Abstract

Academic publishing has always been open to innovations of various kinds. Publications in prestigious academic journals have a significant impact on the institutional rankings and funding. Most recently, the question “where” to publish became more important than “what” to publish. However, the existing system is often abused by many academics. Czech Republic is one of the countries that seem to be particularly obsessed with the issue of “predatory” journals, which led to numerous accusations and even paid mass media involvement. Yet, everyone in the Czech Republic (including the top officials of the country’s leading universities as well as the Czech Academy of Sciences) has been or is publishing papers in the journals that were once considered “predatory” according to “Beall’s List” (for example journals published by MDPI or Hindawi). A plethora of Czech academic got their promotions based on publishing their monographs in obscure Czech publishing houses located in apartment blocks and listing non-existing people on their scientific boards, or publishing their numerous papers in the journals are editors of without any peer review (a famous “Stöckelová controversy”). Between 2009 and 2013, Czech universities made approximately $2 million on payments from government funding as rewards for papers and monographs published in “predatory” publishing outlets. Yet, the case of “predatory” journals has been used by some mediocre Czech (social) scientists to question the system of world’s established academic metrics represented by Scopus and Web of Science. However, the creation of local publication standards would enable small groups of academics to control job promotions within the research instructions and universities and influence the division of state funding envisaged for supporting research and innovations. International academic databases, such as Scopus and Web of Science, ensure the transparency and objectivity and thence represent the best way of measuring the scientific output and productivity.

Keywords: innovations, academic publishing, predatory journals, Stöckelová controversy, Durnová controversy, peer review, Scopus, Web of Scienc

JEL Classification: A14, B50.

Cite as: Molchanovа, A., Chunikhina N. & Strielkowski, W. (2017). Innovations and academic publishing: who will cast the first stone?. Marketing and Management of Innovations, 4, 40-48. https://doi.org/10.21272/mmi.2017.4-03

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

References

1. Strielkowski, W. (2017). Will the rise of Sci-Hub pave the road for the subscription-based access to publishing databases? Information Development, 33(5), 540-542. DOI: 10.1177/0266666917728674.
2. Brembs, B., Button, K., & Munfaro, M. (2013). Deep impact: unintended consequences of journal rank. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7:291. DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00291.
3. Grancay, M., Vveinhardt, J., & Sumilo, E. (2017). Publish or perish: how Central and Eastern European economists have dealt with the ever-increasing academic publishing requirements 2000–2015. Scientometrics, 111(3), 1813-1837. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-017-2332-z.
4. Beall, J. (2012). Predatory publishers are corrupting open access. Nature, 489 (7415), 179. DOI: 10.1038/489179a.
5. Strielkowski, W., Gryshova, I., & Shcherbata, M. (2017). Predatory publishing and Beall’s list: lessons for the countries adapting novel research evaluation criteria. Science and Education, 8, 39-43. DOI: 10.24195/2414-4665-2017-8-5.
6. Beall, J. (2012). Predatory publishers are corrupting open access. Nature, 489(7415), 179. DOI: 10.1038/489179a.
7. Beall, J. (2015). Predatory journals and the breakdown of research cultures. Information Development, 31(5), 473–476. DOI: 10.1177/0266666915601421.
8. Hutson, S. (2009). Publications of fake journals raises ethnical questions. Nature Medicine, 15, 598. DOI: 10.1038/nm0609-598a.
9. Kalousova, M., Dusilova-Sulkova, S., Zakiyanov, O., Kostirova, M., Safranek, R., Tesar, V., & Zima, T. (2015). Vitamin D Binding Protein Is Not Involved in Vitamin D Deficiency in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease. BioMed Research International, article ID 492365, 1-8. DOI: 10.1155/2015/492365.
10. Retzer, K., Lacek, J., Skokan, R., del Genio, C. I., Vosolsobě, S., Laňková, M., & et al. (2017). Evolutionary Conserved Cysteines Function as cis-Acting Regulators of Arabidopsis PIN-FORMED 2 Distribution. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 18(11), 2274. DOI: 10.3390/ijms18112274.
11. Beall, J. (2017). What I learned from predatory publishers, Biochemia medica: Biochemia Medica, 27(2), 273-278. DOI: 10.11613/BM.2017.029.
12. Strielkowski, W. (2017). Bell’s List is missed. Nature, 544, 416. DOI: 10.1038/544416b.
13. Věda žije. Vysoké školy čerpaly prostředky z MŠMT za diplomové práce přetištěné jako odborné knihy [Universities received money from the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport for diploma theses printed as scientific monographs] (2016). vedazije.cz. Retrieved from http://vedazije.cz/node/5101 [in Czech].
14. Novotny, J. (2015). Predátorská vydavatelství útočí. Vysávají český rozpočet na vědu [Predatory publishers are attacking. They drain the Czech budget for science]. euro.cz. Retrieved from https://www.euro.cz/archiv/predatorska-vydavatelstvi-utoci-vysavaji-cesky-rozpocet-na-vedu-1255068 [in Czech].
15. SLON (2017). SLON: Sociologické nakladatelství [Sociological publishing]. slon-knihy.cz. Retrieved from www.slon-knihy.cz [in Czech].
16. Research, Development and Innovation Council of the Czech Republic (2013). Methodology of remuneration for academic publications in the Czech Republic for the years of 2013-2016. vyzkum.cz. Retrieved from http://www.vyzkum.cz/FrontClanek.aspx?idsekce=685899.
17. Linková, M., & Stöckelová, T. (2012). Public accountability and the politicization of science: The peculiar journey of Czech research assessment. Science and Public Policy, 39(5), 618-629. DOI: 10.1093/scipol/scs039.
18. INOMICS (2014). Job market survey. 2014. inomics.com. Retrieved from www.inomics.com.2014-job-market-survey.
19. Brož, L., Stöckelová, T., Vostal (2017). Predators and bloodsuckers in academic publishing. derivace.wordpress.com. Retrieved from https://derivace.wordpress.com/.
20. Stöckelová, T. (2012). Nebezpečné známosti. O vztahu sociálních věd a společnosti [Dangerous acquaintances. About the relationship between social sciences and society]. Praha: Sociologické nakladatelství SLON [in Czech].
21. Ministry of the Interior of the Czech Republic (2011). mvcr.cz. Extremism: overall situaton report. Retrieved from http://www.mvcr.cz/soubor/zprava-extremismus-3q-pdf.aspx.
22. Stöckelová, T., Vostal, F. (2017). Academic stratospheres-cum-underworlds: when highs and lows of publication cultures meet. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 69(5), 516-528. DOI: 10.1108/AJIM-01-2017-0013.
23. Stöckelová, T. (2016). Sociological imagination for Future ESA Conferences. Sociologicky casopis-Czech Sociological Review, 52(3), 403-404.
24. Beall, J. (2015). Predatory journals and the breakdown of research cultures. Information Development, 31(5), 473–476. DOI: 10.1177/0266666915601421.
25. Durnová, A., Komm, M., & Trtíková Vojtková, M. (2017). Reputation in danger: upholding academic standards at Charles University. reputationindanger.com. Retrieved from https://reputationindanger.com.
26. Zima, T. (2017). Rector’s Zima reaction to the open letter. cuni.cz. Retrieved from https://cuni.cz/UK-8704.html.
27. Grove, J. (2017). Czech University urged to bar new dean over “junk journal” papers. timeshighereducation.com. Retrieved from https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/czech-university-urged-bar-new-dean-over-junk-journal-papers#survey-answer.