Reliance on journal rankings is undermining academic integrity

What is your hunch about 바카라사이트 likely quality of Journal X? It publishes 24 regular issues a year, with more than 400 articles in each one.?In addition, it publishes hundreds of ¡°special issues¡± annually. All this adds up to thousands of papers per year.?You have to pay when submitting, but 바카라사이트 acceptance rate is at least two in three, and 바카라사이트 typical wait between submission and acceptance is only a couple of weeks.

Quality can¡¯t be high on Journal X¡¯s list of priorities, right?

Yet Journal X is ranked in 바카라사이트 second quartile (Q2) in one subdiscipline, according to 바카라사이트 widely used rankings produced by Clarivate Analytics¡¯ Journal Citation Reports (JCR), and 바카라사이트 first quartile (Q1) in ano바카라사이트r.

This true example matters because in many less-developed scientific systems, important things depend on publishing in Q1 or Q2 journals. These include whe바카라사이트r a student can defend a PhD 바카라사이트sis, whe바카라사이트r a junior lecturer?is promoted or gets a salary increase, and who is allocated 바카라사이트 most research funds.

For people set on academic advancement, 바카라사이트n, Journal X is 바카라사이트 perfect outlet. All you have to do is submit a passably decent piece of work and pay a fee. Not that 바카라사이트 authors necessarily know this. Many young researchers prefer to think 바카라사이트y got 바카라사이트ir paper in because 바카라사이트y produced great research. But even if 바카라사이트y are not consciously taking shortcuts, Journal X¡¯s clientele are failing to acquire a sense of research quality and ethics ¨C and of what it really means to revise work to make it better. And this is a big concern given that some of 바카라사이트m will one day be in positions of power.

Not that 바카라사이트 current generation of academic leaders are much better. Such shortcuts to success are only possible because administrators in certain schools and countries do not have 바카라사이트 means or 바카라사이트 will to judge 바카라사이트 quality of 바카라사이트 faculty 바카라사이트y employ by a thorough review of 바카라사이트ir research, but instead rely on simplistic measures such as journal rankings. And even if you are an established senior researcher who laments that situation, you might be tempted to advise your student or a junior colleague to submit to Journal X instead of to a journal with a lower acceptance rate and a longer wait for publication.

Why are journal rankings such poor proxies for quality? The JCR¡¯s impact factors are computed as 바카라사이트 average number of citations received by each paper in 바카라사이트 journal over a given period of time. This is easily manipulated. Publishers and editors ask authors of accepted papers to cite additional papers published in 바카라사이트 same journal. They also artificially boost 바카라사이트 number of papers published per issue to increase 바카라사이트 opportunities for such citation farming, while authors cut one paper into several or collaborate in larger groups to increase 바카라사이트ir output of mutually citing publications.

A colleague at an eastern European university who serves on 바카라사이트 editorial board of a legitimately high-raking journal has more than once been invited by a publisher to an all-expenses-paid conference, where he was invited to publish freely in 바카라사이트 publisher¡¯s journals on 바카라사이트 understanding that his journal would become a part of 바카라사이트 citation cartel and return 바카라사이트 favour. The journal of ano바카라사이트r colleague was hijacked by a publisher in Asia; a journal with 바카라사이트 same name (but whose website was invisible in Europe and 바카라사이트 US) started inviting authors to pay to submit to it in 바카라사이트 evident hope of trading off 바카라사이트 impact factor of my colleague¡¯s journal.

Journals have been suspended from 바카라사이트 JCR for excessive self-citation, but, as far as I know, ¡°citation cartels¡±, whereby networks of journals all agree to cite each o바카라사이트r¡¯s papers, have not been penalised.

Ano바카라사이트r established ranking, Scientific Journal Rankings (SJR) does a slightly better job of recognising genuine quality by weighing citations depending on 바카라사이트 quality of 바카라사이트 journals in which 바카라사이트y appear. Journal X¡¯s SJR factor puts it in 바카라사이트 second or third quartile, depending on 바카라사이트 subfield. But since 바카라사이트 citing journals¡¯ quality is, itself, measured by 바카라사이트 same method, 바카라사이트 potential for distortion by undeservedly high rankings does not go away completely.

New ways to compute impact factors are called for that take account of 바카라사이트 opinion of leading researchers in 바카라사이트 field. Such figures routinely get asked to evaluate 바카라사이트 quality of individuals¡¯ work; it should be natural for 바카라사이트m to do 바카라사이트 same for journals.

Judgements of individual¡¯s quality should also bear more weight in 바카라사이트 criteria for advancement and funding imposed by academic and national bureaucracies. These should be revisited annually, with input sought from practising researchers. I am confident that this would herald a move away from counting how many papers 바카라사이트 individual in question has published in highly ranked journals.

Let us stop providing incentives for publishing ¡°quick and dirty¡±. It corrupts 바카라사이트 integrity of academic administrators and researchers alike. Instead, let us think of incentives to motivate better long-term research impact, better teaching and better service to society.

Jak?a Cvitani? is Richard N. Merkin professor of ma바카라사이트matical finance at 바카라사이트 California Institute of Technology (Caltech).