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.

Publication practices in the Humanities

This paper is a case study of research publication practices at the Faculty of Arts and Humanities at Linnaeus University, a young, mid-sized university in the south-east of Sweden. Research output was measured from publications in the local institutional repository following the guidelines of local research policy as defined in university documentation. The data collection comprised 3,316 metadata records of publications self-registered by authors affiliated with the faculty during the period of 2010–2018. A statistical analysis of research output was conducted, focusing on preferred publication types, disciplinary specificity, level of co-authorship, and the language of the publication as registered in the local repository. The analysis focused on two main research questions: 1) how do the local research practices stand in relation to traditional publication patterns in the humanities? 2) how do the observed publication patterns relate to local university policy on publication and research evaluation? The empirical results suggest a limited correlation between publication practices and research incentives from university management, a finding that is corroborated by previous research on the scholarly character of the humanities and university policies. Overall, traditional humanities publication patterns were largely maintained throughout the period under investigation.

Religious Print in Settler Australia and Oceania

A distinctive feature of the study of religion in Australia and Oceania concerns the influence of European culture. While often associated with private interiority, the European concept of religion was deeply reliant upon the materiality of printed publication practices. Prominent historians of religion have called for a more detailed evaluation of the impact of religious book forms, but little research has explored this aspect of the Australian case. Settler publications include their early Bible importation, pocket English language hymns and psalters, and Indigenous language Bible translations. As elsewhere in Europe, Australian settlers relied on print to publicize their understanding of religion in their new context. Recovering this legacy not only enriches the cultural history of Australian settler religion, it can also foster new avenues through which to appreciate Australia’s multireligious and Indigenous heritage.

140 Past and Future Changes in Scientific Publishing

Publication in scientific journals remains the primary method to disseminate research findings; however, the landscape of scientific publication is rapidly changing. For instance, although open access publication has led to unprecedented opportunities to share information with the global scientific community, it has also contributed to the rise of “predatory journals.” These journals accept fees to publish articles without promised quality checks (e.g. peer review). In order to better understand current publication practices and the threat predatory journals pose, this session will: 1) Briefly summarize the history of scientific publication and how the current model of peer-reviewed publication developed. 2) Define predatory journals and review components of the international consensus definition (false or misleading information, deviation from best editorial and publication practices, lack of transparency, aggressive/indiscriminate solicitation; Nature doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-03759-y). 3) Summarize empirical studies that have assessed the current burden of predatory journals. A broad group of stakeholders are affected by these journals, including researchers and the public. 4) Provide a practical approach for audience members to distinguish between predatory and legitimate journals. 5) Highlight some key developments that will lead to new publication models in the future.

An exploratory analysis of 4844 withdrawn articles and their retraction notes

This article looks at the dynamic of retractions and retraction notes, retraction reasons for questionable research and publication practices, countries producing retracted articles, and the scientific impact of retractions. Four thousand eight hundred forty-four retracted articles published between 2009 and 2020 and indexed in PubMed were analyzed.RESULTSMistakes/inconsistent data account for 32% of total retractions, followed by images(22,5%), plagiarism(13,7%) and overlap(11,5%).Thirty countries account for 94,79% of 4844 retractions. Top five are: China(32,78%), United States(18,84%), India(7,25%), Japan(4,37%) and Italy(3,75%).The total citations number for all articles is 140810(Google Scholar), 96000(Dimensions).Average exposure time(ET) is 28,89 months. Largest ET is for image retractions(49,3 months), lowest ET is for editorial errors(11,2 months).The impact of retracted research is higher for Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom, United States, and other nine countries and lower for Pakistan, Turkey, Malaysia, and other six countries, including China.CONCLUSIONSMistakes and data inconsistencies represent the main retraction reason; images and ethical issues show a growing trend, while plagiarism and overlap still represent a significant problem. There is a steady increase in QRP and QPP article withdrawals. Retraction of articles seems to be a technology-dependent process.The number of citations of retracted articles shows a high impact of papers published by authors from certain countries. The number of retracted articles per country does not always accurately reflect the scientific impact of QRP/QPP articles.The country distribution of retraction reasons shows structural problems in the organization and quality control of scientific research, which have different images depending on geographical location, economic development, and cultural model.

How to True Psychology’s Objects

Psychology’s current crisis attends most visibly to perceived problems with statistical models, methods, publication practices, and career incentives. Rarely is close attention given to the objects of inquiry—to ontological matters—yet the crisis-related literature does features statements about the nature of psychology’s objects. Close analysis of the ontological claims reveals discrepant understandings: some researchers assume objects to be stable and singular while others posit them to be dynamic and complex. Nevertheless, both views presume the objects under scrutiny to be real. The analysis also finds each of these ontological claims to be associated not only with particular method prescriptions but also with distinct notions of the scientific self. Though both take the scientific self to be objective, one figures the scientist as not always a rational actor and, therefore, requiring some behavior regulation, while the other sees the scientist as largely capable of self-governing sustained through painstakingly acquired expertise and self-control. The fate of these prevalent assemblages of object, method, and scientific self remains to be determined, yet as conditions of possibility they portend quite different futures. Following description of the assemblages, the article ventures a futuristic portrayal of the scientific practices they each might engender.

“You become academic royalty once you’ve published”: A social practice exploration of identity in academic writing

Academic publishing plays a visible role in the lives of academics in the contemporary university. This paper, located in the academic literacies field of critical enquiry, illustrates the complex ways in which two South African academics understood and discursively constructed their identities through their writing for a recently published book exploring lecturers’ teaching and learning contexts and practices. The autoethnographic sensitivity of the research enabled the elicitation of critical self-reflective accounts, presented through detailed individual reflective sketches. The analysis uses the concepts of autobiographical self, discoursal self and affiliation (Ivanič, 1998; 2005) to show how these writers were able to discursively represent themselves in the book. It further highlights how continued disparities and inequities that characterise academic publication are experienced by the writers. The findings demonstrate the value of the social practice view of writing and its capacity to make visible how writers enact various linguistic, rhetorical and stylistic resources as they discursively construct their alignment to their scholarship community. In particular, it illuminates generative spaces where academic development practitioners can lead dialogues to re-examine current publication practices, their consequential nature for writers and explore possibilities to support emergent SOTL authors.

Publication practices of sub-Saharan African Cochrane authors: a bibliometric study

IntroductionCochrane Africa (https://africa.cochrane.org/) aims to increase Cochrane reviews addressing high priority questions in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). Researchers residing in SSA, despite often drawing on Cochrane methods, training or resources, conduct and publish systematic reviews outside of Cochrane. Our objective was to investigate the extent to which Cochrane authors from SSA publish Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews.MethodsWe conducted a bibliometric study of systematic reviews and overviews of systematic reviews from SSA, first by identifying SSA Cochrane authors, then retrieving their first and last author systematic reviews and overviews from PubMed (2008 to April 2019) and using descriptive analyses to investigate the country of origin, types of reviews and trends in publishing Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews over time. To be eligible, a review had to have predetermined objectives, eligibility criteria, at least two databases searched, data extraction, quality assessment and a first or last author with a SSA affiliation.ResultsWe identified 657 Cochrane authors and 757 eligible systematic reviews. Most authors were from South Africa (n=332; 51%), followed by Nigeria (n=126; 19%). Three-quarters of the reviews (71%) were systematic reviews of interventions. The intervention reviews were more likely to be Cochrane reviews (60.3% vs 39.7%). Conversely, the overviews (23.8% vs 76.2%), qualitative reviews (14.8% vs 85.2%), diagnostic test accuracy reviews (16.1% vs 83.9%) and the ‘other’ reviews (11.1% vs 88.9%) were more likely to be non-Cochrane reviews. During the study period, the number of non-Cochrane reviews increased more than the number of Cochrane reviews. About a quarter of the reviews covered infectious disease topics.ConclusionCochrane authors from SSA are increasingly publishing a diverse variety of systematic reviews and overviews of systematic reviews, often opting for non-Cochrane journals.