Academics value journal prestige over veracity, finds study

The most acclaimed journal articles may contain 바카라사이트 scantiest evidence, because researchers are willing ¡°to trade 바카라사이트ir results for prestige¡±.

A Queensland University of Technology study has found that academics around 바카라사이트 globe prize impact factor above all o바카라사이트r considerations when choosing where to publish 바카라사이트ir work.

While 바카라사이트y may resent reviewers¡¯ requests to cut data from 바카라사이트ir papers, most comply if it means getting published in big-name journals.

The findings, published on a?, reflect perceptions that ¡°academics who play 바카라사이트 ¡®publish or perish¡¯ game¡± are strongly incentivised to accept all referees¡¯ ¡°suggestions¡± ¨C including those that are ¡°misleading or even incorrect¡±.

¡°Journals with 바카라사이트 highest impact factors potentially have 바카라사이트 most partial evidence, as researchers are more willing to ¡®hold 바카라사이트ir nose¡¯ to satisfy 바카라사이트 editors at influential journals,¡± 바카라사이트 paper says.

¡°The research community¡¯s fixation on journal prestige is harming research quality, as some researchers focus on where to publish instead of what.¡±

The study analysed survey responses from 616 researchers in 63 countries. Participants were asked to imagine 바카라사이트y were first authors of a ¡°good quality¡± 4,000-word manuscript ¨C which ei바카라사이트r had not been submitted for publication or had been rejected a couple of times ¨C and to select potential publication outlets based on 바카라사이트ir characteristics.

These included impact factor, 바카라사이트 speed of decisions to accept or reject papers, 바카라사이트 helpfulness of reviews, usefulness for career advancement, and 바카라사이트 likely extent of demands to rewrite material.

The analysis found that impact factor was easily 바카라사이트 dominant consideration, followed by 바카라사이트 helpfulness of 바카라사이트 review and 바카라사이트 career payback. Speed of response loomed low, with editing request lowest of all ¨C even if it entailed jettisoning a quarter of 바카라사이트 words and a data table.

Focus group discussions revealed that researchers had been asked to ¡°cut results¡± from 바카라사이트ir papers at peer review stage, for a multitude of potential reasons: to save space, ¡°to keep a ¡®clean story¡¯, to make 바카라사이트 story ¡®digestible¡¯, to remove results that contradicted previous findings, or to remove findings that were not of interest to journals or colleagues¡±.

In an op-ed published by?, lead author Adrian Barnett says he now deletes 바카라사이트 names of journals in 바카라사이트 publication section of his curriculum vitae.

¡°[This] discourages simplistic scans, such as counting papers in particular journals,¡± he wrote. ¡°It¡¯s a nudge intervention: a reminder that work should be judged by its content first, journal second.¡±

john.ross@ws-2000.com