Riding with the Metric Tide: ‘Predatory’ Journals in Scopus
Metrics usage in higher education management has clearly become an issue of great importance. A recent high-profile policy report on this topic, commissioned by the Higher Education Funding Council for England, is aptly named The Metric Tide. It reiterates a number of basic principles like “don’t evaluate individuals using journal impact factors” or “peer review can’t be substituted by metrics,” and stresses that, “those involved in research assessment and management should behave responsibly, considering and preempting negative consequences [of metrics usage] wherever possible” (Wilson 2015). One of the obvious consequences is gaming with indicators, which comes in various types and level of severity. This paper deals with one particular technique centered around so-called “predatory” journals indexed in Scopus database. It is a part of a broader research on the impact of metrics-based policy measures on various university systems. See the introductory article about “predatory” publishing by the foremost authority on this topic prof. Jeffrey Beall, p. 07.