Publish or perish: how Central and Eastern European economists have dealt with the ever-increasing academic publishing requirements 2000–2015

Correlation between journal metrics-based academic evaluation and researchers' ethics

The "publish or perish" approach has become an integral part of an academic's life when seeking positions, striving for promotions, or competing for funding. This approach often hinges on journal-based metrics which push researchers to seek publication in journals indexed in the Web of Science. Due to the pressure to publish a certain number of publications in journals indexed in the Web of Science, researchers might attempt to find a journal with a lower impact factor, i.e., less popular and visible journals in the scientific community. Even more concerning is the fact that researchers might publish their results in predatory journals. This paper analyzes the consequence of introducing a journal indicators-based academic evaluation by analyzing productivity and publication patterns of researchers. Moreover, this paper investigates the correlation between journal-based academic evaluation rules and researchers' ethics. The analysis is based on bibliometric data collected from the Web of Science database. The case study subject is the Serbian research landscape before and after the introduction of a journal metrics-based academic evaluation.

Understanding the increasing market share of the academic publisher “Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute” in the publication output of Central and Eastern European countries: a case study of Hungary

As the open access movement has gained widespread popularity in the scientific community, academic publishers have gradually adapted to the new environment. The pioneer open access journals have turned themselves into megajournals, and the subscription-based publishers have established open access branches and have turned subscription-based journals into hybrid ones. Maybe the most dramatic outcome of the open access boom is the market entry of such fast-growing open access publishers as Frontiers and Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI). By 2021, in terms of the number of papers published, MDPI has become one of the largest academic publishers worldwide. However, the publisher’s market shares across countries and regions show an uneven pattern. Whereas in such scientific powers as the United States and China, MDPI has remained a relatively small-scale player, it has gained a high market share in Europe, particularly in the Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries. In 2021, 28 percent of the SCI/SSCI papers authored/co-authored by researchers from CEE countries were published in MDPI journals, a share that was as high as the combined share of papers published by Elsevier and Springer Nature, the two largest academic publishers in the world. This paper seeks to find an explanation for the extensively growing share of MDPI in the publication outputs of CEE countries by choosing Hungary as a case study. To do this, by employing data analysis, some unique features of MDPI will be revealed. Then, we will present the results of a questionnaire survey conducted among Hungary-based researchers regarding MDPI and the factors that motivated them to publish in MDPI journals. Our results show that researchers generally consider MDPI journals’ sufficiently prestigious, emphasizing the importance of the inclusion of MDPI journals in Scopus and Web of Science databases and their high ranks and impacts. However, most researchers posit that the quick turnaround time that MDPI journals offer is the top driver of publishing in such journals.

Applying quantified indicators in Central Asian science: can metrics improve the regional research performance?

Quantified indicators are increasingly used for performance evaluations in the science sectors worldwide. However, relatively little information is available on the expanding use of research metrics in certain transition countries. Central Asia is a post-Soviet region where newly independent states achieved lower research performance relative to comparators in key indicators of productivity and integrity. The majority of the countries in this region showed an overall declining or stagnating research impact in the recent decade since 2008. This study discusses the implications of research metrics as applied to the transition countries based on the framework of ten principles of the Leiden Manifesto. They can guide Central Asian policymakers in creating systems for a more objective evaluation of research performance based on globally recognized indicators. Given the local conditions of authoritarianism and corruption, the broader use of transparent indicators in decision-making can help improve the positions of Central Asian science in international rankings.

Universities vs. research institutes? Overcoming the Soviet legacy of higher education and research

Universities and non-university research institutes have been recognised as two key sectors producing research globally. The Soviet model of research organisation included a large network of research institutes, affiliated with the USSR Academy of Sciences and republican academies, as well as industry research institutes, affiliated with sectoral ministries. Universities played a minor role in research. Post-Soviet higher education and research systems went through reforms in the last three decades which led to changes in the patterns of knowledge production. This study offers an overview of the reforms and a bibliometric analysis of 319410 publications in journals indexed in the Web of Science database to examine how selected post-Soviet countries have overcome the Soviet legacy of organisational separation of higher education and research. While universities now produce the bulk of research output in selected countries, in the majority of national contexts, Academies of Sciences continue to be important players in research.

Implications of Publication Requirements for the Research Output of Ukrainian Academics in Scopus in 1999–2019

Purpose

This article explores the implications of publication requirements for the research output of Ukrainian academics in Scopus in 1999–2019. As such it contributes to the existing body of knowledge on quantitative and qualitative effects of research evaluation policies.

Design/methodology/approach

Three metrics were chosen to analyse the implications of publication requirements for the quality of research output: publications in predatory journals, publications in local journals and publications per SNIP quartile from the disciplinary perspective.

Findings

Study results highlight, that, firstly, publications of Ukrainian authors in predatory journals rose to 1% in 2019. Secondly, the share of publications in local journals reached the peak of 47.3% in 2015. In 2019 it fell to 31.8%. Thirdly, though the total number of publications has risen dramatically since 2011, but the share of Q3+Q4 has exceeded the share of Q1+Q2. To summarise, the study findings highligh, that research evaluation policies are required to contain not only quantitative but also qualitative criteria.

Research limitation

The study does not explore in detail the effects of a particular type of publication requirements.

Practical implications

The findings of the study have practical implications for policymakers and university managers aimed to develop research evaluation policies.

Originality/value

This paper gains insights into the effects of publication requirements on the research output of Ukrainian academics in Scopus.

Efficiency of “Publish or Perish” Policy—Some Considerations Based on the Uzbekistan Experience

Researchers from Uzbekistan are leading the global list of publications in predatory journals. The current paper reviews the principles of implementation of the “publish or perish policy” in Uzbekistan with an overarching aim of detecting the factors that are pushing more and more scholars to publish the results of their studies in predatory journals. Scientific publications have historically been a cornerstone in the development of science. For the past five decades, the quantity of publications has become a common indicator for determining academic capacity. Governments and institutions are increasingly employing this indicator as an important criterion for promotion and recruitment; simultaneously, researchers are being awarded Ph.D. and D.Sc. degrees for the number of articles they publish in scholarly journals. Many talented academics have had a pay rise or promotion declined due to a short or nonexistent bibliography, which leads to significant pressure on academics to publish. The “publish or perish” principle has become a trend in academia and the key performance indicator for habilitation in Uzbekistan. The present study makes a case for re-examining the criteria set by the Supreme Attestation Commission of the Republic of Uzbekistan for candidates applying for Ph.D. and D.Sc. as well as faculty promotion requirements in the light of current evidence for the deteriorating academic performance of scholars.

A bibliometric study of human–computer interaction research activity in the Nordic-Baltic Eight countries

Human–computer interaction (HCI) has become an important area for designers and developers worldwide, and research activities set in national cultural contexts addressing local challenges are often needed in industry and academia. This study explored HCI research in the Nordic-Baltic countries using bibliometric methods. The results show that the activity varies greatly across the region with activities dominated by Finland, Sweden, and Denmark, even when adjusting for differences in population size and GDP. Research output variations were larger for the top-tier conferences compared to entry-tier conferences and journals. Locally hosted conferences were associated with local increases in research activity. HCI research longevity appears to be an indicator of research maturity and quantity. HCI researchers typically collaborated either with colleagues within the same institution or with researchers from countries outside the Nordic-Baltic region such as US and the UK. There was less collaboration between national and Nordic-Baltic partners. Collaboration appeared especially prevalent for top-tier conference papers. Top-tier conference papers were also more frequently cited than regional-tier and entry-tier conferences, yet journal articles were cited the most. One implication of this study is that the HCI research activity gaps across the Nordic-Baltic countries should be narrowed by increasing the activity in countries with low research outputs. To achieve this, first-time authors could receive guidance through collaborations with experienced authors in the same institution or other labs around the world. More conferences could also be hosted locally. Furthermore, journals may be more effective than conferences if the goal is to accumulate citations.

Letter to the Editor: publish, publish … cursed!

This paper comments on the phenomenon of “publish or perish” associated with the current information explosion and its awful consequence: the curse that hangs over academia which dooms it to publish incessantly irrelevant and pointless documents. The overabundance of publications is not justified and is not even necessary in many contexts for personal promotion, and even less for the advancement of science. Therefore, the current role of scientific journals is highly questionable that its aim could be misleading. Huge numbers of articles are published, but they are not read because the aim is principally “publish for publish,” or publication for its own sake. The standard corrective tool for improving scientific communication—peer review—cannot function adequately, and biases and perversions are introduced which undermine society’s confidence in the scientific enterprise. A dark landscape unfurls itself across the world of scientific information, forcing us to question and improve its current state. Methodologically this paper goes halfway between the essay and the review trying to provoke engaged and useful controversy.

Variations in surgical peer-reviewed publications among editorial board members, associate editors and their respective journal: Towards maintaining academic integrity

Background

Physician scientists who are also Editorial Board members or Associate Editors may prefer publishing in their own journal and therefore create an environment for conflicts of interest to arise.

Objectives

To assess the relationship between the number of peer-reviewed publications in surgical journals in which authors serve as Editorial Board Members and Associate Editors and their total number of annual publications.

Materials and methods

A cross-sectional study utilizing PubMed was performed regarding the total annual number of peer-reviewed publications by Editorial Board Members/Associate Editors and the number published in their respective affiliated journals from 2016 to 2019. Significance defined as p < 0.05.

Results

80 Associate Editors and 721 Editorial Board Members (n = 801 total) were analyzed from 10 surgical journals. The mean number of total annual peer-reviewed publications varied from 5.19 to 17.18. The mean number of annual peer-reviewed publications in affiliated journals varied from 0.06 to 2.53. Multiple significant associations were discovered between the total number of annual peer-reviewed publications and number of peer-reviewed publications in affiliated journals for all authors/surgical journals evaluated, except for the International Journal of Surgery (p > 0.05).

Conclusions

We found significant associations between the total number of annual peer-reviewed publications by Editorial Board Members/Associate Editors and number of annual peer-reviewed publications by their affiliated surgical journals. The implementation and enforcement of a standardized double-blind review process and mandatory reporting of any potential conflicts of interest can reduce possible bias and promote a fair and high-quality peer-review process.

An Overview of the Dynamics of Relative Research Performance in Central-Eastern Europe Using a Ranking-Based Analysis Derived from SCImago Data

In recent times, rankings seem to play an increasingly important role, influencing the lives of individual researchers or academics and their institutions. Individual and institutional rankings used for promotion and research or academic funding seem to illustrate more and more the “publish or perish” mantra, relying sometimes almost exclusively on publications and their citations. Eastern Europe found itself part of this new world after a period of isolation, uneven for the countries within the area. The present study uses SCImago data to perform a regional analysis of individual and aggregated domains, for individual countries and the entire region, based on a novel “adjusted citation index”, in order to measure the performance and identify, using correlations with additional data and information, the mechanisms that can increase the research performance of a country. In a nutshell, the results indicate that the national research policies are responsible for performance. Adaptive research policies simulate a real performance, in comparison with more restrictive ones, which are more likely to stimulate unethical behaviors such as self-citations or citation stacking, especially when used for the assessment of researchers. The importance of the findings lies in the possibility of replicating the methodology, adapting it to different spatial scales.

Reference publication year spectroscopy (RPYS) of computer science papers from Eastern Europe

Purpose

The current article presents the results of a case study dealing with the historical roots of Eastern European researchers in computer science.

Design/methodology/approach

The study is based on an analysis of cited references stemming from a collection of around 80,000 computer science papers by Eastern European researchers published from 1989 to 2014. By using a method called “reference publication year spectroscopy” (RPYS) for historical analyses based on bibliometric data, we analyze around 800,000 references cited in those papers. The study identifies the peak years, including most frequently cited publications (from 1952, 1965 and 1975), and focuses on these outstanding works for the field. The research shows how these influential papers were cited in Eastern Europe and in general, and on which scientific fields they have the most impact.

Findings

A noteworthy publication that seems to have a tremendous effect on Eastern European computer science is Zadeh's “Fuzzy sets” article which appeared in Information and Control in 1965. The study demonstrates that computer scientists from Eastern Europe are more conservative in their citation behaviour and tend to refer to older and more established research than their counterparts from the West.

Originality/value

Which are the historical roots of researchers working in a particular field or on a specific topic? Are there certain publications – landmark papers – which are important for their research? We guess that these are questions bothering researchers in many fields.

Rewarding the quantity of peer review could harm biomedical research

Voluntary peer review is generally provided by researchers as a duty or service to their disciplines. They commit their expertise, knowledge and time freely without expecting rewards or compensation. Peer review can be perceived as a reciprocal mission that aims to safeguard the quality of publications by helping authors improve their manuscripts. While voluntary peer review adds value to research, rewarding the quantity or the volume of peer review is likely to lure academics into providing poor quality peer review. Consequently, the quantity of peer review may increase, but at the expense of quality, which may lead to unintended consequences and might negatively affect the quality of biomedical publications. This paper aims to present evidence that while voluntary peer review may aid researchers, pressurized peer review may create a perverse incentive that negatively affects the integrity of the biomedical research record. We closely examine one of the proposed models for rewarding peer review based on the quantity of peer review reports. This article also argues that peer review should remain a voluntary mission, and should not be prompted by the need to attain tenure or promotion.