¿Publish or Research?
Abstract
The logic of the market has transcended the economic sphere and has taken root in the field of education. In succumbing to this logic, researchers surrender the depth, creativity, and reflexivity in their work to meet the market demands. Its effects are felt in the research domain creating a perverse academic culture that privileges publications in terms of quantity over quality. This article presents a philosophical reflection about the ethics behind it and, from a phenomenological approach, proposes the recovery of a theoretical attitude in order to maintain the very essence of research.
Keywords:
theoretical attitude, epistemic objectification, predatory journals, vanity publishingReferences
Barnett, R. (2016). Constructing the university: Towards a social philosophy of higher education. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 49(1), 78–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2016.1183472
Bartholomew, R. E. (2014). Science for sale: The rise of predatory journals. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 107(10), 384–385. https://doi.org/10.1177/0141076814548526
Beall, J. (2012). Predatory publishers are corrupting open access. Nature, 489.
Berger, M. (2017). Everything you ever wanted to know about pretatory publishing but were afraid to ask. ACRL. At the Helm: Leading Transformation.
Cazzanelli, S. (2020). The Genealogy of the Theoretical. Heideggerian Readings of Husserl and Aristotle. Signos Filosóficos, XXII(44), 54–79.
Chitumbo, E., & Chewe, P. (2020). Predatory Publishing: A growing Threat to Scholarly Publishing. Zambia Journal of Library & Information Science, 4(2), 1–10.
Dreyfus, H., & Taylor, C. (2015). Retrieving realism. Harvard University Press.
Edwards, M. A., & Roy, S. (2017). Academic Research in the 21st Century: Maintaining Scientific Integrity in a Climate of Perverse Incentives and Hypercompetition. Environmental Engineering Science, 34(1), 51–61. https://doi.org/10.1089/ees.2016.0223
Frederick, D. E. (2020). Scholarly communications, predatory publishers and publish or perish culture in the 2020s. Library Hi Tech News, 37(5), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1108/LHTN-01-2020-0007
Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic Injustice. Power & the Ethics of Knowing. Oxford University Press.
Furnham, A. (2020). Publish or perish: rejection, scientometrics and academic success. Scientometrics, 0123456789, 0–4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03694-0
Grudniewicz, A., Moher, D., Cobey, K. D., Bryson, G. L., Cukier, S., Allen, K., Ardern, C., Balcom, L., Barros, T., Berger, M., Ciro, J. B., Cugusi, L., Donaldson, M. R., Egger, M., Graham, I. D., Hodgkinson, M., Khan, K. M., Mabizela, M., Manca, A., … Lalu, M. M. (2019). Predatory journals: no definition, no defence. En Nature (Vol. 576, Issue 7786, pp. 210–212). Nature Research. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-03759-y
Guzmán-Valenzuela, C. (2017). Tendencias globales en educación superior y su impacto en América Latina: Desafíos pendientes. Lenguas Modernas, 50, 15–32. https://revistas.uchile.cl/index.php/LM/article/view/49248/51715
Husserl, E. (1970). The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology. Northwestern University Press.
Kurt, S. (2018). Why do authors publish in predatory journals?. Learned Publishing, 31(2), 141–147. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1150
Nielsen, P., & Davison, R. M. (2020). Predatory journals: A sign of an unhealthy publish or perish game?. Information Systems Journal, 30(4), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12289
Olssen, M., & Peters, M. A. (2005). Neoliberalism, higher education and the knowledge economy: From the free market to knowledge capitalism. Journal of Education Policy, 20(3), 313–345. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680930500108718
Revilla, D. (2017). Expectativas y tensiones en la asesoría de tesis en la Facultad de Educación de la Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú. REDU. Revista de Docencia Universitaria, 15(1), 277. https://doi.org/10.4995/redu.2017.6057
Richtig, G., Berger, M., Lange-Asschenfeldt, B., Aberer, W., & Richtig, E. (2018). Problems and challenges of predatory journals. Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, 32(9), 1441–1449. https://doi.org/10.1111/jdv.15039
Sandel, M. (2020). The Tyranny of Merit. What’s Become of the Common Good. Penguin Random House.
Search, A. (2017). Research for the public good. In Entrepreneurial Literary Theory: A debate on Research and the Future of Academia. Shot in the Dark.
Search, Alexander, Gupta, S., Akcelrud, F., & McDonough, T. (2017). Entrepreneurial Literary Theory: A Debate on Research and the Future of Academia. Shot in the Dark.
Sullivan, H. (1958). Vanity Press Publishing.
Taylor, C. (1997). Argumentos Filosóficos. Ensayos sobre el conocimiento, el lenguaje y la modernidad. Paidós.
Taylor, C., & Bernstein, R. (2017). Diálogos (D. Gamper (ed.)). Gedisa.
