Progressive and Degenerative Journals: On the Growth and Appraisal of Knowledge in Scholarly Publishing

Despite continued attention, finding adequate criteria for distinguishing “good” from “bad”scholarly journals remains an elusive goal. In this essay, I propose a solution informed by thework of Imre Lakatos and his methodology of scientific research programmes (MSRP). I beginby reviewing several notable attempts at appraising journal quality – focusing primarily on theimpact factor and development of journal blacklists and whitelists. In doing so, I note theirlimitations and link their overarching goals to those found within the philosophy of science. Iargue that Lakatos’s MSRP and specifically his classifications of “progressive” and“degenerative” research programmes can be analogized and repurposed for the evaluation ofscholarly journals. I argue that this alternative framework resolves some of the limitationsdiscussed above and offers a more considered evaluation of journal quality – one that helpsaccount for the historical evolution of journal-level publication practices and attendantcontributions to the growth (or stunting) of scholarly knowledge. By doing so, the seemingproblem of journal demarcation is diminished. In the process I utilize two novel tools (themistake index and scite index) to further operationalize aspects of the MSRP.

Modern Geográfia: múlt, jelen és jövő – egy szakmai folyóirat elmúlt 15 évének tükre

The scholarly journal Modern Geográfia has been providing a publication platform for researchers of geography and, more broadly, the natural and social sciences for 15 years now. Effective dissemination of scientific results is of paramount importance in broadening the horizons of both basic and applied research. The aim of the present study is to explore the role of Modern Geográfia in the above process, thus to outline its profile and possible directions for its further development. The applied method can be an effective help in formulating the portfolio and the strategic goals of other scholarly journals. The methodological basis of the research is provided by the statistical analysis of the journal based on a primary database containing several indicators. The results cover the number of articles published in the journal, in addition to the dynamics of the publications, its profiling, the presentation of the affected topics, and the evaluation of the trends of recent years. In addition to all this, the study reviews the team of professionals that has given content to the journal with the results of its scientific research.

Estimation of the journal distance of Genomics & Informatics from other bioinformatics journals, 2003-2018

This study explored the trends of Genomics & Informatics during the period of 2003-2018 in comparison with 11 other scholarly journals: BMC Bioinformatics, Algorithms for Molecular Biology: AMB, BMC Systems Biology, Journal of Computational Biology, Briefings in Bioinformatics, BMC Genomics, Nucleic Acids Research, American Journal of Human Genetics, Oncogenesis, Disease Markers, and Microarrays. In total, 22,423 research articles were reviewed. Content analysis was the main method employed in the current research. The results were interpreted using descriptive analysis, a clustering analysis, word embedding, and deep learning techniques. Trends are discussed for the 12 journals, both individually and collectively. This is an extension of our previous study (PMCID: PMC6808643).

Branding Scholarly Journals: Transmuting Symbolic Capital into Economic Capital

In this paper, we analyze a relatively recent commercial strategy devised by large academic publishers, consisting in the branding of their most prestigious scientific journals. Using Pierre Bourdieu’s model of capital conversion, we show how publishers transfer the symbolic capital of an already prestigious journal to derivative journals that capture part of the prestige of the original brand and transform it into new economic capital. As shown by their high impact factors, these new journals, bearing the mark of the original journal in their titles, are rapidly adopted by researchers. Through manuscript transfer mechanisms, publishers also use part of the papers rejected by their flagship and highly selective journals to recycle and monetize them in lower impact or open access derivative journals of their lists.

Essential Academic Journals Tend to Be of Universal Importance, While Many Journals Available on For-Profit Platforms Appear to Be Ancillary

A Review of: Mongeon, P., Siler, K., Archambault, A., Sugimoto, C. R., & Larivière, V. (2021). Collection development in the era of big deals. College & Research Libraries, 82(2), 219–236. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.82.2.219 Abstract Objective – (1) Present a method of journal appraisal that combines reference list, article download, and survey data. (2) Gauge journal usage patterns across selected universities. Design – Analysis of reference lists, article downloads, and survey data. Setting – 28 Canadian universities. Subjects – 47,012 distinct academic journal titles. Methods – Download data for the 2011-2015 period was sourced from standard Journal Report 1 (JR1) usage reports as supplied by the vendors. Download figures were summed for journals that were available through multiple platforms. Reference list data (i.e., the number of times documents published in each journal were cited by authors affiliated with a participating institution) was sourced from Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science, limiting for the years 2011-2015. An unknown number of researchers at 23 of the 28 participating universities were invited by email to complete a survey. The survey asked respondents to list the scholarly journals they considered essential for their research and teaching (up to 10 journals for each purpose). The three datasets (download, reference list, and survey data) were then merged. Duplicates and non-academic journals were removed. Journals were then grouped into broad discipline areas. A list of “core journals” (p. 228) was created for each institution. These journals produce 80% of downloads, 80% of citations, or 80% of survey mentions at each institution. A journal only had to reach the threshold in one category (i.e., in either downloads, citations, or mentions) to make it onto the core journals list. A “low” (p. 228) survey response rate meant “one mention [was] generally enough" (p. 228) for a journal to be classified as core. Main results – Fewer than 500 titles (n=484, ~1%) made it to the core journals list at all 28 universities. Two thirds (66%, n unknown) of journals did not make it onto the core list of any university. Of the journals deemed to be core, most (60%, n unknown) were shared across all institutions. On average, platforms from not-for-profit organizations and scientific societies contain a higher proportion of core journals than for-profit platforms. Notably, 63.6% of Springer journals, 58.9% of Taylor & Francis journals, and 45.8% of Elsevier’s journals do not appear on the core journal list of any university. Conclusion – Libraries should consider ways to share resources and work more cooperatively in their negotiations with publishers. Further, libraries may be able to cancel entire journal bundles without this having a “sizable” (p. 233) impact on resource access.

Journal selection behavior among early-career academicians in Iran: how they choose the most appropriate journal for their publications

Purpose Journals are the essential tools of researchers, especially academicians, to present their scientific findings. So, choosing the right journal helps not only science development but also their academic promotion. The purpose of this study is to examine the factors that Iranian medical researchers consider when selecting scholarly journals in which to submit their work. Design/methodology/approach A self-administered online questionnaire was emailed in May 2021, with 101 responses received. The sample included all the faculty members with the role of “lecturer” in Iranian medical universities and who have 1–5 articles in the Scopus database as early-career Iranian medical researchers. The questionnaire consisted of 36 items, divided into five sections: basic information, attitudes and beliefs, ways to choose a journal, problems and familiarity with the components of scientometrics/validity metrics related to journals. Findings The findings indicate that these researchers value the expertise of experienced researchers and professionals, like librarians, when selecting publication venues. They often use journal indexes to guide journal selection. They also consider factors like the length of typical peer review and the complexity of submission guidelines when making decisions. Research limitations/implications The study of one country, though detecting requirements of journal selection behavior, cannot be generalized to the entire region. Practical implications The current study has academic implications as far as decisions on journal selection are concerned. University policymakers in Iran may consider re-examining their emphasis on academicians’ promotion policies at Iranian universities of medical sciences. Originality/value These findings may support the work of early-career researchers and those individuals (e.g., librarians) that serve them, as well as publishers and editors of scholarly journals.

Commercial involvement in academic publishing is key to research reliability and should face greater public scrutiny

The publishers of scholarly journals, particularly the large for-profit publishers, have failed to ensure journal publication is transparent in process and output. They have failed to sustain and invigorate peer review. By relying on the print tradition of publishing, which focuses on the short research report, they have failed to sufficiently support innovations which take advantage of digital platforms for archiving, distributing and critiquing scholarly work. We review the consequences of this for research reliability and call for greater scrutiny of for-profit academic publishing.