The Research Excellence Framework (REF) is causing a stir in academia, with a toxic culture brewing behind the scenes. But what's the fuss about? It's all about the pressure to publish in top-tier journals.
A recent report from the University and College Union (UCU) reveals a concerning trend at the University of Liverpool Management School. The school's policies, which mandate publishing in highly rated journals (3* or 4* by the Academic Journal Group and the FT50 list), are causing distress among staff. This pressure to target specific journals is seen as a discriminatory practice against diverse research outputs.
Here's the catch: the report argues that this narrow focus on prestigious journals constrains academic freedom and favors certain research methods and theories, often from North American perspectives. It limits the publication of high-quality research in disciplinary, specialist, and interdisciplinary journals not on these lists, and undervalues books and alternative formats.
Journal lists are a common tool for universities and organizations to quickly assess researchers. Proponents argue they are efficient in identifying exceptional scholars given the vast number of journals. But is this approach fair? The report questions its alignment with the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (Dora), which many universities, including Liverpool, have signed. Dora advocates against using journal-based metrics as a sole measure of research quality.
The controversy deepens as UCU survey respondents claim this focus is unfair, especially to early-career researchers, due to long publication times and high rejection rates at top journals. The report suggests that this pressure may delay the dissemination of valuable research that could be published elsewhere.
Internal pressure is high, with academics feeling compelled to publish in a select few journals to secure promotions and resources. This has created a culture of fear, as evidenced by high UCU casework. But the university spokesperson defends their position, stating that FT50 publication is not a hiring or promotion criterion and that they have a Dora-compliant evaluation program.
Professor Anna Morgan-Thomas offers a different perspective, acknowledging the practicality of journal lists for business schools. She highlights the challenges of relying solely on academic judgment, as suggested by Dora, due to the need for diverse expertise and the labor-intensive nature of the process. This raises an important question: How can we balance efficient evaluation with academic freedom and diversity in research?
The debate continues, leaving us with a thought-provoking dilemma. Is the pursuit of excellence in research being hindered by the very metrics designed to assess it? Share your insights below, and let's explore this complex issue together.
