Academic echo chamber

The tides in academic publishing are changing slowly, but surely. In June 2021, Utrecht University removed the journal impact factor (IF) from the promotion and hiring criteria. This bold step introduced to the tenure equation has caused a tsunami of disagreement among the Netherlands’ academics. 

This is an admirable example of an attempt to make the research more transparent and cooperative. It is also a step away from product-ification of science. Many opposing academics signed a collective open letter. There, the cons against the move are the following:

1. In fields with low overall publication volume, IF does not matter.
2. In these, ‘field-weighted’ IF has been developed to correct for the low volume.
3. Papers published in high IF journals are based on much more work than subject-specific journals.
4. High IF journals generally publish better papers.
5. Papers introducing new technologies, concepts, and overturning dogmas are in the top journals.
6. Narrative CV makes assessment difficult and time consuming.
7. Solutions in medical, life, and exact sciences are easier to compare since they solve similar problems. Not so in qualitative disciplines - one size does not fit all.
8. Open science, accessibility of the data, research team composition, and leadership are political criteria, not scientific.
9. Dutch researchers are losing competitiveness with the rest of the world.

AN ECHO CHAMBER

A group of people isolated from a reasonable discourse can create an echo chamber. Which happens when one can gain status and affiliation in a tribe by following its rules. Once achieved, individuals tend to take the rules as their own, willing to defend them against questioning. Questioning threatening the status and affiliation one achieved. Looking at it thourgh group survival dynamics, this is a natural and understandable response. 

Those questioning it are often ousted because those upholding it look to keep the benefits maintaining the echo chamber brings. Until it starts to negatively affect the constituents of the group. The signs of being in an echo chamber include:

• To isolate oneself from contrary opinions and ideas is admirable.
• Simple conversations about a topic often turn into a heated debate.
• One is disliked and considered weak to change the mind.
• The reasoning behind core beliefs changes when overwhelming reality is unavoidable.

IMPACT FACTOR ECHO CHAMBER

IF reliance is an echo chamber. The researchers signing the open letter are in an echo chamber. But let’s look at the points raised one by one:

1. Makes sense in the realm of IF reasoning. Still, IF is an unfair and incomplete research evaluation measure.
2. Same as point 1.
3. The high IF journals publish more narrative articles. Authors deliver what the journal requires. Publishing for high IF is incentivized by the system, not the authors. Therefore, this is the confirmation bias of the IF reliant system and those in its echo chamber.
4. Confirmation bias items. The IF turned publishing into a competition with its own end - publishing in high IF journals. The journal itself does not contribute anything to the research work reported in the papers it publishes. The overly dependence of continued funding on IF makes everyone want to publish in high IF journals. Journals themselves are not the cause of better quality papers published in them. It is the authors and the IF narrative.
5. Same as point 4.
6. Yes, narrative CVs are harder to assess. It takes some effort and creativity to invent a more reliable assessment process, but it is possible. But the unwilingness of those in the IF echo chamber maintains the status quo.
7. The fact that solutions to similar problems are easier to compare is only a part of the equation. Specific problem solutions are an aftermath of basic research. They come as consequences of new theories and paradigms. Basic research is equally opaque regardless of the field. It is true that one size does not fit all. Again, there is no limit to problem solving creativity, if the will is there.
8. Open science and accessibility of data are not political. They are signs of an advanced research community. Here, the progress of the body of knowledge is placed above the interest of closed-interest groups. Team composition and leadership are part of academic tenure and indicate how well one can work with and lead others - an indispensable part of any human activity at scale.
9. It is not outlawed to publish in high IF journals in the Netherlands. Dutch researchers can still choose to do so. Competing with the rest of the research community is possible just as well as it was until now.

Understandably, everyone has biases one way or another. We are not an exception. It is simply human. Therefore, let us know your take on the points raised in the comments.

#GradSchool #ECRchat, #research, #AcademicLife, #PeerReview, #AmReading, #PhDchat, #MakePublishingGreatAgain #Frelsi #EchoChamber #utrechtuniversity #Netherlands #universiteitutrecht