Dr. jonny phd on Nostr: nprofile1q…cxm42 Bibliometrics is a self-fulfilling prophecy: the for-profit ...
nprofile1qy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnddaehgu3wwp6kyqpqjzgxd3ylxrpqcr90zss3ttyuk20cr6y9r7ewz2hyauvr4n0xzs8sucxm42 (nprofile…xm42)
Bibliometrics is a self-fulfilling prophecy: the for-profit journal systems control all the infrastructure that decides what a "top" journal is.
Starting from even "counting" as a journal, they control the indexing systems via Scopus, web of science. They own the metrics too, JIF, FWCI, etc. They own the research intelligence systems that administrators and funder use to evaluate researchers and journals as well like SciVal. They own the metadata and the metadata standard that make it hard to make alternative indexing and discovery systems so we stay stuck to brand name recognition. They stamp out alternative journals that might pose a threat to that system, see eLife and its indexing status.
Then researchers take their part too, still treating "top journal" status as indicative of quality when reading, and indicative of value when publishing. Choosing a "top journal" without regard to the publisher is part of the mythology that sustains the system. The mythology is self-reinforcing too, as far as it is true that tenure and promotion committees do value venue more than the work itself.
It's not an accident, it's the design of the system at every level. Acquisitions are a part of it too, but just a part in the overall structure in the same way that each one of the above pieces doesn't work well without the others. Researchers love to pick their favorite part, give it the entire blame (it's the funders! No it's the T&P committees! I'm doing it for my students because they need it!) as long as it permits them to continue playing their role in the system with some nominal excuse.
Bibliometrics is a self-fulfilling prophecy: the for-profit journal systems control all the infrastructure that decides what a "top" journal is.
Starting from even "counting" as a journal, they control the indexing systems via Scopus, web of science. They own the metrics too, JIF, FWCI, etc. They own the research intelligence systems that administrators and funder use to evaluate researchers and journals as well like SciVal. They own the metadata and the metadata standard that make it hard to make alternative indexing and discovery systems so we stay stuck to brand name recognition. They stamp out alternative journals that might pose a threat to that system, see eLife and its indexing status.
Then researchers take their part too, still treating "top journal" status as indicative of quality when reading, and indicative of value when publishing. Choosing a "top journal" without regard to the publisher is part of the mythology that sustains the system. The mythology is self-reinforcing too, as far as it is true that tenure and promotion committees do value venue more than the work itself.
It's not an accident, it's the design of the system at every level. Acquisitions are a part of it too, but just a part in the overall structure in the same way that each one of the above pieces doesn't work well without the others. Researchers love to pick their favorite part, give it the entire blame (it's the funders! No it's the T&P committees! I'm doing it for my students because they need it!) as long as it permits them to continue playing their role in the system with some nominal excuse.