A Critical Analysis on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in the Publishing Industry

By IGI Global on Aug 4, 2021
Diversity and Inclusion. These two words seem to be everywhere in academia right now, with higher education institutions frequently touting their commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). As a company, we find it exciting to see so many embrace the concept that IGI Global was founded upon--the understanding that underrepresented researchers need to have an outlet to share their perspectives and research findings. However, for so many years, and in so many corners of the world, this concept sadly has not been prioritized within the academic community or by many major publishing houses, and there are still millions of academicians and researchers fighting an uphill battle for equality, representation, and recognition. Many voices in the overall academic community have not been represented, as the United States and Europe have created a euro-centric standard of publishing, a sad reality when innovation and research progression is on the line.
Through this developing euro-centric standard and its industry-wide acceptance, a model of academic publishing has been formulated that now is one of the largest barriers to truly embracing DEI. It has created bias in academia that has formed a vacuum in the publishing industry, where institutions and countries now have mandates that specify where researchers must publish, and librarians have rigid standards on the content that they must acquire. More importantly, historically, it has mislabeled independent publishers (including IGI Global) as “rogue”, “vanity”, and “write-only,” and questions the quality of their content. This is often due to these publishing houses publishing content outside of this “euro-centric norm,” which includes providing publishing opportunities to those in developing nations and English-as-a-second language researchers, focusing on the merit of the research rather than obsessing over their proficiency in the English language, and advocating for innovative research to be shared above profit. Additionally, this merit-focused research approach provides equal opportunities to researchers at all stages of their career.
Through the rhetoric and discrimination that is occurring in academic publishing, it is solidifying non-inclusive practices that are taking away opportunities for underrepresented communities and creating barriers that need to be dismantled to create real change. In this piece, we not only want to educate, but also inform the academic community of these barriers and through our experience bring to light the deep chasm of inequality in the industry. Through a deeper understanding coupled with our direct collaboration, we can call for industry change to ensure that DEI is not only putting together a committee, but is truly embraced, practiced, and understood.

Please use the quick links to preview the sections of the article:

Historically the Concept of Diversity in Academia Leads to Malicious Mislabeling
For context, IGI Global has embraced the concept of diversity, equality, and inclusion through international perspectives since the inception of the company. Unlike many other academic publishers, we have driven inclusivity and diversity through all our titles for over 30 years.
Through this commitment, IGI Global has worked with nearly 150,000+ international scholars, 40% of whom hail from non-Western countries, to provide the most innovative research from some of the brightest aspiring experts. However, due to our historic approach to collaborating with researchers from various countries and expanding publishing opportunities and resources to developing nations, we have received criticism for the quality of our content and been reprimanded by librarians, institutions, and others in the academic community. This includes the labels of being a write-only, rogue, and vanity publisher.
This mislabeling of the “write-only” originates from two blog posts, one that was written in 2007, by Dr. Debora Weber-Wulff from the University of Applied Science at HTW Berlin, Germany, and the other written by Dr. Ian Bogost from Georgia Tech University, USA, in 2008.
In Dr. Weber-Wulff’s personal blog, she reviews IGI Global’s website and determines that: “The authors do seem to exist; however, they teach at minor schools. The business model seems to be: young academic writes book, publishes here, library purchases overpriced book, academic now has a book published, gets a new job at another university, has library there purchase book, etc. etc.” (Weber-Wulff 2007)
Through her “investigation” of IGI Global in her overall blog article, it can be clearly seen that she concluded IGI Global to be a “write-only” publisher based on:
  • The pricing of IGI Global’s publications.
  • Editors and authors coming from “minor schools.”
  • The perceived notion is that IGI Global accepts all book proposals, especially ones from early career researchers.
  • The citation impact of IGI Global in ACM Digital Library being low.
  • The assumption is that these authors and editors are “paying” for publishing.
Unfortunately, these conclusions are all uninformed (view our full piece reviewing this blog post here), as IGI Global has a 20% acceptance rate, considers contributions from early career researchers and well-established academicians equally and places proposals from both under the same rigorous proposal review process, does not ask for publishing fees for traditional publishing, and has a citation count that is over 1,000,000+. However, the larger issue that this presents is the element of the editors coming from “minor schools” or early career researchers. This leads to questions on what the overall standard is in the industry of who should be published. This is further perpetuated by Dr. Bogost’s blog, in which he notes that “They [IGI Global] capture and feed on fragile individuals in order to advance their kind as a whole.” (Bogost, 2008)
Through this mindset, it perpetuates the industry standard that those who are not publishing with specific publishers (the big five publishers) and do not come from prestigious institutions are seen in a negative light. One comment responding to Bogost’s blog describes this “standard” well by saying: “Aspects of academic arrogance, such as the generalized attacks on a press based on citation numbers and its manner of soliciting contributions, reveal one of the fundamental and persistent problems with academia: its inability to abandon forms of ivory tower mentality.” (G, 2010)
Unfortunately, due to commentary from researchers like Bogost, we are now seeing the entire industry adopt the “ivory tower mentality.” This includes these blog posts being quoted as factual, in articles like “The false academy: predatory publishing in science and bioethics,” by Stefan Eriksson, from Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden, and Gert Helgesson, from Karolinska Institutet, Sweden, in a Springer journal, which coins IGI Global as a “rogue publisher.” They state:
“The idea seems to be that the editor of the book, a researcher craving more academic merits, gets a nice item to add to the publication list, while the publisher draws money from selling a few mandatory library copies. Ultimately the public pays the salaries of these questionable publishers, while those sections of the public truly in need of good edited collections (such as scholars from low and middle income countries who can’t afford access to many journals) stand to benefit nothing. Nor is the book likely to have any impact whatsoever on scientific development.” (Eriksson & Helgesson, 2017)
Unfortunately, due to a small number of researcher’s opinions, it is isolating many other researchers and publishers, including those that are supporting early career researchers, English as a second language researchers, and those from developing nations. Early career researchers, who oftentimes have some of the most innovative ideas and solutions to propose, will never become established and well-known in their fields if they are unable to publish with an academic publisher due to their newness to the community. Non-native English speakers and those from developing nations, if not provided with publishing opportunities, are unable to contribute much-needed diverse perspectives to research that can be heavily anglicized. If publishers are bullied into limiting opportunities solely to established and career authors from select institutions, research will become repetitive and stale with nobody challenging it to become more forward thinking, disruptive, and inventive. Should the content not be held under greater scrutiny than a person’s name or affiliation? At IGI Global, we certainly think so and consider each and every proposal with the same level of care and analysis.
These derogatory and defamatory statements are not only impacting the research community but the overall dissemination of academic research, as many libraries depend on their faculty’s feedback on scholarly resources. Through this feedback, we have been seen as an unfavorable publishing outlet for faculty, with some institutional libraries not willing to acquire our publications. Through this, it is not only insulting our editors and authors, but it is also limiting the dissemination of some of the most innovative research findings that have truly diverse and international perspectives; IGI Global has nearly 150,000+ international researchers from 200+ countries that are publishing across 11 subject areas, including over 320+ titles on the latest concepts in DEI research.
Unfortunately, over the years, as the academic community strives to develop criteria that sets credible and predatory and vanity publishers apart, the system continues to fail its researchers as there is still not one single reliable source for the academic community to turn to with full confidence, and many are taking advantage of this and manipulating perspectives to suit their own agenda through their own platforms (quite often as blog entries and editorial pieces as seen in the aforementioned).
Is the Peer Review Process the Key to Breaking Down These Prejudices?
Not only is the false labeling of publishers based on whose research they are publishing, thereby hindering the progress of DEI being widely accepted in the industry, but it is also being perpetuated by discriminatory practices. According to an editorial article, “Discrimination in scholarly publishing,” featured in Taylor and Francis’ journal, Critical Arts, Prof. Elizabeth le Roux from Aarhus University, Denmark, says, “Discriminatory practices [in publishing] may include unfair reviewing processes, unethical behavior, exclusion from the ‘old boys’ network’, and other constraints on time and research. The values that underlie the scholarly communication system – such as the maintenance of ‘high standards’ – may also function to exclude.” (le Roux, 2015)
This article was written over five years ago and, unfortunately, we are still seeing these discriminatory practices occur throughout the industry. Individual researcher’s opinions, like those above, influence the individuals they are collaborating with through research, who they are assigning as leaders on their titles, and what research they are utilizing and citing.
One of the most important elements for ensuring that this discrimination does not happen is the peer review process. All of IGI Global’s content undergoes a double-blind peer review process, as we are a full member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Through the double-blind peer review process, reviewers and editors do not know any information regarding the contributors’ identities, including race, gender, sexual orientation, geographical location, etc. ensuring the evaluation is based solely on the quality of content. Additionally, we have created a robust network of reviewers that hail from institutions around the world, ensuring that there are international perspectives and viewpoints during the review process. This includes over 150,000 researchers from 200+ countries, including 215 journal editors (with 25% from non-western countries), and a network of over 15,000+ reviewers from 140+ countries, including 40% from developing countries.
As a publisher, we do our diligence to ensure that those who are leading our publications have the proper credentials, but we also need to see that this process ensures that there is no bias in publishing research. Reviewers and editors are only looking at the quality of the overall research and its merit to the academic community. Additionally, we encourage our editors and authors to call for content internationally and not just in their own country or continent to provide holistic and inclusive viewpoints.
Furthermore, one important item to remember is that in the review process, reviewers and editors should only focus on the overall quality of the research conducted. One major barrier that we see occurring across the industry is the fact that many editors are rejecting papers outright based on grammatical issues. While there are certainly grounds to reject papers that are unreadable, it is important to remember that most native English speakers do not even write “perfect English” and that perhaps there is room to work with authors whose English is not picture perfect but whose research findings are significant. This concept is not only beholden to the editorial side of the publishing industry but overall, to major indices (with journals being rejected for minor grammatical mistakes) and librarians refusing to acquire content due to these errors.
Should the English Language be the Standard for Quality?
Although it is an industry standard for researchers to have their work professionally copy edited before submission and prior to final publication, it is also important to understand the challenges that occur when research papers come from researchers whose first language is not English. Also, generally, publishers should not be conducting any substantive copy editing of research, as it jeopardizes the research and may inherently alter the meaning of the research. Overall, it negates the purpose of the peer review process and ensuring that research is being communicated effectively.
In an Inside Higher Education article, Profs. Mary Jane Curry, from University of Rochester, and Theresa Lillis, from Open University, UK, explain the effect that this commentary has on the overall industry, which includes:
  • The shift of creation and distribution of academic knowledge.
  • The difficulty for non-English scholars to share their research with the community.
  • Limitations of scholars in having work translated and copyedited into “perfect” English.
  • Loss of knowledge locally, where the meaning of the research is altered, or the cultural/regional meaning is lost.
They explain, “Implicitly, the nesting of English in many of the metrics used to evaluate the work of academics, including the citation indexes and top-ranked journals published by Elsevier, Springer and other European and North American publishers, removes questions of linguistic medium from the conversation -- English becomes a presumed requirement.” (Curry & Lillis, 2018)
However, we hear continual commentary like “I only saw a few articles and I can say that there is a lack of English.” (Wolff, 2020) or libraries utilizing a single title and grammatical errors as grounds to discredit IGI Global’s entire collection of publications. Additionally, this is now grounds for rejection into prestigious indices, including Scopus and Web of Science. This rejection based on grammatical errors immediately causes barriers to many researchers that are publishing and can hinder individuals from receiving credit for their research.
Is Citation Impact the Ideal Metric?
In line with the English copy editing remarks above, another industry-standard practice that can be limiting to fully embracing DEI is the idea that the citation impact of research should be one of the top metrics of research’s value and merit. As we all know and understand today, citation impact is a driving factor of showcasing a researcher’s impact in the community. It leads to higher prestige for the researcher and is one of the top factors that indices will utilize when reviewing content for their databases.
An article written by Nature discusses the issues of citation impact and how historically it has been manipulated by researchers. This includes increased self-citations and citation farms (where a group of scientists group together to cite each other). (Noorden & Chawla, 2019) Although there has been a lot of momentum around limiting self-citation through indices and abstracting services highlighting this metric, there is still the common threat of “citation farms.” These citation farms are shifting into the model of the top journals feeding on each other for citation. Additionally, this citation rate and a publication’s indexing are now the industry standard to equate if a publication should be acquired by institutions. Through this, we are seeing yet another issue that is limiting so many researchers in getting their work utilized.
According to a Times Higher Education analysis of data in Elsevier’s Scopus database, “nine out of 10 of the top-ranked universities in THE’s World University Rankings 2018, less than 3 percent of cross-border research featured a partner from nations categorized by the United Nations as the world’s least developed.” (Baker, 2018)
Through this analysis, they found this to be a common theme on many papers within Scopus where there was a lack of international collaboration between western countries and developing nations. In the article, Prof. Maggie Dallman, Vice President (International) at Imperial College London, UK, further explains that those that are working directly with developing nations to create research and solutions also might not be in the “best” journals even though it might have greatest societal impact. She notes that “There is a piece that we should be thinking about in terms of [measuring] impact locally … as that is every bit as important, if not more important, as getting a paper in Nature.” (Baker, 2018)
This statement alone showcases that impact should not only be measured by citation impact or indexing, but the overall societal impact that research may have on the community, and only through this diverse collaboration can this occur.
The Path Forward for the Academic Community
Overall, it is no surprise to anyone that discrimination and the overall system of academic publishing is creating barriers for underrepresented researchers and other institutions truly embracing DEI. Only through researchers, libraries, and publishers collaborating and taking a critical look at the overall system can real change occur.
Libraries Can Support through Accessibility of Resources and Increased Collaboration
In a CHOICE webinar (2019) on creating an inclusive collection, Ellen Bosman, Head of Technical Services of New Mexico State University, emphasizes the important role librarians have in DEI in the industry through acquisitions:
“If we [libraries] only purchase the popular materials we are just going to encourage publishers to ignore the niche topics within GLBT and also authors from underrepresented groups, so if we [librarians] can push back through our purchasing options that will reinforce our commitment to the publishers for diversity and will increase the likelihood that diverse voices will be published and have a place in the long-term scholarly record” (Doherty, Anne, Bosman, Ellen & Jonson, Timothy, 2019).
This statement clearly showcases the power that academic institutions and libraries have in the industry and how they directly affect DEI not only within their own institutions, but supporting publishers, such as IGI Global, that have always practiced inclusivity and are not just acting on the current movement, like other publishers.
Through supporting these publishers, librarians not only encourage them to continue to publish this research, but they can also provide valuable resources to their patrons. Additionally, the more accessible this research is, the higher the citation impact of the research. If institutions ensure to include research from international countries, as well as underrepresented researchers, they can also support these researchers in garnering a higher citation impact due to the increase in visibility.
This not only supports the exposure of the research but can ultimately lead to additional funding for further studies in this area and for these academicians.
Overall, with this push toward diversity, we are seeing more and more universities and institutions add new curricula, organizations, and coalitions focused on combatting diversity issues and challenges. Through this increase in programming, libraries are continuously being challenged to find these resources, especially with the additional consideration of budgetary limitations. Therefore, e-book collections are an effective way to easily acquire these resources. IGI Global offers their full collections of reference books and scholarly journals through their e-Collections, which includes their e-Book Collection. This e-Book Collection has over 6,600+ e-books with insights from nearly 150,000+ international researchers and spans across 11 core subject areas, including business, computer science and IT, education, social sciences, and more.
This e-Collection enables libraries to affordably provide access to all these publications, including findings from developing nations, underrepresented researchers, and more. Additionally, it is hosted on the InfoSci platform, which features no DRM, no additional charge for multi-user licensing, full-text PDF and HTML format, remote access options, and various accessibility features to ensure that this research can be easily utilized and accessed.
However, e-book collections not only provide access to these valuable resources but can support librarians to:
  • Maximize Their Overall Budget: As many know, one of the biggest benefits of e-collections is maximizing the overall budgetary spend. Through investing in a larger e-collection, libraries are able to get a better overall cost per title than purchasing on the individual level. For example, at IGI Global, our average cost per title is US $280 while in one of our e-Book Collections it is as low as US $8.

    Additionally, as a publisher, we are seeing that e-book collection acquisitions are growing in popularity, as the previous method of “pick and choose” acquisitions require more extensive work for the librarian and can become costly. But now, publishers can collaborate with libraries to assist in their acquisition needs through larger collections and provide a better price point. For example, IGI Global has put together a curated collection of e-books around DEI, IGI Global’s DEI e-Book Collection, with 320+ books, hand-selected by our expert Editorial Team, that cover accessibility, gender and identity, culture and race, religion, human resources, civic engagement, and more. This collection was created to assist academic and research-focused institutions in enhancing and providing diverse research for training and development programs, education and research, community relations, and policy development. This is a valuable resource for DEI research and grants, DEI departments, and professional resources for institutions enacting new recruitment and retention policies.

  • IGI Global’s DEI e-Book Collection
    • Over 320+ Peer-Reviewed E-Books
    • Insight from more than 700+ Researchers from
      30+ Countries
    • Indexed in Scopus
    • Covers Accessibility, Gender & Identity, Religion,
      and Culture
    Quick Links
    Learn More
    Pricing & Purchase Options
    Full Title List
    Recommend to Library
    Access Full e-Collection
  • Acquire Top-Tier Titles, including Titles from Underrepresented Groups and Developing Countries: When libraries are acquiring titles, they will often review the overall usage of titles, as well as the metrics of the publication (i.e., indexing, citation impact, etc.). Overall, the entire academic community runs on these metrics to identify high-quality research and must-have resources. Although this is an easy method to easily identify high-quality titles, it can also hinder the utilization of research that is coming from developing countries as well as underrepresented and niche research topics, as often we see their titles are not as readily acquired or utilized due to the affiliation of the research or a lack of understanding regarding the relevance and importance of the specialized research topic.

    Through acquiring a full e-collection, libraries can access and integrate resources from prestigious institutions, as well as those titles that are underrepresented in the academic community. The more a title is available through the academic community, the more likely the citation impact and discovery of the publication will increase. This enables not only underrepresented research to be available to your patrons but also assists in paving the way for these authors and editors to become indexed and can support career advancement through their publication metrics.

  • Diversify Their Overall Research Content for Their Patrons: Another way e-collections can assist in diversity and inclusivity is that they provide a larger pool of research, often around multiple subject and topic areas that are available to the patrons. Although it is important to focus on titles that are in high demand from major departments, through e-collections librarians are able to acquire a vast amount of content, providing comprehensive coverage across all areas of research. Through this, they can unknowingly be providing research and resources in underrepresented or niche areas of research to their institution. Additionally, an unexpected benefit is that they will not only be acquiring and supporting underrepresented research, but also supporting their own institution’s patrons’ research capabilities.
  • Provide Publishing and Open Access (OA) Opportunities through Read and Publish: Lastly, if the publisher provides a Read & Publish model through their e-collections, librarians can assist their institution in easily publishing under OA. For example, IGI Global’s Read & Publish Initiative provides 100% OA APC waivers for researchers at institutions. Under this model, when a library invests in our e-Book and/or e-Journal Collection, we will match their investment with a matching fund for OA. When a researcher from the institution submits an article or chapter and it is accepted (following peer review) into an IGI Global scholarly journal or reference book under OA, we will deduct the APC fee from that fund.

    These types of models provide an additional opportunity for OA funding and, through IGI Global’s model, libraries can work with their institution to direct where they would like to provide this additional OA funding (including their underfunded or underrepresented departments and programs). Through this, they are providing an opportunity for their researchers or specific areas of research to gain the benefits of publishing under a quality OA publishing process, which can lead to a nominal increase in citation impact, download rate, exposure of the research, and more.

It is also important as librarians are the “gatekeeper” of information at their institutions to critically review the element above and see how it fits into their title acquisitions, publisher collaborations, and even how they support their patrons and faculty within
their institution.
Researchers Can Support Through Increased Collaboration and Mentorship
For researchers, it is important for them to critically review what outlets they are submitting their research to and reviewing the criteria for what they deem as “quality”. Instead of mislabeling and focusing on the politics that we all know are in academia, there should be a focus on ensuring that all research content is published under a quality publishing process. Additionally, editors and authors can:
  • Increase Diversity on Editorial Review Boards: For editors, it is important to critically review your editorial review board and leadership on your publication. According to an article, “How the Geographic Diversity of Editorial Boards Affects What Is Published in JCR-Ranked Communication Journals,” written by Profs. Manuel Goyanes, from Carlos III University, Spain, and Marton Demeter, from National University of Public Service, Hungary, the more diversity on journal editorial boards, the more likely it is to publish diverse research. (Goyanes & Demeter, 2020) It is not only important to review the diversity on the Editorial Review Board but to also review leadership on the publication to ensure that diversity is present. This includes co-editors, and in the instances of journals, managing editors, guest editors, etc.

    This not only ensures that diversity is on your title, but it also can assist in increasing Call for Paper’s reach internationally and assist in ensuring that contributors from all backgrounds have representation and a contact that they are able to directly collaborate with.

  • Double-Blind Peer Review Process: As noted above, the peer review process is one of the main elements that limits bias during the overall publishing process. For reviewers and editors, ensure that you are reviewing papers based on their merit and not how well it has been copy edited. If the research is worthy of publication but the English is perhaps particularly difficult to understand, convey the suggestion for professional copy editing services to the author as well as the editor of the title. Additionally, if you are a reviewer that is reviewing a paper under a double-blind peer review process and you think you know who the individual is, let the editor or publisher know in an effort to not jeopardize the review process and lead to factors of bias.
  • Break Down Language Barriers and Support Authors Utilizing Copy Editing Services: For editors, authors, and researchers, when you are communicating with international researchers, ensure that the communication is in plain language that can easily be translated or understood. Additionally, for those who have language barriers or may not be fully comfortable with the English language, discuss it with the publisher, as many publishers have regional representation around the world.

    Editors can also encourage all of their contributors and/or those who are having difficulty in meeting the “industry standard” of having all papers in the English language to specialized copy editing and scientific review services. For example, IGI Global offers their Author Services, including English Language Copy Editing, where individuals can be paired with an expert copy editor.

  • Increase International Collaboration and Mentorship: One of the strongest ways to increase DEI is through direct international collaboration. Discuss with your university, colleagues, and publishers how to get connected with other international researchers. Additionally, editors and authors that are well versed in the industry, focus on creating mentorships with early career researchers, international researchers, and researchers of color. This can immediately assist in removing barriers that these underrepresented groups face. Also, understand potential biases in your own thinking of what you believe is quality.
  • Consider Disclosing Demographic Information: The publishing industry has recently considered asking for demographic information upon submission of research in order to keep track of the diversity of its authorship. These identifying factors could include gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. While participation would be optional, authors may want to seriously consider offering this information to publishers in order to contribute to the DEI initiatives that publishers
    are undertaking.
As a publisher, we will continue to support our stance on not only publishing DEI research and international perspectives above profit but will also work directly with our researchers to assist them in combatting discrimination and ensuring that all of our publications undergo a rigorous double-blind peer review process. Additionally, we will continue to provide our research and librarian community with:
  • Equal opportunity for all researchers and academicians.
  • Direct international representation through our international team and over 220+ global partners.
  • A high-quality expedient publishing processing backed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
  • A stringent double-blind peer review process to ensure no bias occurs during the publishing process.
  • Resources to help increase international collaborations and overcome cultural barriers.
  • Educational materials and workshops to help mentor early career researchers and those that face these barriers.
  • Enhanced Author Services, including English language copyediting, scientific and scholarly review, and more.
  • A truly transformative OA Read and Publish model through our e-Collections.
  • Customized acquisitions models and e-Collections that ensure institutions around the world are able to garner the latest peer-reviewed research.
  • And more.
While we transition into this pivotal time in academia with institutions, publishers, researchers, and the librarian community responding to this historical DEI movement, it is important to not only support those in the industry that are touting their commitment but recognize outlets and institutions that have historically supported this movement to differentiate between those that are simply profiteering from the latest “trendy movement” to ensure that long-term solutions can be enacted.
We will proudly identify as a “rogue publisher” in the sense that we support quality research findings regardless of profit margins and support the ideology, regardless of race, gender, geographical location, or religion, that all researchers contribute significantly to the advancement of scholarly knowledge. IGI Global historically has been known as a leading STEM publisher; however, over the years, we have transformed into a trusted outlet for some of the most forward-thinking research within business, education, and social sciences, including many titles supporting diversity, equity, and inclusion. We will maintain this trajectory for years to come, despite the false labels and overall industry trends.
For more information on how IGI Global is combatting the status quo and inspiring true DEI in the industry, please contact authorservices@igi-global.com. Additionally, if you are interested in supporting IGI Global in ensuring that the global community has access to needed resources or would like more information on our DEI e-Book Collection or OA Fee Waiver (Read & Publish) Model, please contact IGI Global’s e-Collections Team at eresources@igi-global.com.
Baker, S. (2018, September 21) Study finds limited collaboration between research elites and developing nations. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/09/21/study-finds-limited-collaboration-between-research-elites-and-developing-nations.
Bogost, I. (2008, November 24). Write-Only Publication: IGI Global and Other Vampire Presses. Retrieved April 20, 2020, from http://bogost.com/writing/blog/writeonly_publication/.
Curry, M. J., & Lillis, T. (2018, March 13). Inside Higher Ed. “The domination of English-language journal publishing is hurting scholarship in many countries (opinion).” https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2018/03/13/domination-english-language-journal-publishing-hurting-scholarship-many-countries.
Eriksson, S., & Helgesson, G. (2016). The false academy: predatory publishing in science and bioethics. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 20(2), 163–170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-016-9740-3.
G. (2010, December 7). Gaylen [Comment on the article “Write-Only Publication: IGI Global and Other Vampire Presses”]. Ian Bogost. http://bogost.com/writing/blog/writeonly_publication/.
Goyanes, M., & Demeter, M. (2020). How the Geographic Diversity of Editorial Boards Affects What Is Published in JCR-Ranked Communication Journals. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 97(4), 1123–1148. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699020904169.
le Roux, E. (2015). Discrimination in scholarly publishing. Critical Arts, 29(6), 703–704. https://doi.org/10.1080/02560046.2015.1151104 (2017).
Noorden, R. V., & Chawla, D. S. (2019, August 19). Hundreds of extreme self-citing scientists revealed in new database. Nature News. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02479-7.
Wolff, Robert. (2020). Re: May anyone tell me about the reputation of the IGI Global Publishers?. Retrieved from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/May_anyone_tell_me_about_the_reputation_of_the_IGI_Global_Publishers/5fb9e21c0a007f4a3b79e0de/citation/download.
Weber-Wulff, D. (2007, December 31). Write-only publications. Retrieved April 20, 2020, from https://copy-shake-paste.blogspot.com/2007/12/write-only-publications.html.
About IGI Global

Founded in 1988, IGI Global, an international academic publisher, is committed to producing the highest quality research (as an active full member of the Committee on Publication Ethics “COPE”) and ensuring the timely dissemination of innovative research findings through an expeditious and technologically advanced publishing process. Through their commitment to supporting the research community ahead of profitability, and taking a chance on virtually untapped topic coverage, IGI Global has been able to collaborate with over 100,000+ researchers from some of the most prominent research institutions around the world to publish the most emerging, peer-reviewed research across 350+ topics in 11 subject areas including business, computer science, education, engineering, social sciences, and more. To learn more about IGI Global, click here.

Newsroom Contact

Caroline Campbell
Assistant Director of Marketing and Sales
(717) 533-8845, ext. 144

No comments Comments

Log in or sign up to comment.
Be the first to comment!