Recently, the news broke that the MDPI series of journals, among others, have been removed from the well-known JCR Impact Factor list. This unexpected move has left authors who have published or planned to publish in this journal worried. This is a rare occurrence, as it is not often that high impact factor journals are taken off the list. See: Supporting integrity of the scholarly record: Our commitment to curation and selectivity in the Web of Science.
Image source: https://pixabay.com/vectors/computer-keys-pra%c3%a7a-delete-key-644457/
There has been speculation that the publishing process of these journals is questionable.
More importantly, this incident should open up discussions about the root problems within academia that need to be addressed.
On the one hand, traditional journals are reviewing papers too slowly due to a shortage of manpower, and academics are unwilling to review papers due to mounting workload. This slow process delays the dissemination of scientific research, which is not ideal for the development of science and knowledge. The faster dissemination of the open accessed journals fill this gap to some extent.
On the other hand, some have suggested that the entire impact factor business should be abolished. Why should a privately-owned company be allowed to set the rules that decide what constitutes a good journal? This system affects the livelihood of academics and, in turn, affects the enterprise of research endeavour as a whole. The impact factor system fuels the "publish or perish" paradigm and is not healthy for the development of science or knowledge.
It is clear that there are many problems that need to be addressed in academia, and this incident highlights the need for change. The world is waiting for a new solution to this problem.
Could there be a solution arising from the blockchain revolution?