Perspectives: Be brave, make a real impact: Why the MEJPP should be one of your top publishing choices



positive psychology, publishing, journals, journal impact factor, Middle East


In this opinion piece, we explore the pressures of publishing in peer-reviewed journals and the challenges faced by non-Western scholars. While publishing in Western journals is appealing, we discuss the complexities of the academic publishing industry. In particular, journal impact factor largely influences the decisions of what and with whom scholars ultimately publish. We argue that such a narrow pursuit influences scholars to publish topics of Western relevance – at the expense of local knowledge development – and unwittingly deprives communities of their own scientific discoveries, which are often funded by them to begin with. We make the case for why researchers should purposefully investigate topics of local importance, for local audiences, and make a local journal, like the Middle East Journal of Positive Psychology one of their top publishing choices.

Author Biography

Meg A. Warren, Western Washington University

Western Washington University


Anonymous. (2018a, May 18). Academia is built on exploitation. We must break this vicious circle. Retrieved from The Guardian,

Anonymous. (2018b, February 16). Performance-driven culture is ruining scientific research. Retrieved from The Guardian,

Arnett, J. J. (2008). The neglected 95%: Why American psychology needs to become less American. American Psychologist, 63(7), 602-614.

Arnett, J. J. (2009). The neglected 95%, a challenge to psychology’s philosophy of science. American Psychologist, 64(6), 571-574.

Bartneck, C., & Kokkelmans, S. (2011). Detecting h-index manipulation through self-citation analysis. Scientometrics, 87(1), 85-98.

Barreira, P., Basilico, M., & Bolotnyy, V. (2018). Graduate student mental health: Lessons from American economics departments. Working Paper. Retrieved from

Bermant, G., Talwar, C., & Rozin, P. (2011). To celebrate positive psychology and extend its horizons. In K. M. Sheldon, T. B. Kashdan, & M. F. Steger (eds.), Designing positive psychology: Taking stock and moving forward (pp. 430-438). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Bira, L., Evans, T. M., & Vanderford, N. L. (2019). Mental health in academia: An invisible crisis. Physiology News Magazine, Issue 115. Retrieved from

Bornmann, L., Leydesdorff, L., & Krampen, G. (2012). Which are the “best” cities for psychology research worldwide? Europe's Journal of Psychology, 8(4), 535–546.

Buranyi, S. (2017, June 27). Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science? Retrieved from The Guardian (UK);

Cameron, B. D. (2005). Trends in the usage of ISI bibliometric data: Uses, abuses, and implications. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 5(1), 105–125.

Casadevall, A., & Fang, F. C. (2014). Causes for the persistence of impact factor mania. mBio, 5(2).

Chalmers, I., Essali, A., Rezk, E., & Crowe, S. (2012). Is academia meeting the needs of non-academic users of the results of research? Health in the Occupied Palestinian Territory 2012 (Conference Abstract). Retrieved from

Chorus, C., & Waltman, L. (2016). A large-scale analysis of impact factor biased journal self-citations. PLoS ONE, 11(8), e0161021.

Crotty, D. (2018, December 6). Why society and not-for-profit journals are worth preserving: Better economic and continuing value for the community. Retrieved from Scholarly Kitchen:

DePellegrin, T. A., & Johnston, M. (2015). Editorial: An arbitrary line in the sand: Rising scientists confront the impact factor. Genetics, 201, 811-813.

Donovan, C. (2008). The Australian Research Quality Framework: A live experiment in capturing the social, economic, environmental, and cultural returns of publicly funded research. New Directions for Evaluation, 118, 47–60.

Evans, T. M., Bira, L., Gastelum, J. B., Weiss, L. T., & Vanderford, N. L. (2018). Evidence for a mental health crisis in graduate education. Nature Biotechnology, 36(3), 282–284.

Franzoni, C., Scellato, G., & Stephan, P. (2011). Science policy. Changing incentives to publish. Science, 333, 702–703.

Gordin, M. D. (2015). Absolute English. Aeon Magazine. Retrieved from

Hicks, D., Wouters, P., Waltman, L., de Rijcke, S., & Rafols, I. (2015). Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature, 520(7548), 429–431.

Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2016). Why most clinical research is not useful. PLoS Medicine, 13(6), e1002049.

Laakso, M., Welling, P., Bukvova, H., Nyman, L., Björk, B.-C., & Hedlund, T. (2011). The development of open access journal publishing from 1993 to 2009. PLoS ONE, 6(6), e20961.

Lages, C. R., Pfajfar, G., & Shosham, A. (2015). Challenges in conducting and publishing research on the Middle East and Africa in leading journals. International Marketing Review, 32(1), 52 – 77.

Lariviere, V., Kiermer, V. J., MacCallum, C., McNutt, M., Patterson, M., Pulverer, B., … Curry, S. (2016, September 11). A simple proposal for the publication of journal citation distributions. bioRxiv.

Lehmann, S., Jackson, A. D., & Lautrup, B. E. (2006). Measures for measures. Nature, 444, 1003–1004.

MacDonald, A., & Eva, N. (2018, February 26). It’s time to stand up to the academic publishing industry. Retrieved from University Affairs/Affaires Universitaire:

Moriarty, P. (2016, March 14). Addicted to the brand: The hypocrisy of a publishing academic. Impact of Social Sciences Blog. Retrieved from

Park, D. C. (2009). Publishing in the psychological sciences: Enhancing journal impact while decreasing author fatigue. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 36–37.

Ravenscroft, J., Liakata, M., Clare, A., & Duma, D. (2017). Measuring scientific impact beyond academia: An assessment of existing impact metrics and proposed improvements. PLoS ONE, 12(3), e0173152.

Rawlins, C. M. (2019). The ivory tower of academia and how mental health is often neglected. Future Science OA, 5(4), FSO392.

Reich, E. S. (2013). Science publishing: The golden club. Nature, 502, 291–293.

Reichel, J. (2017, September 18). Do it for science not for tenure. NatureJobs Blog. Retrieved from

Ryan, J. C., & Daly, T. M. (2019). Barriers to innovation and knowledge generation: The challenges of conducting business and social research in an emerging country context. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 4, 47-54.

Schmid, S. L. (2013, September 3). Beyond CVs and impact factors: An employer’s manifesto. [Perspective]. Science, doi:10.1126/science.caredit.a1300186.

Sekercioğlu, C. H. (2013). Citation opportunity cost of the high impact factor obsession. Current Biology, 23, R701–R702.

Taylor, S. E. (2009). Publishing in scientific journals: We’re not just talking to ourselves any more. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 38–39.

Tijdink, J. K., Vergouwen, A. C. M., & Smulders, Y. M. (2013). Publication pressure and burn out among Dutch medical professors: A nationwide survey. PLoS ONE, 8(9), e73381.

van Noorden, R. (2017). The science that’s never been cited. Nature, 552, 162–164.

Woolston, C. (2018, May 2). Feeling overwhelmed by academia? You are not alone. Nature, 557, 129-131.

Young, N. S., Ioannidis, J. P., & Al-Ubaydli, O. (2008). Why current publication practices may distort science. PLoS Medicine, 5(10), e201.




How to Cite

Lambert, L., & Warren, M. A. (2019). Perspectives: Be brave, make a real impact: Why the MEJPP should be one of your top publishing choices. Middle East Journal of Positive Psychology, 5(1), 31–41. Retrieved from

Most read articles by the same author(s)

1 2 3 > >>