Many institutions prioritize the number of research publications over the quality and depth of the research itself. This emphasis on quantity often overshadows the need for robust and impactful scholarship. Moreover, ensuring research visibility remains a pressing issue for both institutions and individual researchers. There is a growing tendency to engage in multidisciplinary collaborations at conferences, which, while valuable, can sometimes divert attention from sustained, long-term research goals.
Institutional Focus on Quantity over Quality Research
Many institutions today prioritize the sheer volume of research publications rather than the quality and rigor of the research itself. This focus on quantity is evident in the growing emphasis on multidisciplinary conferences, which often prioritize networking and collaboration over the pursuit of long-term research goals. Institutions increasingly prefer organizing these multidisciplinary events rather than subject-specific conferences, which results in the publication of large amounts of research that may lack a clear, strong objective.
The Role of Institutions in Research
It’s true that multidisciplinary research has its place, but the growing trend of publishing research in bulk, often without well-defined goals, is concerning. A multidisciplinary approach can showcase a research group’s potential to produce tangible applications or products. However, institutions should focus on fostering a research mindset that emphasizes meaningful objectives and genuine scientific inquiry, rather than following the latest trends. Many articles end up being retracted due to problems identified post-review, and unfortunately, this is an issue that many institutions and researchers are unaware of.
The Impact of Poor Publication Practices
This lack of focus results in researchers publishing book chapters, conference papers, and journal articles that often do not align with a cohesive research goal. In some cases, they resort to publishing abstract books simply to inflate their publication record. This distorts the integrity of research, especially when researchers boast about citations from Google Scholar without considering more credible citation indices. The unethical practice of citation trading is rampant, with article authors citing irrelevant work from their own institution to artificially boost their citation metrics. A simple scientometric analysis by a librarian could reveal these dubious practices, yet institutions seem to overlook this issue.
Strengthening the Role of Librarians
A trained librarian can quickly identify networks of researchers, institutions, and research domains through scientometric tools. Unfortunately, institutions often underutilize the skills of librarians, who are far more than mere caretakers of books and periodicals. Librarians should be empowered to analyze research output, utilize technology to increase research visibility, and share their bibliometric insights with institutional leaders. They should be involved in conducting domain-specific research and presenting long-term trends to highlight emerging fields of study.
One troubling trend is the increasing number of early-stage PhD students publishing review papers. Often, these papers are little more than collections of 15-20 articles from their field, paired with tables listing authors and institutions. This is passed off as a review, despite lacking the depth and critical analysis expected in such works. Librarians, who should be conducting scientometric research for the benefit of their institutions, too often fail to share this knowledge with researchers or train them to avoid such superficial practices. The problem lies both with the researchers and the environment in which they are trained. With the right mentorship and guidance, these scholars could contribute much more meaningful research to their fields.
Conclusion: Reclaiming Research Quality
To address these issues, we should involve librarians, sociologists, and psychologists in the planning of academic events, particularly in education departments. Similarly, computer science departments could benefit from inviting experts in open-source library management or agricultural technology to explore collaborative research opportunities. The focus must return to solving real research problems and investing in proper human training. Institutions need to connect with genuine researchers who are dedicated to advancing knowledge, not with those offering shortcuts like artificially inflating citations or research output.
As I’ve mentioned before, it takes only a few minutes of scientometric analysis to uncover these unethical practices. Institutions must prioritize authenticity, leverage technology to further human progress and develop systems that genuinely support research. While it’s fine to invest in impressive buildings and infrastructure, we must also nurture the people who bring life to these structures.
