We welcome Wadim Strielkowski’s response to our earlier blog post. However, we found many flaws in his argument and in this short reaction, we will share our thoughts on them. We hope it will enable the reader to make their judgment on the overall quality of our and Strielkowski’s arguments – those raised both in the blog posts as well as in the scholarly publications.
1) We stated in our post that Strielkowski produced 17 monographs; he claims in his response that he “is an author of 6 research monographs (and co-author or editor of several other proceedings).” In our statement, we drew upon the information Strielkowski himself provided on his own website in 2015 (see http://web.archive.org/web/20150514044622/http:/www.strielkowski.com/publications).
2) We commented on Strielkowski’s current position of research associate at the Cambridge Judge Business School in the following fashion: “Those familiar with the structure of the University of Cambridge would probably not regard this position as particularly prestigious.” Strielkowski summarized our argument as follows: “Stöckelová, Brož and Vostal call Cambridge Judge Business School ‘not particularly prestigious’.” There is a subtle yet critical difference in the two formulations. Is Strielkowski deliberately misinterpreting our words or is he too careless to understand the distinction?
3) Strielkowski strikes back by pointing to our publication record. Among other things, he claims that “Tereza Stöckelová is an Editor-in-Chief of the English edition of the Sociologický časopis – Czech Sociological Review (the journal is listed in Scopus and WoS) and she very much likes to publish in the journal she edits. She also lists her one-page editorials and “open letters” as articles in the WoS database and is apparently getting bonuses and promotion for that.” Stöckelová has indeed been an Editor-in-Chief of the English edition of the journal since 2013. Since assuming the position, she contributed two short pieces to the journal in her capacity as of an editor. Neither in her CV nor in the national register of research results has she claimed that they were anything else than short non-reviewed texts. It is indeed confusing and problematic that WoS categorises her short pieces as “articles”. This, however, only supports the argument we make in our post suggesting that WoS information should not be taken at face value. WoS may be a useful guide in some cases but never an unambiguous master.
We want to reiterate that the primary aim of our effort is to highlight how uncritical and unreflexive treatment of bibliometrics and developments in political economy of meta-data produce particular patterns of knowledge production and circulation, mostly detrimental to the overall quality of academic debate – see also Liz Morrish’s commentary.
Luděk Brož, Tereza Stöckelová, Filip Vostal