5 ms·

> "Legislation and regulation"? This is an astonishing claim. As far as I know, universities decide their own performance evaluation processes. Not necessarily

by nuerow 5y ago

> "Legislation and regulation"? This is an astonishing claim. As far as I know, universities decide their own performance evaluation processes. Not necessarily. In some countries, public research institutions are governed by regulations that cover organization aspects, funding, and performance evaluation. > How on earth did you get the impression that legislators passed laws dictating that academics publish in high impact factor journals? By the fact that I spent close to a decade working as a research engineer and as a PhD candidate, and I had to learn how my research group was funded and evaluated in order to remain a research engineer.

civilized 5y ago
Ok, I don't know about most countries, but in speaking with US and UK and EU academics I have never heard of such laws. I would question if the places where most meaningful research occurs have these laws. I wouldn't be surprised if, say, China did, but China doesn't dictate the way research is done globally.
- nuerow 5y ago
  > Ok, I don't know about most countries, but in speaking with US and UK and EU academics I have never heard of such laws. I suspect you didn't spoke to a lot of UK and EU academics then, because that's how things are ran in here. The EU has been, for the past two decades or so, reforming their research institutions to introduce performance-based funding, which include and are not limited to tracking relevant and meaninful research output in a competitive environment[1]. These include bibliometrical indicators, which takes into account "publication type and the rank or citation impact of the publication channel". At the member-state and and institutional level this involves whitelists of acceptable reference publications. [1] https://academic.oup.com/spp/article/46/1/105/5037253 https://academic.oup.com/spp/article/46/1/105/5037253
  - civilized 5y ago
    Can you name a UK government law or regulation that dictates to universities how an academic's publication record is to be interpreted in their performance evaluation? Re: the EU materials you've added to the post, thank you, I didn't know about this and I can definitely appreciate that it would make defection from the established set of journals more difficult. That said, editorial board defections usually produce journals with similar impact factors to the originals, so it is far from an insuperable barrier. At any rate, my original comments seem to apply to countries like the US and UK that dominate in research. Academics there have the power to stop serving paywall-and-overcharge academic publishing corporations. We know this, because they sometimes do, and those that do are often successful. But most choose not to.
    - nuerow 5y ago
      > At any rate, my original comments seem to apply to countries like the US and UK that dominate in research. Not really, at least not anymore. Depending on which metrics you choose to look at[1], China currently leads research output, and by a long stretch, over the US. Meanwhile, within the EU Germany outperforms the UK by a considerable margin, and both India and Japan outperform the UK as well. The UK fares even worse in papers-per-capita, ranking between the Czech Republic and Portugal. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_scientific_and_technical_journal_articles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of... > Academics there have the power to stop serving paywall-and-overcharge academic publishing corporations. We know this, because they sometimes do, and those that do are often successful. But most choose not to. Don't get me wrong, it's possible to overthrow the likes of Elsevier. The current push for public-access research is a significant step to eliminate the stranglehold these companies have on research output by abusing copyright laws. However, unlike the initial claim, this is no easy feat nor straight-forward.
      - civilized 5y ago
        > Depending on which metrics you choose to look at[1], China currently leads research output, and by a long stretch, over the US. Nobody who knows anything of the content of the research underlying those metrics takes this seriously.
        krageon 5y ago
        China does produce some very interesting computing-related papers FWIW. The few times I've been able to get an english version (or to have one translated) I was not under the impression they were qualitatively significantly worse than from any other place. Arguably that isn't hard because most papers in the field are absolute garbage, but I don't go into a paper expecting that to be the case.
        nuerow 5y ago
        > Nobody who knows anything of the content of the research underlying those metrics takes this seriously. To be very charitable in my interpretation, your personal assertion is simply presumptuous and outright wrong. China outright dominates research in some key fields[1], and in some fields it's outright impossible to search through topics without getting search hits from china. [1] https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/China-tech/China-s-research-papers-lead-the-world-in-cutting-edge-tech https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/China-tech/China-s-research...
pessimizer 5y ago
> Not necessarily. In some countries, public research institutions are governed by regulations that cover organization aspects, funding, and performance evaluation. This is part of the fleecing. It ends up in law the same way that "Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organizations" (NRSROs) ended up in law in the US, or anti-third party laws (like against "fusion.") Those laws and regulations seem like great places to attack, seeing as against the vast majority of academics, the few juggernauts of academic publishing would be very much underdogs. The problem is the weird rationalization that these arbitrary brands serve a useful purpose simply through being labeled as brands that should be respected. It's no wonder they do as little as possible and charge as much as possible. Their value lies not in the papers they publish, the quality of their peer reviews, or the composition of their boards (which could easily be transferred) but in their titles, as if they were royalty. The only way to transfer this value is to sell the name to a huge company that can realize economies of scale and monopoly power to bring costs down even farther.

by nuerow 5y ago

civilized 5y ago

Ok, I don't know about most countries, but in speaking with US and UK and EU academics I have never heard of such laws. I would question if the places where most meaningful research occurs have these laws. I wouldn't be surprised if, say, China did, but China doesn't dictate the way research is done globally.

nuerow 5y ago
> Ok, I don't know about most countries, but in speaking with US and UK and EU academics I have never heard of such laws. I suspect you didn't spoke to a lot of UK and EU academics then, because that's how things are ran in here. The EU has been, for the past two decades or so, reforming their research institutions to introduce performance-based funding, which include and are not limited to tracking relevant and meaninful research output in a competitive environment[1]. These include bibliometrical indicators, which takes into account "publication type and the rank or citation impact of the publication channel". At the member-state and and institutional level this involves whitelists of acceptable reference publications. [1] https://academic.oup.com/spp/article/46/1/105/5037253 https://academic.oup.com/spp/article/46/1/105/5037253
- civilized 5y ago
  Can you name a UK government law or regulation that dictates to universities how an academic's publication record is to be interpreted in their performance evaluation? Re: the EU materials you've added to the post, thank you, I didn't know about this and I can definitely appreciate that it would make defection from the established set of journals more difficult. That said, editorial board defections usually produce journals with similar impact factors to the originals, so it is far from an insuperable barrier. At any rate, my original comments seem to apply to countries like the US and UK that dominate in research. Academics there have the power to stop serving paywall-and-overcharge academic publishing corporations. We know this, because they sometimes do, and those that do are often successful. But most choose not to.
  - nuerow 5y ago
    > At any rate, my original comments seem to apply to countries like the US and UK that dominate in research. Not really, at least not anymore. Depending on which metrics you choose to look at[1], China currently leads research output, and by a long stretch, over the US. Meanwhile, within the EU Germany outperforms the UK by a considerable margin, and both India and Japan outperform the UK as well. The UK fares even worse in papers-per-capita, ranking between the Czech Republic and Portugal. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_scientific_and_technical_journal_articles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of... > Academics there have the power to stop serving paywall-and-overcharge academic publishing corporations. We know this, because they sometimes do, and those that do are often successful. But most choose not to. Don't get me wrong, it's possible to overthrow the likes of Elsevier. The current push for public-access research is a significant step to eliminate the stranglehold these companies have on research output by abusing copyright laws. However, unlike the initial claim, this is no easy feat nor straight-forward.
    - civilized 5y ago
      > Depending on which metrics you choose to look at[1], China currently leads research output, and by a long stretch, over the US. Nobody who knows anything of the content of the research underlying those metrics takes this seriously.
      - krageon 5y ago
        China does produce some very interesting computing-related papers FWIW. The few times I've been able to get an english version (or to have one translated) I was not under the impression they were qualitatively significantly worse than from any other place. Arguably that isn't hard because most papers in the field are absolute garbage, but I don't go into a paper expecting that to be the case.
      - nuerow 5y ago
        > Nobody who knows anything of the content of the research underlying those metrics takes this seriously. To be very charitable in my interpretation, your personal assertion is simply presumptuous and outright wrong. China outright dominates research in some key fields[1], and in some fields it's outright impossible to search through topics without getting search hits from china. [1] https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/China-tech/China-s-research-papers-lead-the-world-in-cutting-edge-tech https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/China-tech/China-s-research...

pessimizer 5y ago

> Not necessarily. In some countries, public research institutions are governed by regulations that cover organization aspects, funding, and performance evaluation. This is part of the fleecing. It ends up in law the same way that "Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organizations" (NRSROs) ended up in law in the US, or anti-third party laws (like against "fusion.") Those laws and regulations seem like great places to attack, seeing as against the vast majority of academics, the few juggernauts of academic publishing would be very much underdogs. The problem is the weird rationalization that these arbitrary brands serve a useful purpose simply through being labeled as brands that should be respected. It's no wonder they do as little as possible and charge as much as possible. Their value lies not in the papers they publish, the quality of their peer reviews, or the composition of their boards (which could easily be transferred) but in their titles, as if they were royalty. The only way to transfer this value is to sell the name to a huge company that can realize economies of scale and monopoly power to bring costs down even farther.