <p>In the context of rapid urbanisation, geographers are calling for embracing non-humans as urban co-inhabitants. But if animals and plants are seen as ‘out of place’, sharing urban space can lead to wildlife conflicts. We therefore need to better understand residents’ willingness to coexist if we are to work towards more-than-human cities. This study quantitatively compared residents’ preferences toward sharing their neighbourhood, as well as perceptions of belonging across urban green space in two geographically and culturally distinct cities: Brisbane, Australia, and Sapporo, Japan. Results suggest that geographical and cultural context alongside educational attainment and age influenced respondents’ willingness to coexist, but not sex and income. Mapping respondents’ preferences for animals in their neighbourhood revealed four groups of animals along two axes – global-local and wanted-unwanted. These arose from the way animals contested the human notions of control over urban space. As spaces where animals belong in cities, most respondents chose informal green space (e.g. vacant lots, brownfields) after forests and bushland. Drawing upon recent theoretical and empirical research on liminal urban spaces, I argue that such informal green space can offer ‘provisional arrangements’ which allow for conciliatory engagements with non-humans. I thus propose informal green spaces as territories of encounter – a possible path towards more-than-human cities. Finally, I discuss some implications for planning and management of interspecies interactions.</p> 2017-12-15T00:00:00+02:00 ##submission.copyrightStatement## Six sideways reflections on academic publishing 2018-05-21T11:30:33+03:00 Kirsi Pauliina Kallio James Riding <p>N/A</p> 2017-12-15T00:00:00+02:00 ##submission.copyrightStatement## Can research quality be measured quantitatively? On quality of scholarship, numerical research indicators and academic publishing - experiences from Norway 2018-05-21T11:30:37+03:00 Michael Richard Handley Jones <p>In this article I reflect on ways in which the neoliberal university and its administrative counterpart, new public management (NPM), affect academic publishing activity. One characteristic feature of NPM is the urge to use simple numerical indicators of research output as a tool to allocate funding and, in practice if not in theory, as a means of assessing research quality. This ranges from the use of journal impact factors (IF) and ranking of journals to publication points to determine what types of work in publishing is counted as meritorious for funding allocation. I argue that it is a fallacy to attempt to assess quality of scholarship through quantitative measures of publication output. I base my arguments on my experiences of editing a Norwegian geographical journal over a period of 16 years, along with my experiences as a scholar working for many years within the Norwegian university system.</p> 2017-12-15T00:00:00+02:00 ##submission.copyrightStatement## Socially just publishing: implications for geographers and their journals 2018-05-21T11:30:35+03:00 Simon Batterbury <p>There have been a range of protests against the high journal subscription costs, and author processing charges (APCs) levied for publishing in the more prestigious and commercially run journals that are favoured by geographers. But open protests across the sector like the ‘Academic Spring’ of 2012, and challenges to commercial copyright agreements, have been fragmented and less than successful. I renew the argument for ‘socially just’ publishing in geography. For geographers this is not limited to choosing alternative publication venues. It also involves a considerable effort by senior faculty members that are assessing hiring and promotion cases, to read and assess scholarship independently of its place of publication, and to reward the efforts of colleagues that offer their work as a public good. Criteria other than the citation index and prestige of a journal need to be foregrounded. Geographers can also be publishers, and I offer my experience editing the free online <em>Journal of Political Ecology</em>.</p> 2017-12-15T00:00:00+02:00 ##submission.copyrightStatement## Reclaiming value from academic labor: commentary by the Editors of Human Geography 2018-05-21T11:30:37+03:00 John C. Finn Richard Peet rpeet@CLARKU.EDU Sharlene Mollett John Lauermann <p>There have long been discussions about the need for an alternative publishing model for academic research. This has been made clear by the September 2017 scandal involving <em>Third World Quarterly</em>. The editor’s deeply problematic decision to publish an essay arguing in favor of colonialism was likely meant as click-bate to drive clicks and citations. But we should not lose sight of the fact that this latest scandal is only one recent manifestation of a long-simmering problem that has periodically commanded significant attention in the academic literature, blogs, email lists, conference sessions, and the popular press. As a direct result, over the last decade or more, new journals have been created that specifically endeavor to offer routes around corporate/capitalist academic publishing, and several existing journals have removed themselves from this profit-driven ecosystem. In this commentary, the editorial team of the journal <em>Human Geography</em> weighs in on what we see as the nature of the problem, what we are doing in response, what our successes have been, and what challenges remain.</p> 2017-12-15T00:00:00+02:00 ##submission.copyrightStatement## Say ‘Yes!’ to peer review: Open Access publishing and the need for mutual aid in academia 2018-05-21T11:30:36+03:00 Simon Springer Myriam Houssay-Holzschuch Claudia Villegas Levi Gahman <p>Scholars are increasingly declining to offer their services in the peer review process. There are myriad reasons for this refusal, most notably the ever-increasing pressure placed on academics to publish within the neoliberal university. Yet if you are publishing yourself then you necessarily expect someone else to review your work, which begs the question as to why this service is not being reciprocated. There is something to be said about withholding one’s labour when journals are under corporate control, but when it comes to Open Access journals such denial is effectively unacceptable. Make time for it, as others have made time for you. As editors of the independent, Open Access, non-corporate journal <em>ACME: An International Journal for Critical Geographies</em>, we reflect on the struggles facing our daily operations, where scholars declining to participate in peer review is the biggest obstacle we face. We argue that peer review should be considered as a form of mutual aid, which is rooted in an ethics of cooperation. The system only works if you say ‘Yes’!</p> 2017-12-15T00:00:00+02:00 ##submission.copyrightStatement## Evaluating otherwise: hierarchies and opportunities in publishing practices 2018-05-21T11:30:35+03:00 Derek Ruez <p>This short paper responds to the provocations set out in Kirsi Pauliina Kallio’s recent editorial on ‘Subtle radical moves in scientific publishing’ and emerges out of my participation in a <em>Fennia</em>-organized panel at the 2017 Nordic Geographers’ Meeting where participants reflected on the challenges and opportunities of creating a more equitable and pluralistic international publishing environment. Given the dominance of English language publishing in international academic work and the broader geopolitics of knowledge production through which some contexts, approaches, and modes of knowledge are regularly devalued, I suggest that—to the extent that publishing outlets are evaluated or ranked—they should be evaluated and ranked, in part, based on their contribution to a pluralistically international academy. This revaluation could help shape the informal assessments made by scholars in the context of hiring, funding, and other key decisions. &nbsp;It could also be integrated into more formal channels, such as within the deliberations of the boards who produce publication rankings in, for example, Finland’s Publication Forum. &nbsp;Such a tactic need not preclude other work to contest rankings hierarchies and audit cultures as they advance the neoliberalization of academic work, but it does 1) suggest the importance of paying attention to what and how scholars value when we evaluate publishing outlets and 2) point toward the potential of critical and creative engagement with the range of processes (i.e. indexing, accrediting, measuring, ranking etc.) that surround and subsist within academic publishing.</p> 2017-12-15T00:00:00+02:00 ##submission.copyrightStatement## English: lingua franca or disenfranchising? 2018-05-21T11:30:34+03:00 Sara Fregonese <p>Conceiving academic publishing as a long-term process that often includes oral communication and knowledge exchange at academic conferences, this commentary offers a critical take on English as <em>lingua franca</em>. Contrarily to the historical use of lingua franca as a simplified system of transnational communication that facilitates the pragmatics of economic and cultural exchange, academic English is instead used vernacularly and becomes an excluding barrier. In the writing and peer review stages of publishing, the linguistic positionality of both authors and peer reviewers thus needs more reflection in order for academic English not to become once again part of a disenfranchising process.</p> 2017-12-15T00:00:00+02:00 ##submission.copyrightStatement## Refuge: transforming a broken refugee system 2018-05-21T11:30:38+03:00 Elisa Pascucci <p>Can capitalism help refugees? Review of the book Refuge: transforming a broken refugee system by Betts &amp; Collier, Penguin Random House, London, 2017, pp. 266. ISBN 9780241289235.</p> 2017-12-15T00:00:00+02:00 ##submission.copyrightStatement##