Send message to Author

Abstract

This paper examines how PhD students in Kazakhstan experience mandatory publication requirements introduced as part of national higher education reforms aimed at enhancing research quality and global competitiveness. Implemented within broader post-Soviet transformations and Kazakhstan’s integration into the Bologna Process, the policy requires PhD candidates to publish in Scopus- or Web of Science–indexed journals prior to degree conferral (Kuzhabekova, 2025). While designed to strengthen research capacity and increase international visibility, the reform reflects global trends associated with academic capitalism (Slaughter & Rhoades, 2004) and neoliberal university governance (Brown, 2015; Shore, 2008), in which measurable research outputs serve as key indicators of institutional performance.

Drawing on the conceptual frameworks of academic capitalism and neoliberal university logic, this study employs a descriptive qualitative design (Sandelowski, 2000). The analysis is based on semi-structured interviews with 22 PhD students from public universities across Kazakhstan. Interviews were conducted in Russian and Kazakh, transcribed verbatim, translated into English, and analyzed using descriptive content analysis to identify recurring patterns and shared experiences.

The findings indicate that although students acknowledge the aspirational goal of increasing international recognition, the publication requirement generates significant unintended consequences. Participants report intense pressure to produce measurable outputs, reflecting an audit culture that prioritizes performance metrics over intellectual development (Ball, 2012; Espeland & Sauder, 2007). Uneven access to experienced supervisors, research infrastructure, funding, and English-language support creates stratified conditions of competition, reinforcing patterns documented in other non-Western contexts (Lei, 2019; Kudaibergenova et al., 2022). In response, students adopt strategic and instrumental research behaviors, such as modifying research topics to align with perceived Western journal expectations and, in some cases, resorting to questionable publication practices (Hladchenko, 2023; Horta & Lee, 2023). Supervisory relationships shift from Humboldtian models of mentorship toward more transactional management of publication outputs (Ruegg, 2004). Tensions also emerge between global visibility and local scholarly relevance, particularly in the humanities, where research grounded in the Kazakh language and cultural contexts is perceived as less publishable internationally, reflecting broader hierarchies in global knowledge production (Mignolo, 2013).

By centering PhD students’ lived experiences, this study contributes to scholarship on doctoral education under neoliberal reform in post-Soviet and Global South contexts. It demonstrates how outcome-based policies reconfigure doctoral training by individualizing responsibility for systemic constraints and transforming intellectual inquiry into academic capital accumulation. The paper calls for more balanced doctoral policies that support equitable resource distribution and recognize diverse forms of scholarly contribution.

Send message to Author

Abstract

A liberal arts education that is at the core of American University of Central Asia (AUCA) is very unorthodox for high school graduates coming from Central Asian countries. The transition from high school to AUCA is often followed by a set of unique challenges that prevent students from successfully earning their university degrees. For these reasons, the Early Intervention Program (EIP) was launched at AUCA with the sole purpose of identifying these challenges and supporting struggling students through the university’s support services in a timely manner.

The EIP employs a set of tools including surveys to assess students’ performance during each semester, starting from Fall 2024. This paper will present some findings from the surveys. It gathers data both from the faculty’s perspective as well as from students' self-assessments and reports. Faculty members are asked to identify struggling students and indicate the reasons for flagging them as struggling. First-year students, on the other hand, are asked to report on the courses they find the most challenging, rate their academic performance and personal well-being.

The EIP revealed certain patterns in academic well-being, perceived challenges, and help-seeking behavior among first-year students that allowed university student support services to provide targeted academic support. According to the surveys, courses in academic major, English Composition as well as math-related courses were found to be the most challenging for first year students, suggesting that these areas may require additional support from student support services such as the Academic Advising Center (AAC), Writing and Academic Resource Center (WARC), counseling services, faculty advisors, and peer advisors. For instance, the AAC held 168 individual meetings with students flagged for academic concerns and helped each develop an Individual Plan for Academic Success (IPAS) in Fall 2025, while the WARC delivered 2,732 attended tutoring sessions, including writing consultations, Writing Fellows support, and group study sessions.

Our argument is that such a holistic approach to support first year students’ academic performance and their well- being throughout their educational journey can significantly enhance retention and graduation rates. Higher education institutions should develop strategies for early intervention and immediate, targeted support not only improve first-year students’ academic experience and well-being, but also guide them towards successful graduation.

Send message to Author

Abstract

The paper addresses the mass publication practices of scholars in Uzbekistan in predatory (fraudulent) journals. A significant proportion of the members of the editorial boards of these “journals” are also from Uzbekistan. Are the authorities fully aware of the consequences of the erosion of academic ethics among the scholarly and teaching community resulting from such practices? By being aware of the problem and turning a blind eye to it, the state—represented by its officials—effectively becomes complicit in such fraudulent activities.

Publications in predatory journals cause direct harm to the development of science in Uzbekistan and tarnish its international reputation.

The paper proposes a set of measures aimed at curbing the flow of publications by Uzbek scholars in predatory journals. It is necessary to:

- officially adopt Beall’s list as a primary reference for identifying predatory journals and establish a national list of “low-quality” or “non-academic” journals;

- conduct a comprehensive audit of the publications of Uzbek scholars;

- reassess the academic status of scholars in light of their publications in predatory journals; revoke previously granted bonuses and privileges awarded for articles published in such journals; prohibit counting such publications as valid scholarly output; and exclude membership in the editorial boards of predatory, fake, or hijacked journals from recognized academic achievements;

- treat participation in such journals as detrimental to the reputation of Uzbek scholars, and consider the profits derived from these activities as a form of fraud;

- compile a list of recognized international and national databases whose indexed journals (as well as monographs—especially substantial ones—book chapters, brochures, and presentations at international conferences) should be considered in dissertation defenses, academic evaluations, awards, and the allocation of benefits and allowances; establish a commission for journal evaluation and ranking;

- encourage national journals to seek inclusion in recognized international and national indexing databases;

- create an “Uzbek Science Citation Index” (UzSCI) and initiate cooperation with the Russian Science Citation Index (RSCI) to integrate these systems; further propose the creation of a CIS-wide bibliographic and abstract database, and subsequently, within the framework of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), an integrated Eurasian database (ESCI).

Send message to Authors

Abstract

This paper focuses on deans’ self-perceptions and faculty perspectives on leadership in Kazakhstani higher education. Amendments to the Law of Education (2018) in Kazakhstan formally granted universities greater authority over academic, financial, and managerial decision-making. These reforms have significantly reshaped the leadership role of deans, shifting them from a predominantly centralized and administratively controlled position to the one that combines academic leadership with managerial, entrepreneurial, and externally oriented responsibilities. Consequently, the leadership practices of deans have become increasingly managerial and complex (Patton, 2021; Seale & Cross, 2016). The focus of this research is 1) to investigate how deans conceptualize and practice leadership within their respective institutional settings; 2) to investigate the challenges they encounter as a result of the ongoing reforms and how they respond to them; 3) to identify similarities and differences in deans’ perceptions and practices and challenges across two institutions; and 4) to explore faculty perceptions of deans’ leadership approaches and culture in their organizations. The research context included two different Kazakhstani universities (public and private), which recently expanded their autonomy, with document analysis and interviews with deans and faculty as the two main data collection tools. The sampling includes 24 participants in total. The findings reveal that deans in both universities generally express optimism about governance reforms and report adopting more transformative and distributed leadership approaches. However, many also acknowledge the need to balance democratic practices with authoritarian decision-making in response to faculty resistance, administrative burdens, and resource constraints. Faculty perceptions diverge sharply by institutional type. In the public university, faculty largely describe leadership as democratic, inclusive, and supportive, emphasizing participation in decision-making and institutional stability. In contrast, faculty in the private university frequently characterize leadership as opaque, unfair, and insufficiently participatory, pointing to tensions between formal autonomy and internal governance practices. These contrasting perceptions suggest that, despite policy-level declarations of autonomy, its practical realization remains uneven, often formal rather than substantive.