Workshop (and training): Science excellence in Central Asia: between SCOPUS fetishisation, predatory journals and survival strategies of researchers.
Tashkent 11 and 12 June 2025,
Tashkent State University of Law (day 1) and Tashkent State University of Economics (day 2)
Day 1 will be devoted to academic, policy discussions and the presentation of Cogent Social Sciences (Eurasian section), a Routledge open-access journal with a dedicated section for Central Asian studies and the forthcoming special issues that are planned.
Day 2 will be a training day in collaboration with Socio-Lab, ESCAS, LU, DCU (Project ORCA: 101182752), USTA
Training sessions:
Hikoyat Salimova: "Balancing Academia and Mental Wellbeing: Lessons Learned from Studying Abroad"
Abel Polese: “Predatory publishers: identify and avoid them”
Gulzat Botoeva: From draft to an academic article
Aliya Sarseskeyeva: Exploratory data analysis in BI Tools
Registration and abstract submission is open until April 30 through the link: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1cNpOXHLV8W8mOyqBNdr3KgxHPxV9h5SFFM2ROjmhqM4/edit
Rationale
The increased popularity of bibliometric measurement in the social sciences has defined two distinct trends that could be named as “entering” and “exiting”. Some national evaluation exercises (i.e. Germany, France, Finland) have adopted a mixed approach where bibliometric measurement of scientific production is central but evaluated contextually, together with a mix of other criteria, including taking into account the seniority of the researcher. In contrast, other institutions have adopted more ‘exit’ orientations, both in the evaluation of their academic staff and in external rankings of universities.
A number of emerging countries remain keen to improve their scientific performance by betting obsessively on quantitative and bibliometric criteria, with the countries of Central Asia at the forefront of this trend. In an attempt to align to perceived international standards, national governments have put forward strategies pressuring scientists to publish exclusively in SCOPUS-indexed journals and requiring an excessive number of articles in such journals, with potential penalties and fines for underperformance. This, along with the limited opportunities available to receive methodological training, has had an obnoxious effect on scientific production in the region and beyond. Statistics show a sharp increase in the number of predatory journals and in the number of articles being submitted to such journals, the phenomenon of hijacked or cloned journals, as well as a growing number of journals accepting papers that are later retracted because of methodological or other shortcomings (including plagiarism and falsification of evidence, output from ‘papermills’).
At the root of the problem there is a complicity of both institutions managing the bibliometrics market as well as policy-making (i.e. in Europe). By focusing on “excellence in science”, a false claim has been created that research exercises can be classified by their “quality” or “impact”. Now, even if research on smartphone technology has definitely more applicability than, say, philosophy or cultural studies, it is not automatically “better” or “more excellent” from a fundamental science perspective. Science is, after all, the art of gathering data, processing them and interpreting, inasmuch as this may be applied different to various disciplines, the matrix (and the approach) is extremely similar.
Central Asia is possibly one of the regions that has seen such dramatic change almost overnight, with all the drawbacks and problems that resulted and obnoxious consequences both for local researchers, universities and science in general. Under pressure to “align with international standards here and now”, little effort has been devoted to training and long-term planning. Subsequently, results are often prioritised over processes, training of scientists is often imagined to produce significant change and results almost immediately stress on single researchers and departments has increased.
With this workshop, we encourage contributions that discuss, in a critical fashion, and propose solutions on the current status of research evaluation exercises in one or more Central Asian country (Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan) and identify the main challenges and needs for scientists in the region. We are looking for contributions that critically examine existing research and researcher evaluation criteria and the way the results of such evaluations are used to propose possible alternatives that can be piloted in the Central Asian region for future scale up in other regions facing similar challenges.
We would welcome contributions that examine, with the support of empirical evidence:
Survival strategies of researchers employed by Central Asian institutions and universities
Evaluation of research careers in the region
Survey the meaning of excellence, quality, productivity in a critical way
Propose novel ways of evaluating science in Central Asia
Survival strategies of CA academics and researchers
Career building and career approaches
Challenges of academic careers in CA (i.e. securing fellowships, establish journals, organize events or other)
Any other topic not covered by this call that may be considered relevant
Technical details
Meals and coffee breaks will be provided for all registered speakers in day 1 and participants to day 2 (we have a limited capacity up to 20 people for day 1 and 30 for day 2)
We won’t be able to cover travel for speakers but we might be able to offer basic accommodation to ESCAS conference participants if they want to arrive 1-2 days earlier to attend the event. Please mention this below your abstract in the form.
If you are interested, submit an abstract and/or register for the workshops by April 30th using this link, if you want to present on day 1 you can also upload an abstract with the form: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1cNpOXHLV8W8mOyqBNdr3KgxHPxV9h5SFFM2ROjmhqM4/edit
We look forward to seeing you in person.