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

Scientometrics

Volumn 111, Issue 3, 2017, Pages 1813-1837

  Grančay, Martin ^a   Vveinhardt, Jolita ^b   Šumilo, Ērika ^c  

^a SLOVAK UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Slovakia)

^b LITHUANIAN SPORTS UNIVERSITY   (Lithuania)

^c UNIVERSITY OF LATVIA   (Latvia)

Author keywords

Academic publishing; Central and Eastern Europe; Impact factor; Scopus; Web of Science; Predatory journal

Indexed keywords

EID: 85014733278     PISSN: 01389130     EISSN: 15882861     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-017-2332-z     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Barrios, M., Guilera, G., & Gómez-Benito, J. (2013). Impact and structural features of meta-analytical studies, standard articles and reviews in psychology: Similarities and differences. Journal of Informetrics, 7(2), 478–786. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2013.01.012.
2. Beall, J. (2012). Predatory publishers are corrupting open access. Nature, 489(7415), 179. doi:10.1038/489179a.
3. Beall, J. (2015). Predatory journals and the breakdown of research cultures. Information Development, 31(5), 473–476. doi:10.1177/0266666915601421.
4. Beall, J. (2016). List of standalone journals. https://scholarlyoa.com/individual-journals/.
5. Callaway, E. (2016). Beat it, impact factor! Publishing elite turns against impact factor. Nature, 535(7611), 210–211. doi:10.1038/nature.2016.20224.
6. Collazo-Reyes, F. (2014). Growth of the number of indexed journals of Latin America and the Caribbean: The effect on the impact of each country. Scientometrics, 98(1), 197–209. doi:10.1007/s11192-013-1036-2.
7. Cornwall, M. (2010). From the editor: Ten most likely ways an article submission fails to live up to publishing standards. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 49(4), i–v. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5906.2010.01531.x.
8. Cotton, C. (2013). Submission fees and response times in academic publishing. The American Economic Review, 103(1), 501–509. doi:10.1257/aer.103.1.501.
9. Davidson, C. N. (2004). The Futures of Scholarly Publishing. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 35(3), 129–142. doi:10.3138/jsp.35.3.129.
10. Davis, P. M., Lewenstein, B. V., Simon, D. H., Booth, J. G., & Connolly, M. J. L. (2008). Open access publishing, article downloads, and citations: Randomised controlled trial. British Medical Journal, 337(7665), a568. doi:10.1136/bmj.a568.
11. De Meis, L., Velloso, A., Lannes, D., Carmo, M. S., & de Meis, C. (2003). The growing competition in Brazilian science: Rites of passage, stress and burnout. Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research, 36(9), 1135–1141. doi:10.1590/S0100-879X2003000900001.
12. De Villiers, M. M., & Malan, S. F. (1997). Publish or perish: How is pharmacy research coping in a changing South Africa? South African Journal of Science, 93(8), 355–358.
13. Didegah, F., Thelwall, M., & Gazni, A. (2012). An international comparison of journal publishing and citing behaviours. Journal of Informetrics, 6(4), 516–531. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2012.04.003.
14. Eger, T., Scheufen, M., & Meierrieks, D. (2015). The determinants of open access publishing: Survey evidence from Germany. European Journal of Law and Economics, 39(3), 475–503. doi:10.1007/s10657-015-9488-x.
15. Ellisson, G. (2002a). Evolving Standards for Academic Publishing: A q-r Theory. Journal of Political Economy, 110(5), 994–1034. doi:10.1086/341871.
16. Ellisson, G. (2002b). The slowdown of the economics publishing process. Journal of Political Economy, 110(5), 947–993. doi:10.2139/ssrn.234802.
17. Fanelli, D. (2010). Do pressures to publish increase scientists’ bias? An empirical support from US states data. PLoS ONE, 5(4), e10271. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0010271.
18. Fiala, D. (2013). Science evaluation in the Czech republic: The case of universities. Societies, 3(3), 266–279. doi:10.3390/soc3030266.
19. Fiala, D., & Willett, P. (2015). Computer science in Eastern Europe 1989–2014: A bibliometric study. ASLIB Journal of Information Management, 67(5), 526–541. doi:10.1108/AJIM-02-2015-0027.
20. Forgues, B., & Liarte, S. (2013). Academic publishing: Past and future. M@n@gement, 16(5), 739–756. doi:10.3917/mana.165.0739.
21. Franceschet, M., & Costantini, A. (2010). The effect of scholar collaboration on impact and quality of academic papers. Journal of Informetrics, 4(4), 540–553. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2010.06.003.
22. Hilmer, M. J., & Hilmer, C. E. (2009). Fishes, ponds, and productivity: Student-advisor matching and early career publishing success for economics PhDs. Economic Inquiry, 47(2), 290–303. doi:10.1111/j.1465-7295.2007.00108.x.
23. Icy, L. (2014). Publish or perish: The myth and reality of academic publishing. Language Teaching, 47(2), 250–261. doi:10.1017/S0261444811000504.
24. Jokić, M., Zauder, K., & Letina, S. (2010). Croatian scholarly productivity 1991–2005 measured by journals indexed in Web of Science. Scientometrics, 83(2), 375–395. doi:10.1007/s11192-009-0071-5.
25. Koczkodaj, W. W., Kułakowski, K., & Ligęza, A. (2014). On the quality evaluation of scientific entities in Poland supported by consistency-driven pairwise comparisons method. Scientometrics, 99(3), 911–926. doi:10.1007/s11192-014-1258-y.
26. Kozak, M., Bornmann, L., & Leydesdorff, L. (2015). How have the Eastern European countries of the former Warsaw Pact developed since 1990? A bibliometric study. Scientometrics, 102(2), 1101–1117. doi:10.1007/s11192-014-1439-8.
27. Kund, O. (2016). The dark side of Estonian science: Paid articles in trashy magazines. Postimees. 27.1.2016. http://news.postimees.ee/3484021/the-dark-side-of-estonian-science-paid-articles-in-trashy-magazines
28. Masaryk University. (2016). MU’s Position on Predatory Publishing and Open Access Scholarly Journals. 7.1.2016. https://is.muni.cz/do/rect/metodika/VaV/56012837/Research_and_predatory_journals_EN.pdf.
29. Leslie, D. (2005). Are delays in academic publishing necessary? The American Economic Review, 95(1), 407–413. doi:10.1257/0002828053828608.
30. Libkind, A. N., Markusova, V. A., & Mindeli, L. E. (2013). Bibliometric indicators of Russian journals by JCR-science edition, 1995–2010. Acta Naturae, 5(3), 6–12.
31. Markusova, V. A., Libkind, A. N., Varshavsly, A. E., & Jansz, C. N. M. (2012). Research performance and collaboration in the Novosibirsk region. Scientometrics, 91(2), 513–526. doi:10.1007/s11192-011-0597-1.
32. Must, Ü. (2006). “New”countries in Europe-research, development and innovation strategies versus bibliometric data. Scientometrics, 66(2), 241–248. doi:10.1007/s11192-006-0016-1.
33. Pajić, D. (2015). Globalization of the social sciences in Eastern Europe: Genuine breakthrough or a slippery slope of the research evaluation practice? Scientometrics, 102(3), 2131–2150. doi:10.1007/s11192-014-1510-5.
34. Pajić, D., & Jevremov, T. (2014). Globally national–locally international: Bibliometric analysis of a SEE psychology journal. Psihologija, 47(2), 263–277. doi:10.2298/PSI1402263P.
35. Qiu, J. (2010). Publish or perish in China. Nature, 463(7278), 142–143. doi:10.1038/463142a.
36. Rahman, A. I. M., Guns, R., & Engels, T. C. E. (2015). Predatory open access journals in a performance-based funding model: A comparison of journals in version VI of the VABB-SHW with Beall’s list and DOAJ. Antwerp: ECOOM. 22.12.2016. https://www.ecoom.be/sites/ecoom.be/files/downloads/151223_Predatory%20Journals%20VABB%20VI_incl_Annexes.pdf.
37. Ray, M. (2016). An expanded approach to evaluating open access journals. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 47(4), 307–327. doi:10.3138/jsp.47.4.307.
38. Rond, M., & Miller, A. N. (2005). Publish or perish: Bane or boon of academic life? Journal of Management Inquiry, 14(4), 321–329. doi:10.1177/1056492605276850.
39. Samkin, G. (2011). Academic publishing: A faustian bargain? Australasian Accounting Business and Finance Journal, 5(1), 19–34.
40. Schmoch, U., & Schubert, T. (2008). Are international co-publications an indicator for quality of scientific research? Scientometrics, 74(3), 361–377. doi:10.1007/s11192-007-1818-5.
41. Scopus.(2016). www.scopus.com.
42. Seglen, P. O. (1997). Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. British Medical Journal, 314(7079), 498–502. doi:10.1136/bmj.314.7079.497.
43. Somoza-Fernández, M., Rodríguez-Gairín, J., & Urbano, C. (2016). Presence of alleged predatory journals in bibliographic databases: Analysis of beall’s list. El Profesional de la Información, 25(5), 730–737.
44. Teodorescu, D., & Andrei, T. (2014). An examination of “citation circles” for social sciences journals in Eastern European countries. Scientometrics, 99(2), 209–231. doi:10.1007/s11192-013-1210-6.
45. Tessensohn, J. A., & Yamamoto, S. (2007). Japan’s novelty grace period solves the dilemma of ‘publish and perish’. Nature Biotechnology, 25(1), 55–57. doi:10.1038/nbt0107-55.
46. Thursby, J. G. (2000). What do we say about ourselves and what does it mean? Yet another look at economics department research. Journal of Economic Literature, 38(2), 383–404. doi:10.1257/jel.38.2.383.
47. Tranekova, I. (2016). Limity pragmatizmu v humanitnych vedach. Pravda. 21.1.2016. http://zurnal.pravda.sk/esej/clanok/380551-limity-pragmatizmu-v-humanitnych-vedach/.
48. Vanecek, J. (2014). The effect of performance-based research funding on output of R&D results in the Czech Republic. Scientometrics, 98(1), 657–681. doi:10.1007/s11192-013-1061-1.
49. Ward, S. M. (2016). The rise of predatory publishing: How to avoid being scammed. Weed Science, 64(4), 772–778. doi:10.1614/WS-D-16-00080.1.
50. Web of Science. (2016 and 2017). www.webofknowledge.com.
51. Yan, C. M., & He, C. J. (2015). To be or not to be? The “publish or perish” syndrome for english teacher educators in China. Frontiers of Education in China, 10(4), 526–543. doi:10.3868/s110-004-015-0039-0.
52. Yuret, T. (2016). Is it easier to publish in journals that have low impact factors? Applied Economics Letters, 23(11), 801–803. doi:10.1080/13504851.2015.1109034.