Publish (in high impact journals) or perish from a Latin American perspective

Abstract

Without exaggeration, it can be said that research systems favours quantity over quality. A recent survey in the UK evidences alarming work conditions for researchers. In Argentina, the emphasis on quantity has been pushed to its full limits. A researcher must publish one paper per year to survive in the academic system and to have job security. Otherwise, there is punishment, such as no funding or no grad students. The nature or content of the research and its presentation is of, more or less, limited importance, including whether a good hypothesis has been produced or even whether the necessary supplies for the research have been available. Quite simply, researchers have to publish one paper a year. This applies without questioning or discussion. In fact, the publication should be in the journal of publication should have international SCIMAGO ranking (preferably in the first quartile) and you should be the first or final author in the publication). This unfortunate situation has been in existence for more than two decades and has a major impact on the quality of published research and on the pressure placed on researchers. The so-called “salami” paper is often used to cope with this, generating disaggregated data on previously addressed issues and experiments which are difficult to replicate. This practice is not unique to Argentina. The pressure on researchers to publish is huge all around the globe, but when it is combined with a constant and major lack of funding, this pressure results in a personal and professional dilemma. An open access journal presents additional pressure. This is in spite of the fact that public accesses to research is, clearly, desirable and to be recommended, but somebody has to pay it. Open access is not cheap and researchers have to wonder whether they should pay from their own salaries or publish elsewhere, more cheaply but with less impact. Research Gate, Sci-hub and other platforms, such as Facebook, save the dilemma of access to expensive papers in our country when one cannot find the paper in the Library of the Science Minister. However, one cannot use these platforms for publishing one’s own research. Available financial support will determine the final decision. What should a researcher do in facing this dilemma? In addition, the peer review system is flawed; researchers undertake their reviews without compensation and there are, consequently, major amounts of time and effort being spent without economic reward. Publons it supposed to do the trick, however in Argentina, it doesn’t matter how many papers you have reviewed, the only thing that counts is the papers you, yourself, have published and in which journals. This can be seen both as an ethical and “practical” problem in the ultimate goal of ensuring dissemination of scientific knowledge. Furthermore, the majority of high impact journals publish with an emphasis on their “own trends” which often do not relate to, or can be seen to be directly associated with, the reality of developing countries. This refers to the equipment and tools available to the researcher, financial support and political factors. In this complicated scenario, what should researchers do? Ethical, economic and political issues all play a role. The research evaluation system needs to change worldwide. And it can. Here, the coronavirus case can help as an example. Researchers stopped focusing on publishing papers and, instead, began to work with stopping the dissemination of a serious disease. They interrupted their regular scientific activities to focus on helping people and getting results and social networks played a crucial part. We cannot help but wonder if, when their research is evaluated, these actions will be duly considered and recognised as a part of the researchers’ scientific contributions.