Back to basics: The roll of journal indexes

I wonder about the contribution of journal indexes / databases to the assessment of research quality.

Lately, and against what would be logical given the major changes being experienced by the publishing industry, professors are increasingly required to publish in journals indexed in Journal Citation Reports (JCR), both statewide for accreditation as at universities, especially in private ones.

journals

If indexes and impact indicators were a kind of accreditation on the quality of journals’ processes, particularly on peer review quality and editorial board, I would understand all this alarm about publishing in first class reputable indexes. But apparently not:

  • Being in JCR, journals have to demonstrate to be a regular publication, printed in English, have an international editorial board and other requirements that have little to do with the quality of the papers within.
  • Having a journal indexed in Scopus and other known ones, it is enough to filling out a form giving them permission to use the journal data.
  • Following the same line, other similar indexes (generalists, regional or specialists), only require an application form to be filled.

So, what are the main sources of prestige for a journal? I pointed just a few:

  • Large base of readers.
  • Quality of authors and papers.
  • Sound peer reviewer processes, with good reviewers and feedback.
  • Good Editorial board and clear editorial line, objectives, etc.

If that is somehow true, then, what makes the difference with un-indexed peer review journals? I have not it very clear, it looks like a kind of complex corporate governance system for journals: different publishing stakeholders (indexes, journals, professors, researchers, universities, departments, accreditation bodies, governments, readers, peer reviewers, editors, journal owners, etc.) taking care of research prestige and reputation.

Many voices in academia call for a change, but, is there a better system than journal indexes and impact indicators to assess quality of research?

Advertisements

2 Responses to Back to basics: The roll of journal indexes

  1. I do believe there is changes to be made to improve:
    1) To allow previous pre-publication always, for fast divulgating the work and registering priority.
    2) To have a forum to register all claimed bad actions from journals (refusing with only one reviewer’s opinion, refusing with non-certain arguments, unnecessary requirements being added, and so on.
    3) To have a board of experts to be paid to give another opinion on the paper. As many as can be found or paid.
    4) To allow to publish a paper indicating which journals had previously rejected it.

  2. The Business Guy says:

    Consider Kent Anderson’s post: http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/06/25/pubmed-central-and-f1000-research-more-signs-of-favoritism-and-activism-and-more-conflicts-of-interest/

    There’s more of this with respect to eLife – they never even applied and they are in the Index Medicus.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: