The pressure to publish in top-tier journals is creating a toxic culture within academic institutions, according to a recent report. The report, prepared by University and College Union (UCU) representatives, highlights the growing pressure on academics to publish in highly-rated publications ahead of the Research Excellence Framework (REF). This pressure is contributing to a "target-driven" culture that discriminates against other types of research outputs, such as books and chapters. The report cites policies that require staff to publish in journals designated 3* or 4* by the Academic Journal Group and in those on the FT50 list as a source of "considerable apprehension" for a majority of staff. This pressure is actively narrowing research agendas and constraining staff from publishing in high-quality disciplinary, specialist, and inter-disciplinary journals not on these lists. The report also questions how this approach aligns with the university's broader commitments to the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (Dora), which signatories should not use "journal-based metrics...as a surrogate measure of the quality of individual research articles". Several respondents to UCU's survey argued that the focus on certain journals was unfair, particularly on early career researchers, because "publication time horizons are long and rejection rates high at FT50 and other 4* journals". The report concludes that this "internal pressure to publish in a narrow set of journals" is driven by the school's desire to improve its REF standing, and that this has contributed to a "toxic culture of fear" within the school. However, many institutions have defended journal lists from criticism that they do not comply with the spirit of Dora, arguing that they are a useful way of quickly identifying exceptional researchers. The University of Liverpool spokesperson said the institution is "a committed signatory" to Dora and "on this basis, we are clear that publication in a FT50 journal is not a criterion for hiring or promotion at the University of Liverpool Management School". The spokesperson also noted that the university was aware of the recent UCU report and "whilst we do not accept its conclusions, we have engaged in constructive dialogue with UCU in relation to the issues it raises". Anna Morgan-Thomas, professor of digital management and innovation at the University of Glasgow's Adam Smith Business School and former dean of research, told Times Higher Education that the widely used journal lists served a useful purpose. However, she also noted that relying solely on "academic judgement" in evaluating outputs, as suggested by Dora, was difficult for business schools because it would require convening the right expertise, as well as being hugely labor-intensive. "While I fully align with Dora’s intentions, it underestimates the practical constraints of carrying out this kind of academic judgement," she said.
