Academics claim they are coming under growing pressure to publish in highly rated publications ahead of the Research Excellence Framework (REF), contributing to a “target-driven” culture that discriminates against��other types of research outputs.

In a highly critical report into working practices at the University of Liverpool Management School prepared by University and College Union (UCU) representatives, policies��that require staff to publish in journals designated 3* or 4* by the����and in those on the����list are cited as a source of “considerable apprehension” for a majority of staff.

“Many feel that success in these restrictive outlets…has become the salient measure for promotion and access to resources,” explains the report, which drew on responses from 78 staff members.

“This pressure actively narrows research agendas toward dominant methods and theoretical ontologies (often North American rather than UK/European), and constrains staff from publishing in high-quality disciplinary, specialist, and inter-disciplinary journals not on these lists,” argues the report, adding that this “devalues books, chapters, and other alternative formats, contradicting the university’s public commitment to diverse research”.

̽����Ƶ

Journal lists are widely compiled by universities as well as various organisations and��. Supporters say they are a useful way of quickly identifying exceptional researchers, given the vast range of journals in existence.

But the Liverpool report questions how this approach aligned with the university’s broader commitments to the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (Dora). Signatories to that��, endorsed by hundreds of universities worldwide, should not use “journal-based metrics…as a surrogate measure of the quality of individual research articles”.

̽����Ƶ

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”.

“Pushing staff to publish exclusively in these outlets may delay the dissemination of solid, field-relevant research that would otherwise find a suitable home in other high-quality journals,” explains the report, which has been sent to university leaders.

“They deny promotions, sabbaticals, and anything else you might ask for if you don’t have an FT50 pipeline,” explains one academic quoted in the report. Another claims FT50 journals are “mentioned at every group meeting, regardless of your research area or topic. It feels similar to a sales environment, where only the target matters”.

The “internal pressure to publish in a narrow set of journals” is driven by the school’s desire to improve its REF standing, the report argues, claiming there is a “belief that there is a direct and exclusive link between FT50 publications and a high REF ranking”.

But the��“biased and unfair research evaluation system” had��contributed to a “toxic culture of fear” within the school demonstrated by��“persistently high levels of UCU casework”.

Many institutions have defended journal lists from criticism that they do not comply with the spirit of Dora because they do not exclusively focus on journal metrics and are often used alongside other indicators.

̽����Ƶ

A 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”.

“Rather, the university has a robust output evaluation programme that is consistent with Dora and is used to assess quality of research,” they said.

̽����Ƶ

The university was aware of the recent UCU report, they added, 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��̽����Ƶ��that the widely used journal lists served a useful purpose.

“Their use is not surprising because there are hundreds of business journals across a wide number of disciplines. So when you’re selecting from hundreds of applicants you need some criteria to both compare across and select the truly exceptional candidates,” explained Morgan-Thomas, whose 2024��Research Policy����found that 4* journal publications strongly correlated with 4* REF outputs.

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 labour-intensive, said Morgan-Thomas.

“While I fully align with Dora’s intentions, it underestimates the practical constraints of carrying out this kind of academic judgement,” she said, noting that conducting rigorous internal screening of papers necessitated a trade-off.

“It comes down to some sharp choices. Do I ask my staff to spend time shepherding young researchers through the publication process? Or do I devote it to reading and rating articles that staff have already published?” she said.

̽����Ƶ

jack.grove@timeshighereducation.com