Post by account_disabled on Feb 22, 2024 1:35:08 GMT -5
By a huge coincidence, the director of my doctoral dissertation (44 years ago!), Robert S. Kaplan, professor emeritus at Harvard Business School, HBS, and creator of the Balanced Scorecard, just published an article Reverse the Curse of the Top-5 (November 2018), where he analyzes the negative consequences of the obsession with publishing research in the top 5 journals of each discipline , which tend to be the most abstract, along lines very similar to those of my article The social responsibility of researchers in social responsibility (Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility, No. 30, III quarter 2018). His argument is very similar to mine, showing that this obsession deprives society of research that could be more useful for its development and the advancement of the discipline . I make the additional argument that this is irresponsible since these researchers are using society's resources without contributing what they could/should to its advancement.
In his HBS working paper , Kaplan Finland Mobile Number List argues the following: The last 40 years have seen a large increase in the number of articles submitted to the Top-5 academic journals in their discipline. This is a rational response, by professors, to the great preference that academic promotion and tenure committees give to these journals. Journal rating factors arose, however, for different purposes, to guide subscriptions of journals. university libraries, always limited in resources. But using journal impact factors to infer the quality of researchers' publications has a great impact on both Type 1 errors, when we incorrectly conclude that research published in a Top-5 journal is research from high impact , such as Type 2 errors, when we conclude that publications of articles (and books) not published in those Top-5 journals have low impact . Additionally, a third type of error is introduced, by encouraging research that is favored by the editors of these journals , to the detriment of more relevant and innovative research perceived as not publishable in top journals. ( emphasis added ). And I add that this is very likely .
There is usually a negative correlation between the practical usefulness of research and its publication in top journals . And let us also remember that these journals have reviewers who are usually interested in keeping them reserved for research similar to theirs. This minimal summary does not do the document justice. In particular, it contains recommendations on the academic promotion and tenure process, incorporating the impact they have beyond their colleagues. I recommend reading it to all those pursuing a professional career in academic media. P.S. But there is a great irony: When he began to be my doctoral thesis director in capital markets at Carnegie Mellon University, in 1974, he had only about four years since he had changed from Operations Research , where he obtained his doctorate at Cornell University , to Accounting. I asked him why he had made the change and he responded that it was much easier to publish in Accounting since, at that time, there were only one or two rigorous journals in the discipline and the market for those publications was less competitive.
In his HBS working paper , Kaplan Finland Mobile Number List argues the following: The last 40 years have seen a large increase in the number of articles submitted to the Top-5 academic journals in their discipline. This is a rational response, by professors, to the great preference that academic promotion and tenure committees give to these journals. Journal rating factors arose, however, for different purposes, to guide subscriptions of journals. university libraries, always limited in resources. But using journal impact factors to infer the quality of researchers' publications has a great impact on both Type 1 errors, when we incorrectly conclude that research published in a Top-5 journal is research from high impact , such as Type 2 errors, when we conclude that publications of articles (and books) not published in those Top-5 journals have low impact . Additionally, a third type of error is introduced, by encouraging research that is favored by the editors of these journals , to the detriment of more relevant and innovative research perceived as not publishable in top journals. ( emphasis added ). And I add that this is very likely .
There is usually a negative correlation between the practical usefulness of research and its publication in top journals . And let us also remember that these journals have reviewers who are usually interested in keeping them reserved for research similar to theirs. This minimal summary does not do the document justice. In particular, it contains recommendations on the academic promotion and tenure process, incorporating the impact they have beyond their colleagues. I recommend reading it to all those pursuing a professional career in academic media. P.S. But there is a great irony: When he began to be my doctoral thesis director in capital markets at Carnegie Mellon University, in 1974, he had only about four years since he had changed from Operations Research , where he obtained his doctorate at Cornell University , to Accounting. I asked him why he had made the change and he responded that it was much easier to publish in Accounting since, at that time, there were only one or two rigorous journals in the discipline and the market for those publications was less competitive.