• A
  • A
  • A
  • ABC
  • ABC
  • ABC
  • А
  • А
  • А
  • А
  • А
Regular version of the site

Too Much Thought: Can We Better Counter Redundant Publications?

Too Much Thought: Can We Better Counter Redundant Publications?

In their commentary featured in International Higher Education, Philip G. Altbach and Hans de Wit of the Center for International Higher Education at Boston College (USA), IOE’s long-standing partner for a vast academic agenda, reflect on the main reasons behind the growing spate of redundant research publications and what needs to be done to rectify the trend.

Overcoming Uniformity

Philip G. Altbach and Hans de Wit believe that the global knowledge-distribution system needs a change. ‘Too much academic research is being published,’ they say, while quality is decreasing. According to the experts:

  • Many universities produce lots of papers, without paying proper attention to their quality
  • Journals are overwhelmed with such high levels of production
  • Lots of pseudo-scientific books are published
  • Predatory publishers are on the rise.

All of these factors have afflicted the knowledge-distribution system in general.

The situation has been largely caused by the global higher education policies. This is a highly competitive sphere. The rivalry is further spurred by various university rankings that impact the universities’ success. Related to this, the researchers argue, is the phenomenon of institutional isomorphism: ‘Most academic institutions want to resemble the universities at the top of the academic pecking order.’ Their positions look quite attractive (they have new opportunities for development and attract the best students and teachers), but they require a lot of research and publications. Consequently, university faculty appointments do not allocate ample time for teaching and class preparation, and this in turn impedes teaching. It makes sense to differentiate the universities’ academic missions. Most of them should ‘recognize their important roles as teaching-focused and not seek to become research-intensive institutions,’ the authors emphasize.

If research publications are required only at research universities, the guess is that the quality of research and development would increase and more than half of current so-called research articles could be eliminated, Altbach and de Wit believe.

Rehabilitating Teaching

The researchers agree with the opinion of Ernest L. Boyer, an American education expert, who emphasizes the importance of assessing academic work by various criteria. Most university faculty should be assessed by the merits of their teaching rather than their research, since they do not work at research universities. University teachers obviously must follow the recent developments in their respective areas, but, according to Boyer, they should not be obliged to produce new knowledge.

‘Faculty members should be rewarded for good teaching <…> and not expected to do fundamental re­search,’ Altbach and de Wit add. They believe that ‘The German Humboldtian model, where all univer­sities have a research mission, is wasteful and unnecessary to maintain quality.’ Applied universities and other non-research higher education institutions should stay true to their names.

Implementing Internal Quality Control

A stricter selection process for research publications is needed. Of course, this does not mean preference should be given to universities in rich countries or certain academic groups, the researchers note. Research universities should produce new knowledge in all countries. Ideally, they should represent different perspectives and research paradigms. A stricter selection process means, first of all, quality control, Altbach and de Wit explain.

Publication quality control should be performed by the academic community itself. Research universities and professional societies should take more responsibility for the system. Above all, the peer review system should be strengthened, the experts emphasize.

Meanwhile, the knowledge-distribution system has become overly commercialized. It is largely ‘regulated’ by external stakeholders, such as ranking agencies, various non-academic publishers, and experts in bibliometric measurement.