In their recent post on the blog called “DeRIVace”, three Czech researchers (Tereza Stöckelová, Luděk Brož, and Filip Vostal) attack such respectful publishing companies as Elsevier and Clarivate Analytics and their Scopus and Web of Science databases (which Stöckelová, Brož and Vostal accuse of concentrating on profit rather than academic quality and openly call “bloodsuckers”).
Czech researchers from the Institutes of Sociology, Philosophy, and Ethnology of the Czech Academy of Sciences were so startled by the disappearance of the so-called “Beall’s List” that they could not think of anything better but to start spreading accusations about everyone and everything.
Tereza Stöckelová, Luděk Brož, and Filip Vostal (and their friend and fellow blogger from the U.K., a “digital sociologist and social media consultant” Mark Carrigan) cannot boast any impressive publication record: according to Scopus and WoS records, Stöckelová has 10 publications listed in Scopus and 10 listed in WoS, Brož has 8 publications in Scopus and 3 in WoS, Vostal has 3 publications in Scopus and 4 in WoS, and Mark Carrigan has 5 publications listed in Scopus and 2 publications listed in WoS.
Therefore, it is quite apparent that frustrated by their own misery and inability to write academic papers, a skill that can only be acquired by constant practice, people like Stöckelová or Carrigan prefer to spend their time on creating blogs instead. After all, blogs do not require peer-review and editing, and anyone can write just about anything there. And if one has some skills in Internet trolling she or he can even make it look like that all that nonsense on the blog is actually backed up by multiple sources (usually references to other blogs created by the same person or persons, if anyone bothers to click on them). Such individuals are true apt pupils of the digital era.
It is true that getting your paper through all that peer reviews and acceptance is a painful and cumbersome process. Many researchers feel frustrated about it and prefer to enjoy the freedom of publishing book chapters and monographs rather than playing the publication game with journals indexed at Elsevier and Clarivate Analytics databases, one of the few (and perhaps the largest) well-established and solid players on the academic publishing market today. However, everyone who went through the peer reviews and has dozens of papers in Scopus and WoS knows that journal peer review is often more rigorous than book proposals (especially if those books are published in local obscure publishing houses with friends as members of the editorial committees). Accusing the others of publishing too much in recognized journals only reveals the weaknesses of those who prefer writing nonsense on their personal blogs to creating valid academic output.