Transport properties and the large anisotropic magnetoresistance of CuxNbS2 single crystals
The transport properties of CuxNbS2 (x = 0.09, 0.44 and 0.55) single crystals were systematically studied. The in-plane and out-of-plane resistivities decrease with increasing Cu content, and a transition with hysteresis shows up for the crystals with x = 0.44 and 0.55. The thermopower and Hall coefficient of CuxNbS2 show opposite signs, indicating that there are two kinds of carriers in this system. The angular dependences of the in-plane magnetoresistance (MRab = (ρab(H)−ρab(0))/ρab(0) × 100%) at different temperatures were also studied. The single crystals with x = 0.44 and 0.55 show a strong anisotropic MRab. For the x = 0.55 sample, MRab reaches 80% with a magnetic field of 14 T applied along the c-axis, while MRab is less than 5% for the magnetic field applied within the ab-plane. These results can be well understood in the light of the anisotropic Fermi surface in the multiband system.
Sur les propriétés électriques et magnétiques des phases MxZrS2 (M = Fe, Co, Ni)
Abstract The M x ZrS 2 systems with M = Fe, Co, Ni have been investigated: nonstoichiometric phases are observed with M in the tetrahedral sites between ZrS 2 layers. Electric measurements characterize a semiconducting behaviour and suggest the occurrence of trigonal zirconium + III clusters. Magnetic measurements seem to confirm also MM bond formation.
Academic labour on-the-move
As we write this editorial, a set of lively debates and discussions is unfolding in regard to the labour associated with academic publishing. This includes not simply the labour of producing standard research outputs—scholarly articles, books and chapters— but also the labour involved in the production of new kinds of outputs, outputs which are often explicitly encouraged by academic institutions, but at the same time are not recognised and counted as research outputs proper. We have in mind here outputs such as articles in The Conversation, a publication which stands in a space between academe and journalism and whose pages are filled with short ‘sound-bite’ pieces typically authored by academics. Such pieces usually comprise evidence-based news analysis, research reporting and evidence-based opinion pieces. Undoubtedly fuelled by the impact agenda, as well as by the incessant desire on the part of Universities to increase their brand awareness and influence, The Conversation’s global reach is expanding. Most universities are extremely keen and some provide media office support for academic staff to ‘do’ a Conversation piece. Indeed, in return for their financial support, The Conversation itself offers institutional (i.e. university) level metrics on who has published in the outlet and whose articles have the most readers and the most comments, metrics which in turn encourage institutional level calibration and internal competition. Yet surely the emergence of this kind of publication and the encouragement by universities for academic staff to publish in it demands a series of searching questions. If these publications do not count in metrics measuring individuals’ research outputs, why should academics take on this labour? Certainly, there may be benefits in potentially expanding an audience for research and its findings (after all, The Conversation is not only read by academics but is explicitly competing to become a standard news publication and hence is competing for global news audiences). As well, publication in The Conversation can act as a proxy metric for research impact. But beyond these individual benefits there is a more profound set of questions that the emergence of publications such as The Conversation raises around the nature of academic labour. As the blogging sociologist Mark Carrigan (2015) has recently asked, is there a risk in such developments that in the face of labour market precarity, academics, and especially junior and aspiring academics, will seek to differentiate themselves via such labour? In so doing, is there a further risk that such academics will come to be positioned ‘as a reserve army of well-educated quasijournalists who may write badly but will work for free?’ Indeed, Carrigan asks, ‘might we increasingly see academics become journalists?’ Certainly, we would suggest that publishing for The Conversation and similar outlets calls upon an entirely different skill set (including writing skill set) to that of scholarly writing and publishing. In this sense, The Conversation can be located as paradigmatic exemplar of how academic labour is on-themove. But we would also ask how—if at all—will universities deal with the paradox that they are increasingly calling on this labour from their academic staff but are not formally recognising it? Indeed, should this lack of recognition be located as yet a further example