A Plea to Reform Academic Journals

Social science journals have had a rough go of it over the past few months. A recent, extensive examination of social science papers found that only about half of previously published studies replicated—and when they did, the replicated effects were much smaller than those originally reported. Of papers where reproduction was possible, the study found just over half were precisely reproducible. Meanwhile, a report by the Progressive Policy Institute’s Richard Kahlenberg and Lief Lin details the ideological slant of the leading American studies journal, American Quarterly . Of 96 essays, 77 were fundamentally critical of America, 19 pieces were neutral, and zero manuscripts were coded America-positive. In recent years, the broader ideological imbalances that persist in higher education have garnered increased scrutiny, yet critics often overlook a primary motivator of ideological homogeneity among university faculty and thereby ignore a potential mechanism for remedying it: academic publishing. For university faculty, publication in scholarly journals is crucial to career advancement—oftentimes the main driver behind decisions that inform tenure and promotion in academic institutions. Thus, ideological gatekeeping not only prohibits heterodox ideas and interesting scholarship from mainstream publishing but hinders career advancement for heterodox scholars. In a recent report for AEI’s Conservative Education Reform Network, University of Arkansas professor and editor of the Journal of School Choice Robert Maranto articulates this ideological capture and charts a path for reform. Maranto exhibits how bias is commonplace. The American Political Science Association’s flagship journal, American Political Science Review , for example, only subjected submissions from heteronormative white males to desk rejection by editors. Likewise, editors from the American Educational Research Association’s prestigious journal, the Review of Educational Research , pledged to only accept quantitative articles from scholars who apply critical theory in their work. Downstream from these ideological barriers to entry is the homogenous body of research they produce. Scholarly journals fundamentally lose their value as venues for high-quality research if they’re pushing a singular perspective by design. Moreover, political capture of academic publishing also adversely impacts the fields of study about which they publish, as academic journals are often regarded as authoritative voices and their arguments, as Maranto argues, “trickle down, shaping common opinions, policy, and practices across fields.” As a society, we cannot meaningfully discuss problems or determine possible solutions if scholarly publications only anoint one narrow set of views. Despite the ideological lopsidedness of academic publishing, there are instructive case studies that demonstrate possible routes to reform. Maranto notes that enterprising academics have founded new journals, such as the Journal of Controversial Ideas and the Journal of Open Inquiry in the Behavioral Sciences . Moreover, a scholarly editor himself, Maranto has worked to revitalize the heterodox Journal of School Choice . First, he suggests doing away with positionality statements that reinforce identity over integrity. Stressing an author’s immutable characteristics over their empirical work compromises the purpose of scientific inquiry, which prizes rigorous methodology, not preemptive, identity-based gatekeeping. Maranto also stresses the importance of creating a heterodox editorial board. Having a diversity of viewpoints improves the editorial process by introducing scholarly disagreement. Ideological monocultures that refuse to challenge dominant narratives will eventually produce stagnant results, undermining a core purpose of scholarly work, which is to challenge and test new ideas. Lastly, Maranto recommends an emphasis on merit above all else. Once processes such as peer review and even academia more broadly lose legitimacy, it’s difficult to regain public trust. Instances where shoddy research prevails should worry those who care about preserving the integrity of this work, no matter if you agree with the political end that research purports to serve. Maranto paints an optimistic picture: that reforming scholarly journals, while a lofty goal, is an achievable one. Starting a new heterodox publication requires funding and personnel, takes legwork to determine scope and standards, and includes lots of other logistical challenges, but Maranto describes it as “quite possible.” The professoriate largely relies on the academic publishing regime for both status and pay stubs. When political motivations shape the incentives, the research bubble and academia itself become orthodox. Conversely, the Journal of School Choice has allowed a small team of heterodox professors who study education to develop, producing a respected body of research that has bolstered education reform. Proposals for a comprehensive reform of higher education are all well and good but difficult to achieve without an understanding of the incentives. Reforming scholarly journals or starting anew is a small, achievable initiative that could yield promising, consequential results. The post A Plea to Reform Academic Journals appeared first on American Enterprise Institute - AEI .