摘要：Academic publishing has always been open to innovations of various kinds. Publications in prestigious academic journals have a significant impact on the institutional rankings and funding. Most recently, the question "where" to publish became more important than "what" to publish. However, the existing system is often abused by many academics. Czech Republic is one of the countries that seem to be particularly obsessed with the issue of "predatory" journals, which led to numerous accusations and even paid mass media involvement. Yet, everyone in the Czech Republic (including the top officials of the country’s leading universities as well as the Czech Academy of Sciences) has been or is publishing papers in the journals that were once considered “predatory” according to “Beall’s List” (for example journals published by MDPI or Hindawi). A plethora of Czech academic got their promotions based on publishing their monographs in obscure Czech publishing houses located in apartment blocks and listing non-existing people on their scientific boards, or publishing their numerous papers in the journals are editors of without any peer review (a famous “Stöckelová controversy”). Between 2009 and 2013, Czech universities made approximately $2 million on payments from government funding as rewards for papers and monographs published in "predatory" publishing outlets. Yet, the case of "predatory" journals has been used by some mediocre Czech (social) scientists to question the system of world's established academic metrics represented by Scopus and Web of Science. However, the creation of local publication standards would enable small groups of academics to control job promotions within the research instructions and universities and influence the division of state funding envisaged for supporting research and innovations. International academic databases, such as Scopus and Web of Science, ensure the transparency and objectivity and thence represent the best way of measuring the scientific output and productivity.
关键词：innovations; academic publishing; predatory journals; Stöckelová controversy; Durnová controversy; peer review; Scopus; Web of Scienc
Loading...
