The evaluation process of high-impact engineering and management journals has come under increasing scrutiny due to several systemic issues that compromise research quality, integrity, and accessibility. These challenges are particularly pertinent in the context of rapidly evolving fields like engineering and management, where timely and reliable dissemination of knowledge is crucial.

Long Ans.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/395935939_Reforming_the_Bedrock_of_Knowledge_A_Systemic_Analysis_of_the_Evaluation_Crisis_in_Engineering_and_Management_Journals?utm_source=twitter&rgutm_meta1=eHNsLTNHQncxZmlhS0F6a0ZGd2VZcHVKUndFZko3Mk5rMmFiSDdsVTdZemRsQWZQRlBrMlhhemY0cEI2djVVdzhqQ25OaDk1aGFrZDZIVVBpVEZkbDU0RjNabz0%3D

Short Ans

1. Peer Review System Strain

The peer review process, while foundational to academic publishing, is facing significant challenges:

Reviewer Shortages: Editors are struggling to find qualified reviewers, leading to significant delays. A recent study revealed that fewer than half of the invited reviewers now accept invitations, drastically reducing the efficiency of the review process.

Quality Control Issues: Instances of fabricated peer-review reports have led to retractions, highlighting vulnerabilities in the system. For example, Springer retracted 64 articles from 10 of its journals due to compromised peer-review processes, including the use of fake email addresses.

AI-Generated Content: The rise of generative AI tools like ChatGPT has introduced new complexities, with instances of AI-generated content being submitted as original research, challenging the integrity of the peer review process.

2. Lack of Incentives for Peer Reviewers

The absence of compensation for peer reviewers has led to a decline in the willingness to participate in the review process:

Increased Workloads: Editors report needing to invite numerous reviewers to secure a few responses, indicating a strain on the system.

Legal Challenges: A class action lawsuit has been filed against major academic publishers, alleging violations of antitrust laws by prohibiting simultaneous submissions and denying payment for peer review services, which may reduce the incentive for timely and thorough reviews.

3. Barriers to Access and Equity

High article processing charges (APCs) and subscription fees create barriers to accessing published research:

Financial Constraints: Institutions and researchers in low-resource settings may struggle to access necessary literature, hindering academic progress and collaboration.

Predatory Journals: The proliferation of predatory journals that exploit the open-access model for profit without providing legitimate editorial and publishing services exacerbates the issue.

4. Overemphasis on Impact Metrics

The reliance on impact factors and other quantitative metrics for evaluating research quality can be misleading:

Publication Bias: There's a tendency to favor positive results and novel findings, potentially overlooking valuable negative or confirmatory studies.

Neglect of Practical Relevance: Studies with high academic impact may not always translate to practical applications in engineering and management contexts.

Recommendations for Improvement

To address these challenges, several measures can be considered:

Enhancing Reviewer Incentives: Implementing recognition systems, such as reviewer credits or certificates, and exploring modest compensation models could encourage more experts to participate in the review process.

Strengthening Editorial Oversight: Journals should adopt robust mechanisms to detect and prevent fraudulent submissions, including the use of AI detection tools and thorough verification processes.

Promoting Open Access: Encouraging the adoption of open-access publishing models with reduced or waived APCs can democratize access to research findings.

Diversifying Evaluation Metrics: Incorporating qualitative assessments and considering the practical impact of research can provide a more comprehensive evaluation of its value.

Fostering Collaboration: Building networks among researchers, institutions, and publishers can facilitate knowledge sharing and improve the overall quality of the peer review process.

Addressing these systemic issues is crucial for maintaining the integrity and effectiveness of the academic publishing process in engineering and management disciplines. By implementing these recommendations, the community can work towards a more equitable, efficient, and impactful research ecosystem.

---