University rankings...

[veritas]

• Tweet

...is geopolitics with data. I was tasked with this exercise... long story.

It goes like this. Elsevier has a monopoly on which University comes out on top. If you don't schmooze with Elsevier, they have the power to make the University rankings slip inadvertently. Not just that but the power to fck up an academic's h-index, citations etc. QS rankings is one example. I recieved quite abit of training and consultation  on how this system works. It uses an "intelligence" quotient of somesort where about 50% of a subject area is determined by who you know. 50% from Scopus/SciVal. Last couple weeks I've been slaving away inputtig the data for this and I just can't believe how entrenched Elsevier's octopus arms underpin higher institutions. They are the illuminati of universities. I'm now convinced, you can't get rid of them without destroying universities. They are more than just a journal, they fund political campaigns to dabbling in arms races and it really does reflect in how they've networked their tentacles to university rankings to an academics livelihood. It's not possible to rid of them without having politicians involved.

[gout]

The so called 'predatory journals' are eating these cartels' lunch. Third world universities need to start their own ranking based on these predatory journals and the likes of researchgate. The FCC stand on net neutrality and the recent Google's CEO testimony in the congress shows the cartel still got the upper hand.

[veritas]

I recieved 18,000 scholarship applications this year from developing countries. Mainly India, Bangladesh, China, Ethiopia etc. I assessed their scholarship applications and recommended to phd supervisors if they're competitive. Most applicants have over 10 publications in predatory journals. Out of the 18,000 scholarship applicants, not a single one published in open access journals or pre-prints. I interviewed of some. They didn't know what predatory journals were or about the open access movement. They published in journals which were free, high impact journals were too expensive. They could barely afford the scholarship application fee- 1 month wage, application fee for fancy journals is 5 times this.

This is definitely a crisis where only the rich can afford to publish in fancy journals and the rest labelled as predatory.

There just needs to be a better outlet for research. An emphasis on data sharing, research collaboration, a metrics system away from journals. It questions what it means to be a researcher. Military scientists don't publish but the things they do- data collection/analysis leads to action. Maybe that's the sort of model civilian research institutions should adopt.

[gout]

The main impediment with the established journals is not cost - most are free for authors as they charge subscription fee on readers and institutions- it is the process controlled by the cartel reviewers and editors. They are exclusive clubs where you have to cite them otherwise they only publish their articles. This is the case with journals by local universities where only the lecturers get published- sort of academic incest.

I recieved 18,000 scholarship applications this year from developing countries. Mainly India, Bangladesh, China, Ethiopia etc. I assessed their scholarship applications and recommended to phd supervisors if they're competitive. Most applicants have over 10 publications in predatory journals. Out of the 18,000 scholarship applicants, not a single one published in open access journals or pre-prints. I interviewed of some. They didn't know what predatory journals were or about the open access movement. They published in journals which were free, high impact journals were too expensive. They could barely afford the scholarship application fee- 1 month wage, application fee for fancy journals is 5 times this.

This is definitely a crisis where only the rich can afford to publish in fancy journals and the rest labelled as predatory.

There just needs to be a better outlet for research. An emphasis on data sharing, research collaboration, a metrics system away from journals. It questions what it means to be a researcher. Military scientists don't publish but the things they do- data collection/analysis leads to action. Maybe that's the sort of model civilian research institutions should adopt.

[veritas]

yep.