Progressive and degenerative journals: on the growth and appraisal of knowledge in scholarly publishing

被引:8
|
作者
Dunleavy, Daniel J. [1 ]
机构
[1] Florida State Univ, Ctr Translat Behav Sci, 2010 Levy Ave,Bldg B,Suite B0266, Tallahassee, FL 32310 USA
关键词
Methodology of scientific research programmes; Sociology of science; Journalology; Scholarly publishing; Meta-science; Predatory publishing; IMPACT; SCIENCE; RISK; SURROGATE; MEDICINE; PATIENT; HIV;
D O I
10.1007/s13194-022-00492-8
中图分类号
N09 [自然科学史]; B [哲学、宗教];
学科分类号
01 ; 0101 ; 010108 ; 060207 ; 060305 ; 0712 ;
摘要
Despite continued attention, finding adequate criteria for distinguishing "good" from "bad" scholarly journals remains an elusive goal. In this essay, I propose a solution informed by the work of Imre Lakatos and his methodology of scientific research programmes (MSRP). I begin by reviewing several notable attempts at appraising journal quality - focusing primarily on the impact factor and development of journal blacklists and whitelists. In doing so, I note their limitations and link their overarching goals to those found within the philosophy of science. I argue that Lakatos's MSRP and specifically his classifications of "progressive" and "degenerative" research programmes can be analogized and repurposed for the evaluation of scholarly journals. I argue that this alternative framework resolves some of the limitations discussed above and offers a more considered evaluation of journal quality - one that helps account for the historical evolution of journal-level publication practices and attendant contributions to the growth (or stunting) of scholarly knowledge. By doing so, the seeming problem of journal demarcation is diminished. In the process I utilize two novel tools (the mistake index and scite index) to further illustrate and operationalize aspects of the MSRP.
引用
收藏
页数:27
相关论文
共 50 条