The costly prestige ranking of scholarly journals | Ravnetrykk

Abstract:  The prestige ranking of scholarly journals is costly to science and to society. Researchers’ payoff in terms of career progress is determined largely from where they publish their findings, and less from the content of their scholarly work. This fact creates perverted incentives for the researchers. Valuable research time is spent in trying to satisfy reviewers and editors, rather than spending their time in the most productive direction. This in turn leads to unnecessary long time from research findings are made until they become public. This costly system is upheld by the scholarly community itself. Scholars supply the journals with time, serving as reviewers and editors without any paycheck asked, even though the bulk of scientific journals are published by big commercial enterprises enjoying super profit margins. The super profit results from expensive licensing deals with the scholarly institutions. The free labour offered, on top of the payment for the licensing deals, should be viewed as part of the payment to these publishers – a payment in kind. Why not use this as a negotiating chip towards the publishers? If a publisher asks more than acceptable for a licensing deal, rather than walk away with no deal, the scholarly institutions could pull out all the free labour offered by reviewers and editors.

 

You can publish open access, but ‘big’ journals still act as gatekeepers to discoverability and impact | Impact of Social Sciences

“Publishing trial data in big journals such as The Lancet and BMJ might make the data far more ‘discoverable’, and thus enhance the potential impact of publicly-funded research. There might therefore be value for researchers, policy-makers and the public in a publishing model that combines full open-access publication (a must for publicly-funded research, surely) with selective additional publication in certain, select, influential subscription journals (while being aware that ‘salami slicing’ publication strategies do not necessarily represent ‘good practice’). …”

You can publish open access, but ‘big’ journals still act as gatekeepers to discoverability and impact | Impact of Social Sciences

“Publishing trial data in big journals such as The Lancet and BMJ might make the data far more ‘discoverable’, and thus enhance the potential impact of publicly-funded research. There might therefore be value for researchers, policy-makers and the public in a publishing model that combines full open-access publication (a must for publicly-funded research, surely) with selective additional publication in certain, select, influential subscription journals (while being aware that ‘salami slicing’ publication strategies do not necessarily represent ‘good practice’). …”

The R2R debate, part 5: what I actually think | Sauropod Vertebra Picture of the Week

“The venue of its publication can tell us something useful about a paper’s quality; but the quality of publication venues is not correlated with their prestige (or Impact Factor)….

The venue of its publication can tell us something useful about a paper’s quality; but the quality of publication venues is inversely correlated with their prestige (or Impact Factor).”

Staying with the Trouble: Designing a values-enacted academy | Impact of Social Sciences

“The prospecting practices of Academia.edu, ResearchGate, and Academic Analytics reinforce precisely such an impoverished conception of scholarship. The data they collect and ‘insights’ they provide foster an “analytics mindset” and obsession with self-branding. Academic Analytics, for its part, mines a “mother lode” of scholarly data independent of input from the scholars themselves, and presents this data to institutions of higher education in ways that represent, repackage, and reduce the quality of scholarly merit primarily to the quantity of scholarship produced. This data- and metrics-driven framework enables inter-institutional competition that has helped to create a toxic culture of self-interest and prestige. …”

Staying with the Trouble: Designing a values-enacted academy | Impact of Social Sciences

“The prospecting practices of Academia.edu, ResearchGate, and Academic Analytics reinforce precisely such an impoverished conception of scholarship. The data they collect and ‘insights’ they provide foster an “analytics mindset” and obsession with self-branding. Academic Analytics, for its part, mines a “mother lode” of scholarly data independent of input from the scholars themselves, and presents this data to institutions of higher education in ways that represent, repackage, and reduce the quality of scholarly merit primarily to the quantity of scholarship produced. This data- and metrics-driven framework enables inter-institutional competition that has helped to create a toxic culture of self-interest and prestige. …”

The purpose of publications in a pandemic and beyond | Wonkhe

“The virus is reminding us that the purpose of scholarly communication is not to allocate credit for career advancement, and neither is it to keep publishers afloat. Scholarly communication is about, well, scholars communicating with each other, to share insights for the benefit of humanity. And whilst we’ve heard all this before, in a time of crisis we realise afresh that this isn’t just rhetoric, this is reality….”

The R2R debate, part 3: my response for the motion | Sauropod Vertebra Picture of the Week

“The Researcher to Reader (R2R) conference at the start of this week featured a debate on the proposition “The venue of its publication tells us nothing useful about the quality of a paper”. I’ve already posted Toby Green’s opening statement for the proposition and Pippa Smart’s opening statement against it.

Now here is my (shorter) response in favour of the motion, which is supposed to be a response specifically to Pippa’s opening sttement against. As with Toby’s piece, I mistimed mine and ran into my (rather niggardly) three-minute limit, so I didn’t quite get to the end. But here’s the whole thing….”

The R2R debate, part 2: opening statement against the motion | Sauropod Vertebra Picture of the Week

“Yesterday I told you all about the Researcher to Reader (R2R) conference and its debate on the proposition “The venue of its publication tells us nothing useful about the quality of a paper”. I posted the opening statement for the proposition, which was co-written by Toby Green and me.

Now here is the opening statement against the proposition, presented by Pippa Smart of Learned Publishing, having been co-written by her and Niall Boyce of The Lancet Psychiatry.

(I’m sure it goes without saying that there is much in here that I disagree with. But I will let Pippa speak for herself and Niall without interruption for now, and discuss her argument in a later post.)…”

The R2R debate, part 2: opening statement against the motion | Sauropod Vertebra Picture of the Week

“Yesterday I told you all about the Researcher to Reader (R2R) conference and its debate on the proposition “The venue of its publication tells us nothing useful about the quality of a paper”. I posted the opening statement for the proposition, which was co-written by Toby Green and me.

Now here is the opening statement against the proposition, presented by Pippa Smart of Learned Publishing, having been co-written by her and Niall Boyce of The Lancet Psychiatry.

(I’m sure it goes without saying that there is much in here that I disagree with. But I will let Pippa speak for herself and Niall without interruption for now, and discuss her argument in a later post.)…”