Analysis and news g


duty to science, or to the public… both are shining beacons in the world of ‘platform capitalism’ – with business models that not only predate but also outperform those of Google and Facebook in terms of profit. It is perhaps no wonder that these databases are so biased towards favouring research from western Europe and North America. WoS is owned by Clarivate Analytics, based in London, and Scopus by Elsevier, based primarily in Amsterdam and London. Their geographic location is not a coincidence here, two of the centres of historical western colonialism, of which the after- shocks are still being widely felt’ (Tennan, 2020, 1-2). Sadly, these metrics that are being


utilised to measure quality is hindering under-represented and international academicians from getting their work noticed, acquired and widely accessible.


“Sadly, these metrics being utilised to measure quality is hindering under- represented and international academicians”


Institutions and even countries are now mandating which publishers their researchers can publish with, and libraries are able to acquire. They are utilising the indexing status of the individual publications to help determine these factors. Combine these factors together, and it excludes thousands of researchers, quality institutions, and even notable publishers from getting a seat at the table of scholarly communications and research. Even if a publisher has publications indexed, they are still blacklisting them due to false narratives, and based on the opinions of a small number of researchers. Additionally, we often see that these metrics coupled with the above malicious mislabelling overshadow one of the most important elements of quality, the peer review process. As a key element to ensuring that discrimination does not occur, the double-blind peer review process is vital, as reviewers and editors do not know any information regarding the contributors’ identities, including race, gender, sexual orientation, geographical location, and so on. It ensures the evaluation is based solely on the quality of content. If completed correctly, the reviewers should only review the quality of the overall research and the network


28 Research Information October/November 2021


of reviewers should come from various countries and perspectives. One major barrier we see occurring across the industry is the fact that many editors are rejecting papers outright based on grammatical issues. While there are certainly grounds to reject papers that are unreadable, it is important to remember that most native English speakers do not even write “perfect English” and that perhaps there is room to work with authors whose English is not word perfect, but whose research findings are significant.


The path forward A great quote to summarise this overall phenomenon of the ‘ivory tower’ comes from an editorial article, Discrimination in Scholarly Publishing featured in Taylor and Francis’ journal Critical Arts. Professor Elizabeth le Roux, from Aarhus University, Denmark, says: ‘Discriminatory practices [in publishing] may include unfair reviewing processes, unethical behaviour, exclusion from the ‘old boys’ network’, and other constraints on time and research. The values that underlie the scholarly communication system – such as the maintenance of ‘high standards’ – may also function to exclude.’ (le Roux, 2015, 703) This was written nearly six years ago and sadly, although there is more dialogue around DEI; the reality is that we now must undo hundreds of years of publishing standards and practices to re-establish a truly diverse landscape. Although multiple books could be written about the biases in academia and potential solutions to combat them, it is important for everyone in the academic community to question the standards of the current industry and educate yourself on how, in each of your areas, you can optimise to achieve this change. While we transition into this pivotal time in academia with institutions, publishers, researchers and the librarian community responding to this historical DEI movement, it is important to not only support those in the industry that are touting their commitment, but recognise outlets and institutions that have historically supported this movement to differentiate between those that are simply profiteering from the latest ‘trendy movement’ to ensure that long-term solutions can be enacted. For researchers, discuss with your publisher and institution on ways to help increase the diversity in your research. This can include, for editors and authors, increasing diversity on your editorial review boards, asking for resources to break down language barriers, increasing international collaboration and mentorship, and review diversity of authorship.


For librarians, acquire research from


diverse perspectives, review your collections for diversity, collaborate with publishers on initiatives (such as read & publish models) that could help support under-represented researchers, and educate your patrons on key elements that could be hindering them from truly embracing DEI. Lastly, for publishers, we need to come


together as a collective unit to provide resources for all parties involved, which includes providing flexible acquisitions models and solutions for libraries to acquire research and further DEI in their institutions, resources to our contributors on how to overcome the bias in the industry, and not only increase research in DEI, but ensure that what we are publishing provides a holistic viewpoint from various perspectives. Sadly, for so many years the structure


of academic publishing has been solely based on profit, with some publishers racketeering off the academic community, and the standards set in place are to line someone’s (or should we say multiple someones’?) pockets. Understanding that this article is merely


scratching the surface of these issues, I welcome discussion on this topic and how we can collaborate to champion the DEI movement. Additionally, if you are interested in additional information on IGI Global’s stance on DEI, contact me directly at nnewcomer@igi-global.com.


Nick Newcomer is senior director of marketing and sales at IGI Global


References


Bogost, Ian. “Write-Only Publication.” Bogost.com, November 24, 2008. http://bogost.com/writing/ blog/writeonly_publication/.


Eriksson, Stefan, and Gert Helgesson. “The False Academy: Predatory Publishing in Science and Bioethics.” Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 20, no. 2 (2016): 163–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11019-016-9740-3.


G. Gaylen [Comment on the article “Write-Only Publication: IGI Global and Other Vampire Presses”]. Bogost.com, December 7, 2010. http://bogost.com/ writing/blog/writeonly_publication/.


le Roux, Elizabeth. “Discrimination in Scholarly Publishing.” Critical Arts 29, no. 6 (2015): 703–4. https://doi.org/10.1080/02560046.2015.1151104.


Van Noorden, Richard, and Dalmeet Singh Chawla.


“Hundreds of Extreme Self-Citing Scientists Revealed in New Database.” Nature News. Nature Publishing Group, August 19, 2019. https://www. nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02479-7.


Tennant, Jonathan. “Web of Science AND Scopus Are Not Global Databases of Knowledge.” European Science Editing 46 (2020). https://doi.org/10.3897/ ese.2020.e51987.


Weber-Wulff, Debora. Write-only publications, December 31, 2007. https://copy-shake-paste. blogspot.com/2007/12/write-only-publications.html


@researchinfo | www.researchinformation.info


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