news
campusreview.com.au
Top journal swamped
Leading research journal says it can’t handle
the constant influx of research papers.
W
hat’s the opposite of a predatory journal? A dismissive
one? The Review of Higher Education (RHE) falls into
the latter category. The top-in-field journal, published
by Johns Hopkins University Press, recently suspended submissions
after reporting a more than two-year backlog.
While that’s newsworthy in itself, more stunning are the specifics
and the explanations for them. The journal wasn’t receiving reams of
junk; the submissions, on university-related topics, were high quality.
This, experts argue, is yet another symptom of the purported
‘publish or perish’ culture of universities, exacerbated by the pre-
eminence of research in university rankings. A third of ARWU‘s
rankings indices are research-based, and the 2019 QS World
University Rankings revealed that a significant factor in the Go8’s
improvement was their intensified research output. Reuters,
meanwhile, ranks universities as ‘innovative’ solely based on
research measures.
It is estimated that there are approximately 30,000 journals,
which publish nearly two million articles annually.
But publishing pressure alone has not been blamed for RHE’s
predicament. One of its associate editors pointed to a lack of article
reviewers:
As Assoc Editor of RHE, over 25 scholars rejected/ignored
my request to review a single manuscript. Each takes weeks
and some never respond. Not a challenging piece just “busy.”
https://t.co/rKZgQwZTnd
— Jenny Lee (@jennyj_lee) 15 August 2018
A respondent to Lee suggested reviewing should be a quid pro
quo process:
One way to think about reviewing [is] that it is a professional
obligation – if you publish peer-reviewed work you should also
review. I prefer to think about it as an opportunity to shape a
field. If you want to influence the literature, write and review.
— Brendan Cantwell (@cant_b) August 15, 2018
However, as reviewing is voluntary, goodwill cannot be assured.
This has led some to suggest that, in tandem with immense and
ever-growing publications, the entire academic research system
and culture requires reconsideration. ■
Neat prediction
A survey of undergraduates
has found that orderly students
are more likely to do well.
I
f cleanliness is next to godliness, then
according to a new study, orderliness is
next to academic success.
Taking showers and eating meals
at standard intervals could enhance your
2
GPA, the Journal of the Royal Society
Interface research suggests.
Though the results are merely correlate
(they are not proven to be causal), and
haven’t been tested against a control, the
authors, from the University of Electronic
Science and Technology of China (UEST)
and Pennsylvania State University, say this is
the first study to demonstrate them.
“The significant correlation implies
that orderliness can be considered as a
feature class to predict students’ academic
performance,” they said.
Almost 20,000 undergraduate students
at UEST were surveyed between 2009
and 2015 for their orderliness (regularity,
measured by taking showers in dormitories
and having meals in cafeterias) and
diligence (effort, measured by entering/
exiting the library and fetching water in
teaching buildings).
Though the authors admit this finding is
intuitive, they stress its importance. With
other GPA-influencing factors like DNA,
personality, IQ and physical attributes
mostly being beyond people’s control,
behavioural habits like orderliness and
diligence can at least be developed.
They noted, however, that orderliness
may come easier to some than others.
“East Asia creates the higher level of
disciplined atmosphere than other cultures,
and student academic performance is
significantly positively correlated with the
disciplinary climate,” they wrote.
“Although in China orderliness is
positively correlated with academic
performance, whether orderliness is a
quality that is predictive across all cultures
still remains an open question.” ■