The prevailing publish or peril model has not changed in any useful way in the last decade and institutional self-interest to encourage any sort of publication regardless of quality remains. The total laissez-faire attitude is dreadful. Research heads should be held accountable for this. How do we rebuild a culture of doing research as its own end rather than simply trying to find a way to publish as the end? We will shortly post a resource about this to the subscribers’ area.
Today I’d like to reflect on the implications that this ruling may have for institutions — those that employ researchers and those that fund researchers, especially as this will by no means be the last enforcement action taken against publishers accused of deceptive practices.
How might an institution repair a tarnished reputation? And, given the reality of fraudulent publishers and their deceptive practices, will institutions consider more strongly guiding author choice of publishing venue in order to protect institutional reputation?
Universities and funders often herald the achievements of their researchers in order to garner positive press coverage, bolster their reputations, or recruit new employees. University rankings and memberships many times depend heavily not only on measures of research activity and quality but also on the impression they generate — the brand identity if you will — of their quality.