Journal of
Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics

ISSN: 1690-4524 (Online)

Peer Reviewed Journal via three different mandatory reviewing processes, since 2006, and, from September 2020, a fourth mandatory peer-editing has been added.

Indexed by
DOAJ (Directory of Open Access Journals)Benefits of supplying DOAJ with metadata:
  • DOAJ's statistics show more than 900 000 page views and 300 000 unique visitors a month to DOAJ from all over the world.
  • Many aggregators, databases, libraries, publishers and search portals collect our free metadata and include it in their products. Examples are Scopus, Serial Solutions and EBSCO.
  • DOAJ is OAI compliant and once an article is in DOAJ, it is automatically harvestable.
  • DOAJ is OpenURL compliant and once an article is in DOAJ, it is automatically linkable.
  • Over 95% of the DOAJ Publisher community said that DOAJ is important for increasing their journal's visibility.
  • DOAJ is often cited as a source of quality, open access journals in research and scholarly publishing circles.
JSCI Supplies DOAJ with Meta Data
, Academic Journals Database, and Google Scholar

Listed in
Cabell Directory of Publishing Opportunities and in Ulrich’s Periodical Directory

Published by
The International Institute of Informatics and Cybernetics

Re-Published in
(A Community of about 40.000.000 Academics)

Honorary Editorial Advisory Board's Chair
William Lesso (1931-2015)

Nagib C. Callaos

Sponsored by
The International Institute of
Informatics and Systemics

Editorial Advisory Board

Quality Assurance


Journal's Reviewers
Call for Special Articles

Description and Aims

Submission of Articles

Areas and Subareas

Information to Contributors

Editorial Peer Review Methodology

Integrating Reviewing Processes

Transdisciplinary Communication as a Meta-Framework of Digital Education
Rusudan Makhachashvili, Ivan Semenist
(pages: 1-6)

Multidisciplinary Learning Using Online Networking in Biomedical Engineering
Shigehiro Hashimoto
(pages: 7-12)

Augmented Intelligence for Advancing Healthcare
Mohammad Ilyas
(pages: 13-19)

A Transdisciplinary Approach to Refereeal
Russell Jay Hendel
(pages: 20-25)

The Impact of Convictions on Interlocking Systems
Teresa Henkle Langness
(pages: 26-33)

Collaborative Convergence: Finding the Language for Trans-Disciplinary Communication to Occur
Cristo Leon, James Lipuma
(pages: 34-37)

Bridging the Gap Between the World of Education and the World of Business via Standards to Develop Competences of the Future at Universities
Paweł Poszytek
(pages: 38-42)

Multidisciplinary Learning for Multifaceted Thinking in Globalized Society
Shigehiro Hashimoto
(pages: 43-48)

From Spirituality to Technontology in Education
Florent Pasquier
(pages: 49-52)

Differentiated Learning and Digital Game Based Learning: The KIDEDU Project
Eleni Tsami
(pages: 53-57)

Emerging Role of Artificial Intelligence
Mohammad Ilyas
(pages: 58-65)

Practicing Transdisciplinarity and Trans-Domain Approaches in Education: Theory of and Communication in Values and Knowledge Education (VaKE)
Jean-Luc Patry
(pages: 66-71)

Reflexive Practice for Inter and Trans Disciplinary Research in the Third Millennium
Maria Grazia Albanesi
(pages: 72-76)





How “Publish or Perish” Can Become “Publish and Perish” in the Age of Objective Assessment of Scientific Quality

Erzsebet Dani

The point I wish to make is not what we all know: that the methods to assess the quality of research achievement are controversial. I do not wish to call into question the raison d’être of scientometric approach, its methodology or its particular indicators either. Nor am I aiming at coming up with systematic solutions of the contradictions (although I hope to offer some thoughts in that direction later below). Many have called and keep calling attention to the rigid and uniform application of the numerical approach (counting publications), arguing that it is doing injustice to certain areas of science.1 With that as a starting point, this study is intended to serve two purposes. One, in a much sharper tone than generally used in discussions of the topic, I wish to call attention to how extremely harmful the present scientometric practice may be for many scholars and scientists. Two, also partly in support of the former argument, I propose to demonstrate—to the degree of breadth and depth that the size-constraints of this paper make possible—how the crucial contradiction in question at the core of the present practice follows from the myths generated by scientometry itself.

Here is the paradox: it is the mechanical application and overvaluation of the scientometric assessment of research performance, the very objectivity designed to guarantee equal and fair treatment that does, in fact, lead to the devaluation of quality research effort and discourages even kills the will to conduct research in several disciplines. That is to say, the partly true, part-fun proverbial “publish or perish” principle, which urges the research scientist or academic to keep publishing for the sake of career advancement and academic survival, turns into the trap of what we can describe as “publish and perish.” How a well-intentioned and basically most welcome development, scientometry, or rather, its method of application as well as the myths it generated yield the “publish and perish” phenomenon is the subject I will address below.

1 inanimate (physical) natural sciences and mathemathical sciences, animate (life) natural sciences, human- and social sciences

Full Text