Post by @mpe@hcommons.social

RANT AHEAD

I am miffed. We had a submission at Orbit that we went to great pains to review. It was extremely challenging to find readers. Our internal team read it, too.

It was through to acceptance. And then the author pulled out because their university demanded a Q1 or Q2 ranked journal.

I do not blame the author, here (although they could have checked this before submitting). I understand the pressure they are under (it was part of a portfolio for a doctorate by publication).

But WTF with this journal ranking nonsense? Appalling. It clearly induces a Matthew Effect because if institutions demand publication in Q1 and Q2 journals, and that is where all the quality material goes, then newer and outsider publications can never break into those quartiles.

Also, I believe this Q1/Q2 stuff is a SCOPUS fabrication. So if you use this, you're in bed with Elsevier.

Martin Paul Eve

@mpe@hcommons.social 2 hours ago

Finally, if you make requirements like this, it's clear that you are delegating your appraisal of the work to an external proxy for quality; a very flawed one. This sets up success bias in the viva examination, because the examiners will feel it has already been through a "Q1 standard process".

This university needs to take a serious look at DORA and, specifically:

"the need to eliminate the use of journal-based metrics, such as Journal Impact Factors, in funding, appointment, and promotion considerations;"

sfdora.org/read/

/END OF RANT

Florian 'floe' Echtler

@floe@hci.social 2 hours ago

@mpe Fellow editor of another "niche" journal (@jovi) here, and: yes. 😑