Predatory publishing refers to academic journals charging high fees and offering little or no vetting of the quality of the research published, as noted by Retraction Watch. In this interview with Derek Pyne of Thompson Rivers University, BC, Canada, Retraction Watch not only reveals that the problem may be more widespread than expected, but that the culture at Thompson Rivers University – and, by extension, many others – is not properly sensitive to the idea of quality research.
RW: In a recent Op-Ed in the Ottawa Citizen, you say the administration at the business school was less than enthusiastic about your results. Can you say more about that?
DP: In September of 2015, on my Annual Professional Activities Report (APAR), I included my initial finding that I had found that I was one of a minority of researchers in my department with no publications in predatory journals. The dean requested, through the department chair, that I remove this from my APAR and resubmit it. I did this but I don’t think he appreciated my rewording as his official APAR response letter quoted from my original APAR instead. When I informed him that I had facts to back up my statement, he responded that he did not care about facts. Things went downhill from there. For example, later he said that the school had promotion and tenure committees to evaluate people’s research and that he thought it was arrogant of me to second guess them.
RW: You note that universities may be “complicit” in the problem of predatory journals. Can you say more about that, and what we can do to address it?
DP: I see no other reason why universities would ignore the issue when it reaches the extent of a majority of research faculty in a school publishing in predatory journals. In the op-ed, I discuss possible reasons for this.
I have a couple of suggestions for addressing the issue. One problem we have is that no one in our Dean’s office has a research background. I would hope that administers with research backgrounds would place a greater value on honest research. Moreover, I think they would be in a better position to recognize suspicious publication records. Thus, the first action I would recommend would be hiring administrators with research backgrounds.
In addition, I found that the issue only got attention after my op-ed was published. I am not saying that other universities would be unwilling to address the issue before getting to this point. However, honest faculty have to be willing to stand up for academic integrity. If internal actions cannot bring change, it is sometimes necessary to go further. In my view, the job security of tenure is wasted on people who turn a blind eye to such wrong doing.
Thing is, I don’t really think you need people with research backgrounds serving on these committees; you need people committed to quality results. Researchers, as people who may have wittingly or unwittingly published in suspect journals, are not necessarily the best selections, especially as administrative work may not be a good temperamental fit.
I suspect the real trick is root out complacency, and in so doing formulate and implement a process which can then be used and, more importantly, reviewed and revised[1]. Now you have something that can be tracked, improved, and thereby improve the university. If all you have is a bunch of administrators who are checking off the informal boxes from decades ago – support the researchers, count up the papers published, did any win awards [hey, is anyone evaluating the awards won?!] – then you’re running a risk.
It’s a changing world out there. Used to be, you published one monumental work and you were immortalized, such as Newton. Maybe you paid for it, maybe not. Then there was the era of a few publications, and most of them had good reps – because publishing was hard to start and to continue.
Now it’s the era of anyone with a web site and – maybe – a connection to a printing press can pose as a scholarly journal[2]. Maybe 50 years ago Universities knew all the journals and which ones were good, because so few were bad. But that is no longer true, researchers are no longer as involved as they once were, and so having a process written down and periodically improving it should just make good sense. If nothing else, you can point at the committee and ask them why they aren’t following the process.
But part of the process should be Improve the Process.
1If you’re muttering “Watts Humphrey!” good for you!
2As NewScientist‘s Feedback column periodically notes.
