Dear Jeremy, Keith, Chris, Gavin, & Co.,

There are two or three threads going on here, and they cross over in odd ways.

The note to the list was a warning about what seems to be a profitable publishing scam that has begun to target people in our field. I did not write to rank journals or even to rank publishers. In today's metrics-obsessed world, several companies have now developed publishing models and conference models that extract cash from academics who are desperate to gain jobs, get tenture, or earn promotion. I won't tell that whole story here, but some of these firms earn a huge profit on people who don't know better. From time to time, I come across one and I publish warnings to different lists. I've done that here before. This was a warning of an apparent problem with one publisher.

This list exists to deal with all aspects of design research and doctoral education in design. Since the firm in question has begun targeting people in design research, I thought I'd post a note. As I see it, that is a legitimate issue to raise here. I'm not ranking the journals of that publisher. They publish no design journals. Not yet, at least. I am warning people that this publisher seems to represent a business model designed to maximize income without contributing to the field -- or to any field. Earlier, I believe that I pointed to another publisher that is attempting to launch over 500 journals in one year, again using open access technology that allowed them to create hundreds of products whether or not the products had any content -- and despite the fact that many of the journals had the same editor and no editorial boards or reviewers.

As to metrics, I have my doubts. I disagree vehemently with the silly idea of demanding that people ought to publish only on one journal type or one group of journals. William Starbuck, a distinguished professor in organization theory, publishes a journal ranking note every few years for journals in his field. He always adds that some of the best journals appear low in his list for various reasons, and that none of these reasons have to do with quality. Any department or faculty that requires academic staff to publish only in a short list of journals makes a big mistake.

I'd be happy if my friends here were a little more careful with the "deans do what deans do" conversation. I did not end my life as a scholar when I became a dean. The time I use for a dean's work clearly reduces the time I have for research and writing, but I remain active. Most of my day involves serving others. I clear obstacles to their work. I find resources, shape new processes and projects. I look on deaning as a form of designing. It is certainly a form of service. The notion that a dean's job is little more than conservation is ... well, it's a 19th century view of deaning. Universities are both conservative and generative. No one whose job involves academic responsibility can avoid the first. Everyone with a sense of purpose works toward the second. None of this is John Wayne territory -- "A dean's gotta do what a dean's gotta do."

Well, not quite. I do sometimes imagine myself to be some kind of pioneer when I look at the partially contested site of what will be our new design faculty building ... "Someday there will be a town here, with a school, and a studio laboratory complex where decent folk can do their research." 

The reason I began to address the journal ranking problem is simple. The Australian government published a ranking proposal. This proposal treated journals in design and design research badly. The decision to use a ranking scheme is a government policy. I've got no way to influence or change that. What I _can_ do is to argue that the ranking scheme ought to treat design and design research journals as well as the scheme treats journals in the sciences, the humanities, and in such fields as art or architecture. The alternative would have been leaving a journal ranking scheme in place that consigned design research to poor ratings. The original ERA proposal ranked Design Studies as a third rate journal, it ranked Design Issues as a fourth rate journal, and it did not even list other good journals. The project was quick and dirty, and we will do better when we finish the articles that ought to flow from this. That includes an opportunity to raise the serious questions and problems involved in any journal ranking scheme or any metric scheme whatsoever. We explained the purpose, method, and outcome of our work todate in a preliminary report we circulated widely. Many of you have read it. There's nothing mysterious to it, and there is no hidden agenda. Agree with it or not, but please do not attribute motives to me beyond the goal of serving my staff and serving my Australian colleagues by ensuring that their publications count for something.

Mark Twain used to say that no good deed goes unpunished. It seems that I've spent half a year working with a difficult problem in a challenging policy environment only to find some of my colleagues positioning me among the nabobs who make government policy. I did not invent the Australian ranking scheme. I responded to improve it as best possible. I did not invent the idea of journal metrics. I find myself obliged to consider journal metrics if I am to offer substantive arguments against a ranking scheme that is unfair to designers and design researchers. Design research ought to be treated with the same respect given to the research of academics in other fields and disciplines. That's the main point of the entire project.

None of this has to do with the company I warned the list about. Please don't confuse these issues. I'm not ranking the company in any way comparable to the journal study we conducted. We did that to support a response to the government by the Australian Deans of Built Environment and Design and our universities. In my note here, I warned that yet another firm is using publishing requirements and publishing metrics to profit on scholars and researchers who may not yet have the experience to evaluate different opportunities.

Since this firm is now targeting scholars in design and design research, this list is an appropriate place for such a warning. As with all such posts, everyone is free to study the evidence and make his or her own conclusion. Anyone who wishes to join one of this firm's editorial boards or pay them $800 to submit an article is free to do so.

Warm wishes,

Ken

Ken Friedman
Professor, Ph.D., Dr.Sci. (hc), FDRS

Dean, Swinburne Design
Swinburne University of Technology
Melbourne, Australia





-----
Swinburne University of Technology
CRICOS Provider Code: 00111D

NOTICE
This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and intended only for the use of the addressee. They may contain information that is privileged or protected by copyright. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, printing, copying or use is strictly prohibited. The University does not warrant that this e-mail and any attachments are secure and there is also a risk that it may be corrupted in transmission. It is your responsibility to check any attachments for viruses or defects before opening them. If you have received this transmission in error, please contact us on +61 3 9214 8000 and delete it immediately from your system. We do not accept liability in connection with computer virus, data corruption, delay, interruption, unauthorised access or unauthorised amendment.

Please consider the environment before printing this email.