Keith S. Taber
In scholarly circles it is sometimes said "Publish, or be dammed" (a variation on the 'Publish and be dammed" retort to blackmail), and there is no doubt that, generally, success in academia – when judged in such mundane terms as getting academic positions, keeping them, getting promoted – in large part requires academics to build up their publication list.
The value of peer review
Quality should obviously be more important than quantity, but that requires evaluations of the former. The peer review process that is used by most journals is far from perfect, but is said (like democracy) to be, despite its flaws, the best system we have. Quality journals depend upon rigorous peer review to ensure that articles published will be recognised within a field to be robust and significant. Peer review takes time. Some publishers pressure editors and reviewers to work to a short time scale – but there is always a fine balance: the review needs to be done carefully, and by experts – rather than either hastily, or by those who are not really qualified but will have a go because they want the reviewing on their c.v (resumé)
Authors are under pressure to publish, and publish quickly. (Indeed I am aware that recently university employees in one country were put under pressure to get published quickly even if that meant compromising where the work was published).
Peer review not only leads to rejection of substandard work, but also provides feedback on submitted work that could be published, suggesting improvements indicated. Such suggestions inevitably are somewhat subjective – but I think most editors would agree that generally the peer review process improves the quality of the final published article – even if it often delays the process by some months and requires authors to go back and do further work when they might have hoped to have moved on to the next article they want to write.
Ultimately peer review (when done carefully by qualified reviewers) means not only that there is quality control that rejects poor work, but that several people scrutinise published work, point out any mistakes missed by authors, and often suggest changes that will lead to work more likely to impress the readership and have lasting impact. As authors we should welcome rigorous peer review of our work – even if sometimes we do not agree with the criticisms of our precious writing.
Instant gratification – immediate publication
Since the advent of on-line publishing, it has become very easy to start a journal, and the number of journals out there has proliferated. (Read 'Challenges to academic publishing from the demand for instant open access to research'.) This makes it hard sometimes, especially for new scholars, to know which journals are of high quality. Many journal publishers are looking to get a competitive edge by speeding up processes. I know from my own role as an editor that it is now possible, sometimes, to get a paper from submission to publication in around a month – but this is still the exception and a quality journal will never look to speed up the process by deliberately selecting referees who are not thorough or avoiding author revisions that are indicated.
So I was rather surprised to get an invitation from a journal I was not familiar with, International Educational Scientific Research Journal, entitled 'Publish your paper in May issue' on 15th April. The idea that I could submit something and have it published two weeks later seemed unlikely if there was any kind of robust peer review process in place. However, the email suggested that the
"Last date for manuscript submission is 30th April, 2016 for 1st May, 2016 Issue".
Really?
Dubious impact factors
Of course it is quite possible that the 1st May issue may not appear till September (that would not be a first in journal publishing), but otherwise this seemed to shout "we publish anything, quality not an issue". This is a journal which charges fees to authors – and the homepage suggests that the cost depends on the length of the manuscript and (oddly) the number of authors. However the email also claimed an Impact factor of 3.606.
If I was a new scholar I would likely be very impressed by an impact factor of over 3, as I know many quality specialist journals in my field with much lower impact factors. However, visiting the webpage revealed that the impact factor has not be awarded by Thomson Reuters, the organisation used by most quality journals, but rather by 'SJIF'.
The impact factors used by top journals reflect how many times (on average) each of their published papers are cited in articles in the highly ranked journals over a period. I found the webpage of the SJIF and found that it evaluates journals on a wide range of criteria, such as number of papers published, language of papers, quality of graphics and many other things. Some of the criteria used are certainly relevant to journal quality – but this type of evaluation is not comparable to the impact factors that are recognised and used by the top academic publishers.
The academic publishing landscape is very diverse today. The possibility of open publishing, and the easy access to tools to publish internet journals, is to be welcomed – but makes it more difficult for scholars to know which journals are genuinely of quality. There is certainly no intrinsic value in a journal having slow processes and all authors welcome a speedy review and publication process. Ultimately, however, submit today, publish tomorrow is likely to mean ignored thereafter.
Read more about 'Journals and poor academic practice'
(First published 24th April 2016 at http://people.ds.cam.ac.uk/kst24/)
