Academic journals have undergone profound changes since they were established as the main elements in the evaluation of scholars and scientists in universities and other research institutions. The development of impact and performance indicators based on the number of publications and citations has distorted the choice of topics, the identification of audiences and the characteristics of academic work. Impact indicators and other metrics reproduce biases —thematic, disciplinary and linguistic— that exacerbate the degree of stratification among academics and institutions. It is important to recognize the traps facing academic publications and the distortions they create, in order to design publishing options that strengthen journals and the academic output that supports them.

 

Cite this article as: Ordorika, I. (2018). Las trampas de las publicaciones académicas | The academic publishing trap. Revista Española de Pedagogía, 76 (271), 463-480. doi: https://doi.org/10.22550/REP-3-2018-04

Ahimbisibwe, J., Dahdouh-Guebas, F., Koedam, N. y Van Moll, R. (2003). Neo-colonial science by the most industrialised upon the least developed countries in peer reviewed publishing. Scientometrics, 56 (3), 329-343.

Allen, R. B. (2007). Highly structured scientific publications. En Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 7th ACM/IEEE-CS joint conference on Digital libraries (pp. 472-472). Philadelphia, PA: Drexel University. American Society for Cell Biology (2013). San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment. Recuperado de https://sfdora.org/read/ (Consultado el 10/04/2018).

Archambault, É. y Larivière, V. (2009). History of the journal impact factor: Contingencies and consequences. Scientometrics, 79 (3), 635-649. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-2036-x

Arencibia-Jorge, R. y de Moya Anegón, F. (2008). La evaluación de la investigación científica: una aproximación teórica desde la cienciometría. ACIMED, 17 (4). Recuperado de http://scielo.sld.cu/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1024-94352008000400004&nrm=iso (Consultado el 21/06/2018).

Bacon, F. (1942). Essays and New Atlantis. New York: W. J. Black. Barber, L. W. y Klein, K. (1983). Merit Pay and Teacher Evaluation. Phi Delta Kappan, 65 (4), 247-251.

Berry, C. (1999). University league tables: artifacts and inconsistencies in individual rankings. Higher Education Review, 31 (2), 3-11. Bowden, R. (2000). Fantasy Higher Education: University and college league tables. Quality in Higher Education, 6 (1), 41-60. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/13538320050001063

Cano, V. (1995). Characteristics of the publishing infrastructure of peripheral countries: A comparison of periodical publications from Latin America with periodicals from the US and the UK. Scientometrics, 34 (1), 121-138.

Case, C. M. (1927). Scholarship in Sociology. Sociology and Social Research, 12, 323-340.

Coolidge, H. J. y Lord, R. H. (1932). Archibald Cary Coolidge, life and letters. Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Dennis, L. J. (1982). Why Not Merit Pay? Contemporary Education, 54 (1), 18-21.

DGEI (2018). La metodología de los rankings universitarios internacionales. Ciudad de México: Dirección General de Evaluación Institucional, UNAM.

Elliott, R. (2005). Who owns scientific data? The impact of intellectual property rights on the scientific publication chain. Learned Publishing, 18 (2), 91-94.

Escudero Escorza, T., Pino Mejías, J. L. y Rodríguez Fernández, C. (2010). Evaluación del profesorado universitario para incentivos individuales: revisión metaevaluativa. Revista de Educación, 351, 513-537. Recuperado de https://www.mecd.gob.es/revista-de-educacion/numeros-revistaeducacion/numeros-anteriores/2010/re351/re351_21.html (Consultado el 21/06/2018).

Favaloro, E. J. (2008). Measuring the Quality of Journals and Journal Articles: The Impact Factor Tells but a Portion of the Story. Seminars in Thrombosis Hemostasis, 34 (1), 7-25.

Federkeil, G. (2008). Graduate Surveys as a Measure in University Rankings. En Outcomes of Higher Education. Quality, Relevance and Impact. Paris: Organisation for economic cooperation and development. Recuperado de http://www.oecd.org/site/eduimhe08/41217828.pdf

Florian, R. V. (2007). Irreproducibility of the results of the Shanghai academic ranking of world universities. Scientometrics, 72 (1), 25-32. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-1712-1

Garfield, E. (1996). What Is The Primordial Reference For The Phrase ‘Publish Or Perish’? The Scientist, 10 (12).

Grant, H. (1998). Academic Contests?: Merit Pay in Canadian Universities. Relations industrielles, 53 (4), 647-666.

Ishikawa, M. (2009). University Rankings, Global Models, and Emerging Hegemony: Critical Analysis from Japan. Journal of Studies in International Education, 13 (2), 159-173. doi: https://www.doi.org/10.1177/1028315308330853

Kronick, D. A. (1962). A history of scientific and technical periodicals: the origins and development of the scientific and technological press, 1665-1790. New York: Scarecrow Press.

Larivière, V., Haustein, S. y Mongeon, P. (2015). The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers in the Digital Era. PLoS One, 10 (6), e0127502. doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127502 (Consultado el 21/06/2018).

Marginson, S. y Ordorika, I. (2010). Hegemonía en la era del conocimiento: competencia global en la educación superior y la investigación científica. Ciudad de México: Seminario de Educación Superior, UNAM.

Martínez Stack, J., Lloyd, M. y Ordorika, I. (2015). The Impact of Government Policies on the Profiles and Attitudes of Academics in Two Emerging Economies: Brazil and Mexico. En W. K. Cummings y U. Teichler (Eds.), The Relevance of Academic Work in Comparative Perspective (pp. 193215). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Neill, U. S. (2008). Publish or perish, but at what cost? The Journal of Clinical Investigation, 118 (7), 2368-2368. doi: https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI36371

Ordorika, I. (2004). El mercado en la academia. En I. Ordorika (Ed.), La academia en jaque: Perspectivas políticas sobre la evaluación de la educación superior en México (pp. 35-74). México, DF: CRIM-UNAM / Miguel Angel Porrua.

Ordorika, I. (2015). Rankings universitarios. Revista de la Educación Superior, 44 (173), 7-9. Ordorika, I. y Lloyd, M. (2013). A decade of international university rankings: a critical perspective from Latin America. En M. A. Marope, P. Wells y E. Hazelkorn (Eds.), Rankings and Accountability in Higher Education: Uses and Misuses. Paris: UNESCO.

Ordorika, I. y Lloyd, M. (2014). Teorías críticas del Estado y la disputa por la educación superior en la era de la globalización. Perfiles Educativos, 36 (145), 122-139.

Ordorika, I. y Pusser, B. (2007). La máxima casa de estudios: The Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México as a State-Building University. En P. G. Altbach y J. Balán (Eds.), The Struggle To Compete: Building World-Class Universities In Asia And Latin America (pp. 189-215). Baltimor, Md: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Ordorika, I. y Soley, T. (2018). Ejes para la transformación estratégica de las universidades públicas en América Latina: a 100 años de la Reforma de Córdoba. En El papel estratégico de la Educación Superior en el desarrollo sostenible de América Latina y el Caribe. Caracas: UNESCO-IESALC.

Ordorika, I., Rodríguez Gómez, R., Lozano Espinosa, F. J. y Márquez Jiménez, A. (2009). Desempeño de universidades mexicanas en la función de investigación: Estudio comparativo. México, DF: Dirección General de Evaluación Institucional, UNAM. Peer review reviewed (2002). Nature, 417 (6885), 103. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/417103b

Provan, D. y Abercromby, K. (2000). University League Tables and Rankings: A Critical Analysis. Londres: The Association of Commonwealth Universities.

Saha, S., Saint, S. y Christakis, D. A. (2003). Impact factor: a valid measure of journal quality? Journal of the Medical Library Association, 91 (1), 42-46. Recuperado de http://www.ncbi. nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC141186/ Simons, K. (2008). The Misused Impact Factor. Science, 322 (5899), 165. Recuperado de http://science.sciencemag.org/content/322/5899/165.abstract (Consultado el 21/06/2018).

Swartz, K. (1999). Peer-Reviewed Journals and Quality. Inquiry, 36 (2), 119-121. Recuperado de http://www.jstor.org/stable/29772816 (Consultado el 21/06/2018).

Tenopir, C., Baker, G., Robinson, W. y Grogg, J. (2006). The Database Marketplace 2006: Renovating This Old House. Library Journal, 131. Recuperado de http://works.bepress.com/carol_tenopir/27/ (Consultado el 21/06/2018).

Van Raan, A. F. J. (2005). Fatal attraction: Conceptual and methodological problems in the ranking of universities by bibliometric methods. Scientometrics, 62 (1), 133­143. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-005-0008-6

Veugelers, R. (2009). Towards a multipolar science world: trends and impact. Scientometrics, 82, 439-456.

Ying, Y. y Jingao, Z. (2009). An Empirical Study on Credibility of China’s University Rankings. Chinese Education & Society, 42 (1), 70-80. doi: https://doi.org/10.2753/CED1061-1932420106

Imanol Ordorika es Doctor en Ciencias Sociales y Educación por la Universidad de Stanford e Investigador titular en el Instituto de Investigaciones Económicas (UNAM). Sus principales temas de investigación son política y universidad, globalización, educación superior y movimientos sociales en la educación. Es Director General de Evaluación Institucional de la UNAM y Director de la Revista de la Educación Superior.

  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6140-8283