The publish-or-perish process in Nigerian University system has been described in a previous post and the challenges with the process (here). There is the need to re-examine the process to reward hard work, discourage mediocrity and improve the quality of research in our university system. In this post, I describe my views on how the publish-or-perish process can be greatly enhanced for maximum impact.
(1) All fingers must be equal: Local journals must have the same value with international journal. Preferences and special treatment of local journals under the guise of "developing local content" has not actually developed any local journal. Requiring a certain percentage of publication for promotion to be published locally encourages mediocrity, as local journals see this as a steady stream of income.
(2) Quality over quantity: The work of identifying quality research has been done by indexing services. I do not think there is a need to re-invent the wheel. Institutions should identify quality based indexing services such as Scopus, Clarivate Analytics and others and adopt them. Only researches indexed by the adopted services will be used for promotion. This will remove the need for several in-house and international assessments. The number of required articles and years of experience per level is clearly stated and maintained.
(3) Streamline the process: The process of promotion should not be complicated, at least the publication aspect. Researchers will submit the usual form without printing hard copies of peer reviewed articles. The Department validates all other components (teaching and community service) except publications. The report is sent to a central University body who will also confirm that submitted publications are in the approved indexing services. No reading and reporting on each published articles, no scoring, no multilevel interdepartmental meetings!
(4) Cut the extra baggage: By considering all journals to be equal and using global best standards of quality indexing, extra baggage in the publication assessment such as considering volume 40 and above, rejecting journals from countries like Iran; searching for countries of origin of journals; will be eliminated. Publication assessment should not be a nightmare that consumes the researchers time, money, and energy. The promotion exercise in itself should not be another research endeavour.
The advantages of this concise and equitable process is numerous.
(1) reward hard work and reduce mediocrity
(2) eliminate bias, prejudice in the promotion process
(3) basis to demand for better funding
(4) better representation in international rankings of institutions
(5) save time, energy, and resources for researchers, assessors, and institution.
We cannot continue to demand quality education in line with global best practices and operate a researcher assessment policy that deviates from the global norm. The assessment of a research should not be subject to the whims and caprices of administrators, prejudice of colleagues, and unnecessary bureaucratic processes.
