Academic Publishing – An Annotated Inventory of Challenges and chosen Pathways

Zait, Adriana (2020): Academic Publishing – An Annotated Inventory of Challenges and chosen Pathways. Forthcoming in: GEBA Conference Proceedings

Abstract

Context and Purpose: The increased focus of higher education institutions on research and – lately – on societal challenges and real-world problems, the importance of academic rankings for financing and international competitions and the research and publication oriented professional advancement criteria transformed academics into publishing hunters. The world of academic publishing is wild and dangerous, due to the massification of research. Aims and objectives are often confounded with means, quantity and quality (already difficult to assess) don’t always walk together, stakeholders have conflicting interests, the old linear models of publishing are replaced with intricate looped and interconnected ones, leading to academics publishing more and achieving less – especially from a societal perspective. The aim of the present study is to summarize the main challenges of the publishing process, together with the pathways chosen by academics to overcome these difficulties.

Design/methodology: A meta-analysis of recent studies on academic publishing was performed, together with a nethnographic exploratory approach on publishing patterns in economics and business; informal talks with academics from business and economics fields from several Eastern EU higher education institutions were used, as well.

Findings: The inventory of challenges includes individual factors (personality and individual morale, goals, knowledge and status, preferences and habits), institutional factors (university and strategy level), social structures and infrastructural level factors (open access, technological disruptive innovations, new social contract for research, preprints), as well as professional culture type of factors (peer-review issues and various biases, alternative research assessment methods, predatory journals, predatory informal rules). Several pathways chosen by academics were observed, leading to hypotheses formulation for future research.

Limitations: The study is exploratory, based on a conventional sample of academics for the empirical part and has an emic, potentially subjective approach.

Originality/value: The study touches a delicate and controversial subject – academic publishing – and brings together both positive and negative aspects for existent pathways, offering a ground for future research.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: higher education research; publishing models; publishing culture; publishing influence factors; academic publishing pathways.
• Subjects: I - Health, Education, and Welfare > I2 - Education and Research Institutions > I23 - Higher Education ; Research Institutions; M - Business Administration and Business Economics ; Marketing ; Accounting ; Personnel Economics > M1 - Business Administration > M12 - Personnel Management ; Executives; Executive Compensation; M - Business Administration and Business Economics ; Marketing ; Accounting ; Personnel Economics > M1 - Business Administration > M14 - Corporate Culture ; Diversity ; Social Responsibility

References

1) Ankers, P. and Brennan, R. (2002). Managerial relevance in academic research: an exploratory study. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 20(1), pp. 15-21.

2) Baldridge, D. C., Floyd, S. W. and Markoczy, L. (2004). Academic Quality and Relevance. Strategic Management Journal, 25(11), pp. 1063-1074.

3) Beall, J. (2012). Predatory publishers are corrupting open access. Nature, 489 (7415), p. 179.

4) Björk, B.-C. (2004). Open access to scientific publications - an analysis of the barriers to change? Information Research, 9(2).

5) Bowman, J. D. (2014). Predatory publishing, questionable peer review, and fraudulent conferences. Am J Pharm Educ, 78(10), pp. 176.

6) Braverman, M. T. (2018). The Evolving Landscape of Academic Publishing: Essential Knowledge for Extension Scholars. Journal of Extension, 56(3), Article 8. 7) Cameron, B. D. (2005). Trends in the Usage of ISI Bibliometric Data, Uses, Abuses, and Implication. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 5, pp. 105-125.

8) Chapman, C.A. et al. (2019). Games academics play and their consequences: how authorship, h-index and journal impact factors are shaping the future of academia. Proceedings B of the Royal Society Publishing, 286, pp. 2019-2047.

9) Chavarro, D., Tang, P. and Ràfols, I. (2017). Why researchers publish in non - mainstream journals: training, knowledge bridging, and gap filling. Research Policy, 46(9). pp. 1666-1680.

10) Colquhoun, D. (2011). Publish-or-perish: Peer Review and the Corruption of Science. The Guardian Web. [online] Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/sep/05/publish-perish-peer-review-science [Accessed 10.10.2020].

11) Darnon, C., Harackiewicz, J. M., Butera, F., Mugny, G. and Quiamzade, A. (2007). Performance-Approach and Performance-Avoidance Goals: When Uncertainty Makes a Difference. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(6), pp. 813-827.

12) Edwards, O. (2014). Differentiating Performance Approach Goals and Their Unique Effects. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 2(2), pp. 134-145.

13) Fong, E. A. and Wilhite, A. W. (2017). Authorship and citation manipulation in Academic Research. PLoS ONE, 12(12).

14) Gioia, D. A. and Corley, K. G. (2002). Being good versus looking good: Business School rankings and the circean transformation from substance to image. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 1, pp. 107-120.

15) Gu, X. and Blackmore, K. L. (2016). Recent trends in academic journal growth. Scientometrics, 108(2), pp. 693-716.

16) Harzing, A. W. and Wal, R. van der (2009). A Google Scholar h-index for journals: an alternative metric to measure journal impact in Economics & Business? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(1), pp. 41-46.

17) Hirsch, J. E. (2020). Superconductivity, what the h? Physics and Society, 49(1).

18) Infante, E. F. (2020). A View of Major Trends at Research Universities. Open Book, The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 500 Fifth St., NW | Washington, DC 20001.

19) Kelly, J., Sadeghieh, T. and Adeli, K. (2014). Peer Review in Scientific Publications: Benefits, Critiques, & A Survival Guide. EJIFCC, 25(3), pp. 227-243.

20) Leydesdorff, L. (2008). Caveats for the use of citation indicators in research and journal evaluations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59, pp. 278-287.

21) London School of Economics, (2019). 2019 In Review: The culture of academic publishing. [online] Available at: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences /about-the-lse-impact-blog/ [Accessed 15.09.2020].

22) Meneghini, R. and Packer, A. L. (2007). Is there science beyond English? Initiatives to increase the quality and visibility of non-English publications might help to break down language barriers in scientific communication. EMBO Reports, 8(2), pp. 112-116.

23) Moed, H. F. (2005). Citation analysis of scientific journals and journal impact measures. Current Science, 89(12).

24) Moed, H. F., de Moya-Anegon, F., Guerrero-Bote, V. and Lopez-Illescas, C. (2020). Are nationally oriented journals indexed in Scopus becoming more international? The effect of publication language and access modality. Preprint (Author copy) accepted for publication in Journal of Informetrics (14 Jan 2020). [online] Available at: https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2002 /2002.07470.pdf [Accessed 10.10.2020].

25) Padmalochanan, P. (2019). Academics and the Field of Academic Publishing: Challenges and Aproaches, Publishing Research Quarterly, 35, pp. 87-107.

26) Ponte, D., Mierzejewska, B. I. and Klein, S. (2017). The transformation of the academic publishing market: multiple perspectives on innovation. Electronic Markets, 27(4), pp. 97-100.

27) Rowlands, I. and Nicholas, D. (2005). New journal publishing models: an international survey of senior researchers. London, School of Library, Archive, and Information Studies, University College London. [online] Available at: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/ciber/ciber_2005_survey_ final.pdf [Accessed 10.10.2020].

28) Sambunjak, D., Huić, M., Hren, D., Katić, M., Marušić, A. and Marušić, M. (2009). National vs. international journals: views of medical professionals in Croatia. Learned Publishing, 22(1), pp. 57–70.

29) Scholastica, (2020). 5 Scholarly Publishing Trends to Watch in 2020. [online] Available at: https://blog.scholasticahq.com/post/scholarly-publishing-trends-to-watch/ [Accessed 10.10.2020].

30) Segalla, M. (2008). Editorial: Publishing in the right place or publishing the right thing. European Journal of International Management, 2(2), pp. 122-127.

31) Shin, J. and Cummings, W. (2010). Multilevel analysis of academic publishing across disciplines: research preference, collaboration and time on research. Scientometrics, 85(2), pp. 581-594.

32) Smith, M. J., Weinberger, C., Bruna, E. M and Allesina, S. (2014). The Scientific Impact of Nations: Journal Placement and Citation Performance. PLoS ONE, 9(10).

33) Tennant, J. P., Waldner, F., Jacques, D. C., Masuzzo, P., Collister, L. B. and Hartgerink, C. H. (2016). The academic, economic and societal impacts of Open Access: an evidence-based review. F1000Research, 5(632).

34) Tulley, C. (2019). Emerging Trends in the Academic Publishing Lifecycle. The Scholarly Kitchen, 27 March 2019.

35) Vandewalle, D., Nerstad, C. G. L. and Dysvik, A. (2019). Goal Orientation: A Review of the Miles Traveled and the Miles to Go. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 6(1), pp.115-144.

36) Vincent-Lancrin, S. (2006). What is Changing in Academic Research? Trends and Futures Scenarios. European Journal of Education, 41(2), pp. 169-202.

37) Walsh, M., Huang, C. and Felix, E. (2019). Three Academic Research Trends That Are Reshaping University Spaces, Technology, Support Services, and Staffing Forecasting Trends. Brightspot. [online] Available at: https://www.brightspotstrategy.com/adapt-recent-trends research-methodology [Accessed 10.10.2020].

38) Zaiţ, A. (2004). Relaţii publice. Editura Sedcom Libris Iaşi.

39) Zaiţ, A. (2016). Conceptualization and operationalisation of specific variables in exploratory researches – an example for business negotiations. Scientific Annals of Economics and Business, 63(1), pp. 125-131.