In “The Impact Plaform,” Jefferson Pooley weighs the pros and cons of the recent development of websites like The Conversation, which showcases scholarly pieces written for a non-specialist audience. Pooley argues that “The impact platform is flawed and problematic, but also a real gain for open scholarship” (n.p.). This sort of publication venue is “flawed and problematic” for Pooley because it encourages the data-driven reliance on quantitative metrics to judge the value of academic work. Many feel as though this turn toward metrics is unfair, as access and usage metrics do not accurately portray the depth of engagement or intellectual impact on a reader. Pooley measures this drawback against the value of impact platforms as successful arbiters of open scholarship. He especially lauds the open licensing and emphasis on reuse / republication of the The Conversation as an example of positive open access mechanisms that encourage wide dissemination of and engagement with academic work.

Work cited

Pooley, Jefferson. 2017. “The Impact Platform.” Parameters: Knowledge Under Digital Conditions. http://parameters.ssrc.org/2017/01/the-impact-platform/