Are our databases letting us down? Some reflections
February 11, 2013
My last posting on the appearance of a highly questionable journal in the Scopus database has raised a few eyebrows and has also given rise to the question of whether I may have singled out Scopus, and its parent company Elsevier, unfairly. To clarify the situation here’s a little more detail on what I did and on what exactly I’m saying.
On 4 December 2012 Jeffrey Beall published his 2013 Predatory Publishers list on the Scholarly Open Access blog. The second part of that list consists of 126 individual journal titles, and it was this list that I checked against both the Scopus and Web of Science databases to see if any of the titles were, or had been, indexed by them. This search was carried out on 1 February 2013 and revealed that eleven of the titles appeared in Scopus. In one case indexing appeared to have ceased early in 2012, but in the other cases there was substantial 2012 content which led me to conclude that indexing was probably ongoing. None of the 126 titles appeared to have been indexed by Web of Science. Of the 11 titles I then singled out the Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences because it appeared to be a particularly egregious case, and one in which the problems were so obvious as to be virtually beyond debate – the evidence was right there in the database.
In drawing Web of Science into the discussion I want to be absolutely clear that I am not endorsing Web of Science or saying that it is a better database than Scopus. As it happens I am a considerable fan of the functionality of Scopus and also of their attempts to be more inclusive in their coverage. What I am saying, though, is that this greater inclusiveness carries with it certain risks, the greatest of which is that work of questionable provenance finds its way into that part of the literature which is presumed to be carefully moderated. This risk needs to be managed carefully if we don’t want to find that sand has been mixed into our flour. Scopus is not the only database that appears to have issues in this area – Business Source Complete indexes something called Australian Journal of Business and Management Research which has no apparent connection with Australia beyond a kangaroo on their masthead – but as a widely used and respected source emanating from a major academic publisher it does carry a responsibility to uphold standards of good scholarly practice.
Last week I attended the Open Research Conference in Auckland. It was a stimulating two days, and several of the speakers made a strong case that the current “gatekeeper” system of scholarly publishing is irretrievably broken and that an open system of peer review and a less hierarchical and more inclusive model of scholarly research and publishing would produce better results. I expressed reservations about this, largely because I am cautious by nature and have concerns about the downsides of Internet openness – specifically spam, fraud and manipulation, as well as even more information overload – making further inroads into the scholarly domain. I did, however, feel at something of a disadvantage in arguing this point, because although the present system may not be totally broken it is also subject to these exact same weaknesses to a significant degree. Librarians, under the rubric of Information Literacy, spend considerable time pointing students away from Google and Wikipedia and towards so-called “trusted sources” , but if this is to continue then this trust needs to backed up by positive signs of vigilance on the part of our gatekeepers.
These views are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer, and I am grateful that Library Out Loud offers a platform for reflections on practice.
Bruce White
Science Librarian
Search posts
Categories
Tags
Recent Comments
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- March 2022
- January 2022
- November 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- September 2009
- November 2008
Leave a Reply