DOI:
AUTHOR(S)
Chee Kong Yap
ABSTRACT
This short note argues that publishing in modestly ranked but genuinely peer‑reviewed journals can be a rational and ethical route for researchers who face resource constraints. Evaluation systems that over‑weight journal prestige can distort incentives, amplify cumulative advantage, and exacerbate inequities, while reform efforts such as the Leiden Manifesto and DORA recommend assessing research on its own merits rather than by venue metrics Evidence also links pressure to publish in elite venues with stress and mental‑health challenges among early‑career researchers. I distinguish legitimate lower‑rank journals from predatory outlets using consensus definitions and offer practical safeguards to avoid deceptive practices. This note concludes that authors, institutions, and evaluators can take to build inclusive publishing cultures that value rigor, transparency, and societal relevance over venue prestige. The aim is not to discount selectivity or novelty but to broaden pathways for credible dissemination so that constraints in funding, laboratory infrastructure, or network access do not silence valid scholarship.
Download Full Article