Academics claim they are coming under growing pressure to publish in highly rated publications ahead of the Research Excellence Framework (REF), contributing to a \u201ctarget-driven\u201d culture that discriminates against\u00a0other types of research outputs.<\/p>\n
In a highly critical report into working practices at the University of Liverpool Management School<\/a> prepared by University and College Union (UCU) representatives, policies\u00a0that require staff to publish in journals designated 3* or 4* by the\u00a0Academic Journal Group<\/a>\u00a0and in those on the\u00a0FT50<\/a>\u00a0list are cited as a source of \u201cconsiderable apprehension\u201d for a majority of staff.<\/p>\n \u201cMany feel that success in these restrictive outlets\u2026has become the salient measure for promotion and access to resources,\u201d explains the report, which drew on responses from 78 staff members.<\/p>\n \u201cThis pressure actively narrows research agendas toward dominant methods and theoretical ontologies (often North American rather than UK\/European), and constrains staff from publishing in high-quality disciplinary, specialist, and inter-disciplinary journals not on these lists,\u201d argues the report, adding that this \u201cdevalues books, chapters, and other alternative formats, contradicting the university\u2019s public commitment to diverse research\u201d.<\/p>\n Journal lists are widely compiled by universities as well as various organisations and\u00a0professional bodies<\/a>. Supporters say they are a useful way of quickly identifying exceptional researchers, given the vast range of journals in existence.<\/p>\n But the Liverpool report questions how this approach aligned with the university\u2019s broader commitments to the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (Dora). Signatories to that\u00a02012 statement<\/a>, endorsed by hundreds of universities worldwide, should not use \u201cjournal-based metrics\u2026as a surrogate measure of the quality of individual research articles\u201d.<\/p>\n Several respondents to UCU\u2019s survey argued that the focus on certain journals was unfair, particularly on early career researchers, because \u201cpublication time horizons are long and rejection rates high at FT50 and other 4* journals\u201d.<\/p>\n \u201cPushing staff to publish exclusively in these outlets may delay the dissemination of solid, field-relevant research that would otherwise find a suitable home in other high-quality journals,\u201d explains the report, which has been sent to university leaders.<\/p>\n \u201cThey deny promotions, sabbaticals, and anything else you might ask for if you don\u2019t have an FT50 pipeline,\u201d explains one academic quoted in the report. Another claims FT50 journals are \u201cmentioned at every group meeting, regardless of your research area or topic. It feels similar to a sales environment, where only the target matters\u201d.<\/p>\n The \u201cinternal pressure to publish in a narrow set of journals\u201d is driven by the school\u2019s desire to improve its REF standing, the report argues, claiming there is a \u201cbelief that there is a direct and exclusive link between FT50 publications and a high REF ranking\u201d.<\/p>\n But the\u00a0\u201cbiased and unfair research evaluation system\u201d had\u00a0contributed to a \u201ctoxic culture of fear\u201d within the school demonstrated by\u00a0\u201cpersistently high levels of UCU casework\u201d.<\/p>\n Many institutions have defended journal lists from criticism that they do not comply with the spirit of Dora because they do not exclusively focus on journal metrics and are often used alongside other indicators.<\/p>\n A University of Liverpool<\/a> spokesperson said the institution is \u201ca committed signatory\u201d to Dora\u00a0and \u201con this basis, we are clear that publication in a FT50 journal is not a criterion for hiring or promotion at the University of Liverpool Management School<\/a>\u201d.<\/p>\n \u201cRather, the university has a robust output evaluation programme that is consistent with Dora and is used to assess quality of research,\u201d they said.<\/p>\n The university was aware of the recent UCU report, they added, and \u201cwhilst we do not accept its conclusions, we have engaged in constructive dialogue with UCU in relation to the issues it raises\u201d.<\/p>\n Anna Morgan-Thomas, professor of digital management and innovation at the University of Glasgow<\/a>\u2019s Adam Smith Business School and former dean of research, told\u00a0Times Higher Education\u00a0that the widely used journal lists served a useful purpose.<\/p>\n \u201cTheir use is not surprising because there are hundreds of business journals across a wide number of disciplines. So when you\u2019re selecting from hundreds of applicants you need some criteria to both compare across and select the truly exceptional candidates,\u201d explained Morgan-Thomas, whose 2024\u00a0Research Policy\u00a0study<\/a>\u00a0found that 4* journal publications strongly correlated with 4* REF outputs.<\/p>\n Relying solely on \u201cacademic judgement\u201d in evaluating outputs, as suggested by Dora, was difficult for business schools because it would require convening the right expertise, as well as being hugely labour-intensive, said Morgan-Thomas.<\/p>\n \u201cWhile I fully align with Dora\u2019s intentions, it underestimates the practical constraints of carrying out this kind of academic judgement,\u201d she said, noting that conducting rigorous internal screening of papers necessitated a trade-off.<\/p>\n \u201cIt comes down to some sharp choices. Do I ask my staff to spend time shepherding young researchers through the publication process? Or do I devote it to reading and rating articles that staff have already published?\u201d she said.<\/p>\n