Editorial

Setting out to write an editorial can, on occasion, be a daunting task. I know that a number of colleagues, contributors and members of our Editorial Board read these features and sometimes even provide me with feedback on content, style and interest. Over the past five years I have been informed that my editorials are interesting, challenging and thoughtful. Occasionally,however, some readers found a few of my features descriptive, vaguely informative or even boring. Such comments, whether constructive or critical, are relevant to me because feedback gauges both readership interest and feature relevance. Furthermore, it allows me to make adjustments and, when necessary,discontinue obsolete aspects and topics. Over the years, I have spoken to other editors about their approach to this task and opinions and perspectives varied widely. Some do not provide an editorial for their journals because they feel that very few readers bother to peruse or take any notice of their content. Others simply summarise the content of each issue and provide little else in terms of content or interest. Personally, I like to reflect on various aspects of our profession and enjoy the opportunities that this non-refereed feature offers in terms of style, content and freedom of speech. An editorial also allows me to convey my appreciation and gratitude to all those who contribute to the success of our journal.

Since January, due to personal circumstances, I had an opportunity to reflect at leisure on a number of topics that I consider relevant to academic research,dissemination and publishing. Some of these reflections, God willing, might filter through the next few editorials and I hope that colleagues would join in the debate relating to the direction, opportunities and challenges of academia– both in the UK and elsewhere. Although I can be critical and forceful in my reflections, I try not to be negative. A positive and constructive approach to writing is, in my opinion, a great asset to an editor as well as to contributors. I do feel strongly, however, that we are responsible to our readership for providing a realistic as well as critical perspective on what really matters in this field of research. Nevertheless, I am aware that opinions can vary and that there are parallel realities co-existing and even competing for space in the public domain. So far, only a few contributors took on the challenge of submitting a “Points of view” feature, and no one took advantage of the “Right to reply” opportunity. Is this good, bad or indifferent? Well, the offer still stands, and I hope that more contributors would let us have their views on topics that are important to them.

From the beginning of the research assessment exercise (RAE) in the UK, I have been sent a number of journal “ratings” or “scores”by colleagues and associates. On reflection, I would like to know who compiles,validates and circulates these lists. As far as I can see, none of these show the rigour, continuity and authority that I would expect from a “relevant”list of journals. I agree with those who argue that there must be a way to measure the value of research, but existing scales invariably fail to do justice to entrepreneurship and small business development. Anyone who wants to know more about the RAE should peruse the media for a wide-ranging evaluation of this UK phenomenon or read some of my previous editorials for a critical and more personal perspective. I believe, however, that there must be better, fairer and more beneficial ways to measure research impact in the UK and in those countries where it has been adopted. Unfortunately, journal ratings are immensely important for authors involved in the RAE and utterly irrelevant for those researchers who are unlikely to benefit from disseminating their results …Alas, herein lays one of the many elitist problems that this system of ratings has caused – and, it must be said, some of the suggested alternatives promise to be even worse!

So, where do we stand in terms of relative and absolute ratings? Like most mid-range journals, JSBED has been rated variously as 2 or 3 out of a maximum of 5. As its editor, I admit that we are not yet perceived as a 5-rated journal. But then again, none of the journals in our field are rated 5 and only two are rated 4 (both published in the USA, where else?). According to various“experts” on the RAE, at the end of the previous period (2001) we were ranked at 2.83 – based on the number of UK authors who entered a JSBEDpublication as one of their “best” four refereed articles – but that was five years ago. If we were to play this particular ratings game, the implications are obvious for all to see. We are, however, an international journal and cater for a wide audience and not just for the benefit of other UK academics. Furthermore, our publisher is a UK-based “commercial”organisation and not a university-sponsored publishing house operating from the USA. Is all this relevant to research, I hear you ask? Reading the latest list of journal ratings, apparently it is very relevant. In the snobbish and rarefied atmosphere of highly-ranked journals, we might be considerably handicapped and could wait long before we make it to a 5-rated journal. I wonder what would happen if we all stopped playing this game and concentrated on the value and relevance of our research? Realistically, however, I do not need to look very far for an answer to my rhetorical question …

Typically, the few UK universities that benefit significantly from the RAE are unlikely to consider its long-term repercussions on research, teaching and consultancy. We fought to have the higher education “binary divide”removed, yet it is now back in place as a “trinary divide” and most students and their parents seem to be worse off then before. Just like the proverbial “British disease” it appears that “short termism”is more alive in the UK than elsewhere in the developed world, and there is considerable evidence that it is affecting not just national competitiveness but also educational efficiency at all levels. In my worse nightmares, I see a scenario where only a few universities (those that are “ranked” 5 in the UK) will be allowed to teach, do research and publish in “academic”journals … The rest of us might as well retrain to become tour guides on a very large, post-European, leisure and entertainment island … Enough said!

Harry Matlay