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

Abstract

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.

The List of Questionable Journals: Is It Trustworthy?

“…Additionally, Beall's list of predatory journals has also faced criticism due to its vague criteria (Teixeira da Silva and Kimotho, 2021). Indeed, there appears to be a gray area between "good" and "bad" (Dunleavy, 2022), which casts doubt on the credibility of the list of questionable journals (Teixeira da Silva and Tsigaris, 2018).…”