Payouts push professors towards predatory journals

Abstract

Payouts push professors towards predatory journals If South Africa truly wants to encourage good research, it must stop paying academics by the paper, says David William Hedding. W hen my university announced the publications that qualified for South Africa's research-output bonuses for 2018, a colleague congratulated me for the payout I would receive, not for the quality of the science I had produced. This encounter made me realize, yet again, that something is very wrong with the research system in my country. Predatory journals accept papers (and collect publication fees) regardless of quality. A 2017 analysis of predatory journals in the database Scopus found that the share of publications in such journals by South African researchers was roughly five times those for the United States and Brazil, and two-and-a-half times that for China, which is frequently criticized for boosting publication numbers in inferior journals (see go.nature.com/2tecsqx). Why are South Africans relying so much on journals that do little or nothing to ensure quality? In an effort to boost academic productivity, the country's education department launched a subsidy scheme in 2005. It now awards roughly US$7,000 for each research paper published in an accredited journal. Depending on the institution, up to half of this amount is paid directly to faculty members. At least one South African got roughly $40,000 for research papers published in 2016-about 60% of a full professor's annual salary. There is no guarantee (or expectation) that a researcher will use this money for research purposes. Most simply see it as a financial reward over and above their salaries. South African publications listed in the Scopus database each year more than doubled in the decade after the payout programme began. But the number of publications by South African researchers in predatory journals jumped more than 140-fold in the same period (J. Mouton and A. Valentine S. Afr. J. Sci. 113, 2017-0010; 2017). Clearly, many researchers in South Africa are being forced to choose: cash or quality? The most obvious problem is inadequate accreditation of journals. South Africa's Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET) typically extracts qualifying publications from journal databases such as the ISI Web of Knowledge, although it accredits some journals independently. The proliferation of predatory journals (plus the fact that many adopt titles similar or identical to those of credible outlets) means that some predatory journals creep onto the accredited list, even though the process has become more stringent. Many researchers, especially early-career ones, remain unaware of the pitfalls, and the DHET is inadvertently training them not to care-because such publications can win funds for them, their universities and their research. Another problem is how the funds are disbursed. Subsidies are split on the basis of the number of authors from each institution. This discourages collaboration with researchers from different institutions and countries. That could re...

COVID-19 and the academe in South Africa: Not business as usual

“…For example, higher education institutions that pay out publication subsidies from the Department of Higher Education and Training directly to academics' salaries should consider retaining these funds to help researchers support their own research and fund postgraduate students. 10 In short, we need flexibility in a time of crisis.…”

Citations and metrics of journals discontinued from Scopus for publication concerns: the GhoS(t)copus Project

“…These citations contribute to the calculation of author metrics by Scopus. Among these metrics is included the Hirsch index (H-index) 27 , a lead descriptor of productivity and scientific impact, upon which career advancements are often determined 2 – 4 . The fact that discontinued journals contribute to academic promotion is a pertinent issue, and has inspired the vignette depicted in Figure 2 : discontinued journals may inflate authors’ metrics lifting them unnaturally and effortlessly.…”

“…Scopus provides bibliometric indicators that many institutions use to rank journals to evaluate the track record of scholars who seek hiring or promotion. These metrics are also used to allocate financial bonuses or to evaluate funding applications 2 – 4 . Ensuring the quality of the content of the Scopus database is therefore of great importance.…”

Inflated citations and metrics of journals discontinued from Scopus for publication concerns: the GhoS(t)copus Project

“…towards professorship and/or tenure or tenure track positions. [2,3,4] The fact that "ghost journals" can help, even partially, to move up in academia is clearly a relevant issue, and has inspired the allegorical vignette depicted in Fig 1: ghost journals can inflate authors' metrics lifting them unnaturally and effortlessly.…”

“…These metrics are also used to allocate financial bonuses or to evaluate funding applications. [2,3,4] Ensuring the quality of the content of the Scopus database is, therefore, of great importance.…”