This is not my first or likely my last post on this issue, but I have reached the point where I receive, most days, multiple solitications to submit articles to what are unfamiliar and likely predatory journals. I get a lot of solitications to be a keynote speaker, too. The Mixed Methods International Research Association provided some nice cautionary information about predatory journals in their weekly email newsletter last week; it seems that academics (and students) are still often deceived by some of these contacts. I personally think that the practices of 'good' journals and respectible publishers have contributed to some extent to the rise in interest in lower quality outlets. Additionally, I believe my students are less discriminatory and more likely to prefer open access by virtue of it being open access - even when they have free remote access to university research resources. Things that I think have helped create the environment for emergence of predatory journals: Inconsistent and often very slow peer reviewer responses. A good number of responses I recieve suggest that the reviewers are not fully qualified to comment in each area they have commented in. I do not suggest all reviewers should know everything, but I think they should know something, and be more forthcoming about limitations in their knowledge and experience.
Lack of peer reviewer training in graduate programs or provided by journals. Editors who have policies that are not consistent with stated journal submission requirements. I suggest that one or the other should be changed for the benefit of authors and reviewers. Not really blind review processes. In some areas, people know who is doing what research. This allows personal, subjective criteria to influence the review process. I suspect there is a bias toward known researchers although I am certain this is not universal. Bias toward some types of research and against others. I still see an awful lot of surveys with college students published, with the suggestion that this is somehow helpful when considering the world at large, yet often qualitative works are an uphill battle to publish. This relates to some extent back to my first item - because some reviewers of qual work only know grounded theory characteristics (constant comparison, saturation, line-by-line coding) so apply those as criteria to any design. Expressions of ego or immaturity or unprofessional conduct that results in personal and subjective criticisms, and further contributes to publication bias. These things in my view contribute to unpredictable, changeable conditions that make it really difficult as an author to achieve proficiency or efficacy for publishing. Combine this with ongoing pressure from universities to publish, and you have ideal conditions for people to be willing to pay - even their own money - in order to retain and progress in their positions.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorI am Sheryl L. Chatfield, Ph.D, C.T.R.S. I am a member of the faculty in the College of Public Health at Kent State University. I also Co-coordinate the Graduate Certificate in Qualitative Research and I am a member of the Design Innovation Team at Kent State. Archives
February 2024
Categories
|