Analysis and news
Sweden, in a Springer journal, which coins IGI Global as a ‘rogue publisher’. They state: ‘The idea seems to be that the editor of the book, a researcher craving more academic merits, gets a nice item to add to the publication list, while the publisher draws money from selling a few mandatory library copies. Ultimately, the public pays the salaries of these questionable publishers, while those sections of the public truly in need of good edited collections (such as scholars from low- and middle-income countries who can’t afford access to many journals) stand to benefit nothing. Nor is the book likely to have any impact whatsoever on scientific development’ (Eriksson and Helgesson, 2017, par. 28). Unfortunately, these researchers’ opinions are isolating many other researchers and publishers, including those that are supporting early career researchers, English-as-a-second- language researchers, and those from developing nations. If publishers are bullied into limiting
opportunities solely to established and career authors from select institutions, research will become repetitive and stale, with nobody challenging it to become more forward-thinking, disruptive and inventive. Should the content not be held under greater scrutiny than a person’s name or affiliation? Although, you may be thinking that this is one isolated incident with one publisher, this has historically occurred. With popular publishers, including MDPI placed on the Beall’s List, the emergence of a ‘new fake Beall’s list’, and various forums where politics and academic smear campaigns take precedent over promoting quality research and publishers. Over the years, as the academic
www.researchinformation.info | @researchinfo
community strives to develop criteria that sets credible, predatory and vanity publishers apart, the system continues to fail its researchers, as there is still not one single reliable source for the academic community to turn to with full confidence, and many are taking advantage of this and manipulating perspectives to suit their own agenda through their own platforms (quite often as blog entries and editorial pieces, as seen in the aforementioned). Additionally, through these formulated
lists, reviews and blog posts, it is noting the overall prejudices that are occurring within the industry. If you are an early career researcher, under-represented researcher, or if your research comes from a specific country, it is seen as ‘less impactful’, regardless of if the research was vetted by a leading scholar, underwent a peer review process, and was deemed through the scientific method as quality. This is hindering on all fronts of the academic community. It affects: • Who researchers are willing to collaborate with (as prestigious institutions are less adept to collaborate with researchers from developing countries);
•
What resources librarians will acquire, as often we hear feedback on not wanting to acquire publications due to editorship in India or another foreign country; and
•
Ultimately, with many publishers, who they are willing to pursue projects with based on ‘profit margins’ and perceived prestige of the research.
The boys’ club of citation impact and quality standards Not only are these few researchers’ opinions perpetuating a false narrative of
quality, but it is also continually exasperated by the overall standard of quality research – where, not only does the publishing process and merit of the research (determined by peers in the field) matter, but the overall citation impact and indexing of the publication. Overall, with citation impact, as a publisher we have seen it countless times, where the research coming from the most prestigious schools are highly cited, or research coming from United States and Europe. However, this method is now being utilised to create a ‘boys’ club’ mentality, where academicians and researchers will create ‘citation farms’ or citation networks, and constantly feed (cite) each other’s work to help increase the prestige of the publication. (Noorden and Chawla, 2019, par. 3) Often, we see that that occurs in some
of the top journals. Although, many have noted the flaws in citation impact and many companies have come up with alternative metrics to measure research’s impact, the citation impact factor reigns supreme. In addition to needing a high citation impact, the standard that a publication must be indexed in Web of Science or Scopus is another off-base requirement for researchers to receive credit for their work, or for libraries to consider it for acquisitions. Professor Jon Tennant, from the Institute
for Globally Distributed Open Research and Education (IGDORE), UK, summarises the issue with this mindset perfectly in his article, Web of Science and Scopus are not Global Databases of Knowledge: ‘WoS [Web of Science] and Scopus are both commercial and for-profit services that, irrespective of their methods, have a fiduciary duty and accountability to that of their shareholders and investors. Not a
October/November 2021 Research Information
g 27
Lightspring/
Shutterstock.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48
