Abstract
While “publish or perish” has been an integral part of academic research in Western countries for several decades, the phenomenon has made its way to Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) only recently. The current paper shows how publishing criteria in the field of economics and business have developed in seven CEE countries since 2000 and how economists have responded by altering their publishing behavior. The research indicates a dichotomous development: on one hand the annual number of Web of Science publications has increased by 317% between 2000 and 2015, economists distribute their works across a wider range of journals than before, they are more cited and the weighted average of impact factors of all journals where they publish has risen by 228%. On the other hand, however, a number of economists have chosen an opposite strategy and publish mostly in local or “predatory” journals. Recommendations for policy makers are provided on how to maximize the benefits and minimize negative impacts of the publishing criteria.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Source Web of Science (2016). As of 8th April 2016
Source Web of Science (2016). Own calculations
Source Web of Science (2016). Own calculations
Source Web of Science (2016). Own calculations
Source Web of Science (2016). Own calculations
Source Web of Science (2016). Own calculations
Source Web of Science (2016). Own calculations
Source Web of Science (2016). Own calculations
Source Web of Science (2017). As of 10th January 2017. WoS Business & Economics data, SCI-EX, SSCI and A&HCI databases, articles only. Own calculations
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
For the purposes of this paper, the CEE region consists of four Visegrad countries (Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia) and three Baltic countries (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania).
These journals are Ekonomicky casopis, Ekonomicko-matematicky obzor, Politicka ekonomie (Czechoslovakia) and Acta Oeconomica (Hungary).
Please note that as indicated in the “Data and methodology” section, conference papers and books were excluded from the statistics.
In Czech Republic, “Politicka ekonomie” published six issues in 2000, “Finance a uver” 12 issues and Slovakia´s “Ekonomicky casopis” six issues.
2007: Agricultural Economics (CZE), Inzinerine Ekonomika (LTU), Technological and Economic Development of Economy (LTU), Journal of Business Economics and Management (LTU), Acta Oeconomica (HUN); 2008: Ekonomie a management (CZE), Prague Economic Papers (CZE), Ekonomista (POL), Baltic Journal of Management (LTU), Argumenta Oeconomica (POL).
Having worked in the Slovak academic environment for the last 8 years, the lead author of this paper can attest that both answers are correct. Moreover, an additional factor to take into account are young economists who more often than not choose to submit their first paper to a local journal.
Top journals often state in their editorial policies that they “do not publish articles that are essentially in-depth studies of a specific country, region, case” (Journal of Development Economics) or similar disclaimers. Topics which are of interest for the readers of local journals are often not relevant for broader readership.
The two exceptions are the Baltic Journal of Management (Lithuania) and the Baltic Journal of Economics (Latvia), where mostly Estonian authors published.
As is standard when using Herfindahl index in economics, values close to one indicate high level of concentration whereas values near zero indicate high level of diversification.
When analyzing co-authorship data one has to take into account that a high number of authors (especially in the fields of economics and business, where it is not usual) might not only be a result of a high level of research collaboration, but also an indication of possible honorary authorship.
Journal self-cites reached 33% for the Transformations in Business & Economics, 34% for Inzinerine ekonomika and 16% for Technological and Economic Development of Economy. Similar cases can be found in Slovakia and the Czech Republic, where local journals Ekonomicky casopis and Politicka ekonomie had self-citation rates of 43% and 39% in the studied period (Web of Science 2017). However, given that the two journals published mostly papers in local languages, this is not surprising.
For example, 53% of documents citing papers published in Inzinerine ekonomika were published in Lithuanian journals. Again, similar situation can be found in Slovakia and the Czech Republic (Web of Science 2017).
After the present paper was accepted, the list previously available on https://scholarlyoa.com/individual-journals/ has been discontinued in the beginning of 2017. However, copies can still be found online.
Compare number of papers published by the CEE journals in 2012: Actual Problems of Economics 823, Ekonomicky casopis 75, Transformations in Business & Economics 68, E & M Ekonomie a management 58, Ekonomista 58, Zemedelska ekonomika 56, Politicka ekonomie 53, Inzinerine ekonomika 53, Journal of business economics and management 52, Acta oeconomica 41, Technological and economic development of economy 38, Prague economic papers 31, Argumenta oeconomica 28, Finance a uver 26, Baltic journal of management 26, International journal of strategic property management, Baltic journal of economics 17 (Web of Science 2016).
Of course, officially they are bullet-proof. However, based on numerous personal experiences of the lead author and his colleagues, they take one of the following forms: (1) The editor herself reads the paper and offers some superficial comments. (2) The authors are asked to provide their own referee reports written by an expert in their field. This can be evidenced by e-mail exchanges with the editor.
As of February 2017, it appears the journal has been discontinued by Scopus.
References
Barrios, M., Guilera, G., & Gómez-Benito, J. (2013). Impact and structural features of meta-analytical studies, standard articles and reviews in psychology: Similarities and differences. Journal of Informetrics, 7(2), 478–786. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2013.01.012.
Beall, J. (2012). Predatory publishers are corrupting open access. Nature, 489(7415), 179. doi:10.1038/489179a.
Beall, J. (2015). Predatory journals and the breakdown of research cultures. Information Development, 31(5), 473–476. doi:10.1177/0266666915601421.
Beall, J. (2016). List of standalone journals. https://scholarlyoa.com/individual-journals/.
Callaway, E. (2016). Beat it, impact factor! Publishing elite turns against impact factor. Nature, 535(7611), 210–211. doi:10.1038/nature.2016.20224.
Collazo-Reyes, F. (2014). Growth of the number of indexed journals of Latin America and the Caribbean: The effect on the impact of each country. Scientometrics, 98(1), 197–209. doi:10.1007/s11192-013-1036-2.
Cornwall, M. (2010). From the editor: Ten most likely ways an article submission fails to live up to publishing standards. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 49(4), i–v. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5906.2010.01531.x.
Cotton, C. (2013). Submission fees and response times in academic publishing. The American Economic Review, 103(1), 501–509. doi:10.1257/aer.103.1.501.
Davidson, C. N. (2004). The Futures of Scholarly Publishing. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 35(3), 129–142. doi:10.3138/jsp.35.3.129.
Davis, P. M., Lewenstein, B. V., Simon, D. H., Booth, J. G., & Connolly, M. J. L. (2008). Open access publishing, article downloads, and citations: Randomised controlled trial. British Medical Journal, 337(7665), a568. doi:10.1136/bmj.a568.
De Meis, L., Velloso, A., Lannes, D., Carmo, M. S., & de Meis, C. (2003). The growing competition in Brazilian science: Rites of passage, stress and burnout. Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research, 36(9), 1135–1141. doi:10.1590/S0100-879X2003000900001.
De Villiers, M. M., & Malan, S. F. (1997). Publish or perish: How is pharmacy research coping in a changing South Africa? South African Journal of Science, 93(8), 355–358.
Didegah, F., Thelwall, M., & Gazni, A. (2012). An international comparison of journal publishing and citing behaviours. Journal of Informetrics, 6(4), 516–531. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2012.04.003.
Eger, T., Scheufen, M., & Meierrieks, D. (2015). The determinants of open access publishing: Survey evidence from Germany. European Journal of Law and Economics, 39(3), 475–503. doi:10.1007/s10657-015-9488-x.
Ellisson, G. (2002a). Evolving Standards for Academic Publishing: A q-r Theory. Journal of Political Economy, 110(5), 994–1034. doi:10.1086/341871.
Ellisson, G. (2002b). The slowdown of the economics publishing process. Journal of Political Economy, 110(5), 947–993. doi:10.2139/ssrn.234802.
Fanelli, D. (2010). Do pressures to publish increase scientists’ bias? An empirical support from US states data. PLoS ONE, 5(4), e10271. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0010271.
Fiala, D. (2013). Science evaluation in the Czech republic: The case of universities. Societies, 3(3), 266–279. doi:10.3390/soc3030266.
Fiala, D., & Willett, P. (2015). Computer science in Eastern Europe 1989–2014: A bibliometric study. ASLIB Journal of Information Management, 67(5), 526–541. doi:10.1108/AJIM-02-2015-0027.
Forgues, B., & Liarte, S. (2013). Academic publishing: Past and future. M@n@gement, 16(5), 739–756. doi:10.3917/mana.165.0739.
Franceschet, M., & Costantini, A. (2010). The effect of scholar collaboration on impact and quality of academic papers. Journal of Informetrics, 4(4), 540–553. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2010.06.003.
Hilmer, M. J., & Hilmer, C. E. (2009). Fishes, ponds, and productivity: Student-advisor matching and early career publishing success for economics PhDs. Economic Inquiry, 47(2), 290–303. doi:10.1111/j.1465-7295.2007.00108.x.
Icy, L. (2014). Publish or perish: The myth and reality of academic publishing. Language Teaching, 47(2), 250–261. doi:10.1017/S0261444811000504.
Jokić, M., Zauder, K., & Letina, S. (2010). Croatian scholarly productivity 1991–2005 measured by journals indexed in Web of Science. Scientometrics, 83(2), 375–395. doi:10.1007/s11192-009-0071-5.
Koczkodaj, W. W., Kułakowski, K., & Ligęza, A. (2014). On the quality evaluation of scientific entities in Poland supported by consistency-driven pairwise comparisons method. Scientometrics, 99(3), 911–926. doi:10.1007/s11192-014-1258-y.
Kozak, M., Bornmann, L., & Leydesdorff, L. (2015). How have the Eastern European countries of the former Warsaw Pact developed since 1990? A bibliometric study. Scientometrics, 102(2), 1101–1117. doi:10.1007/s11192-014-1439-8.
Kund, O. (2016). The dark side of Estonian science: Paid articles in trashy magazines. Postimees. 27.1.2016. http://news.postimees.ee/3484021/the-dark-side-of-estonian-science-paid-articles-in-trashy-magazines
Masaryk University. (2016). MU’s Position on Predatory Publishing and Open Access Scholarly Journals. 7.1.2016. https://is.muni.cz/do/rect/metodika/VaV/56012837/Research_and_predatory_journals_EN.pdf.
Leslie, D. (2005). Are delays in academic publishing necessary? The American Economic Review, 95(1), 407–413. doi:10.1257/0002828053828608.
Libkind, A. N., Markusova, V. A., & Mindeli, L. E. (2013). Bibliometric indicators of Russian journals by JCR-science edition, 1995–2010. Acta Naturae, 5(3), 6–12.
Markusova, V. A., Libkind, A. N., Varshavsly, A. E., & Jansz, C. N. M. (2012). Research performance and collaboration in the Novosibirsk region. Scientometrics, 91(2), 513–526. doi:10.1007/s11192-011-0597-1.
Must, Ü. (2006). “New”countries in Europe-research, development and innovation strategies versus bibliometric data. Scientometrics, 66(2), 241–248. doi:10.1007/s11192-006-0016-1.
Pajić, D. (2015). Globalization of the social sciences in Eastern Europe: Genuine breakthrough or a slippery slope of the research evaluation practice? Scientometrics, 102(3), 2131–2150. doi:10.1007/s11192-014-1510-5.
Pajić, D., & Jevremov, T. (2014). Globally national–locally international: Bibliometric analysis of a SEE psychology journal. Psihologija, 47(2), 263–277. doi:10.2298/PSI1402263P.
Qiu, J. (2010). Publish or perish in China. Nature, 463(7278), 142–143. doi:10.1038/463142a.
Rahman, A. I. M., Guns, R., & Engels, T. C. E. (2015). Predatory open access journals in a performance-based funding model: A comparison of journals in version VI of the VABB-SHW with Beall’s list and DOAJ. Antwerp: ECOOM. 22.12.2016. https://www.ecoom.be/sites/ecoom.be/files/downloads/151223_Predatory%20Journals%20VABB%20VI_incl_Annexes.pdf.
Ray, M. (2016). An expanded approach to evaluating open access journals. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 47(4), 307–327. doi:10.3138/jsp.47.4.307.
Rond, M., & Miller, A. N. (2005). Publish or perish: Bane or boon of academic life? Journal of Management Inquiry, 14(4), 321–329. doi:10.1177/1056492605276850.
Samkin, G. (2011). Academic publishing: A faustian bargain? Australasian Accounting Business and Finance Journal, 5(1), 19–34.
Schmoch, U., & Schubert, T. (2008). Are international co-publications an indicator for quality of scientific research? Scientometrics, 74(3), 361–377. doi:10.1007/s11192-007-1818-5.
Scopus.(2016). www.scopus.com.
Seglen, P. O. (1997). Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. British Medical Journal, 314(7079), 498–502. doi:10.1136/bmj.314.7079.497.
Somoza-Fernández, M., Rodríguez-Gairín, J., & Urbano, C. (2016). Presence of alleged predatory journals in bibliographic databases: Analysis of beall’s list. El Profesional de la Información, 25(5), 730–737.
Teodorescu, D., & Andrei, T. (2014). An examination of “citation circles” for social sciences journals in Eastern European countries. Scientometrics, 99(2), 209–231. doi:10.1007/s11192-013-1210-6.
Tessensohn, J. A., & Yamamoto, S. (2007). Japan’s novelty grace period solves the dilemma of ‘publish and perish’. Nature Biotechnology, 25(1), 55–57. doi:10.1038/nbt0107-55.
Thursby, J. G. (2000). What do we say about ourselves and what does it mean? Yet another look at economics department research. Journal of Economic Literature, 38(2), 383–404. doi:10.1257/jel.38.2.383.
Tranekova, I. (2016). Limity pragmatizmu v humanitnych vedach. Pravda. 21.1.2016. http://zurnal.pravda.sk/esej/clanok/380551-limity-pragmatizmu-v-humanitnych-vedach/.
Vanecek, J. (2014). The effect of performance-based research funding on output of R&D results in the Czech Republic. Scientometrics, 98(1), 657–681. doi:10.1007/s11192-013-1061-1.
Ward, S. M. (2016). The rise of predatory publishing: How to avoid being scammed. Weed Science, 64(4), 772–778. doi:10.1614/WS-D-16-00080.1.
Web of Science. (2016 and 2017). www.webofknowledge.com.
Yan, C. M., & He, C. J. (2015). To be or not to be? The “publish or perish” syndrome for english teacher educators in China. Frontiers of Education in China, 10(4), 526–543. doi:10.3868/s110-004-015-0039-0.
Yuret, T. (2016). Is it easier to publish in journals that have low impact factors? Applied Economics Letters, 23(11), 801–803. doi:10.1080/13504851.2015.1109034.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Dr. Balázs Szent-Iványi from Corvinus University of Budapest for his valuable Hungary-related contribution to this paper. We also thank two anonymous referees for their detailed reports and suggestions. As always, we are responsible for any remaining mistakes.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Grančay, M., Vveinhardt, J. & Šumilo, Ē. Publish or perish: how Central and Eastern European economists have dealt with the ever-increasing academic publishing requirements 2000–2015. Scientometrics 111, 1813–1837 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2332-z
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2332-z