Affiliation:
1. Institute for Science in Society Radboud University Nijmegen The Netherlands
2. Journal of Zhejiang University‐Science Zhejiang University Hangzhou China
Abstract
AbstractJournal lists are instruments to categorize, compare, and assess research and scholarly publications. Our study investigates the remarkable proliferation of such journal lists in China, analyses their underlying values, quality criteria and ranking principles, and specifies how concerns specific to the Chinese research policy and publishing system inform these lists. Discouraged lists of “bad journals” reflect concerns over inferior research publications, but also the involved drain on public resources. Endorsed lists of “good journals” are based on criteria valued in research policy, reflecting the distinctive administrative logic of state‐led Chinese research and publishing policy, ascribing worth to scientific journals for its specific national and institutional needs. In this regard, the criteria used for journal list construction are contextual and reflect the challenges of public resource allocation in a market‐led publication system. Chinese journal lists therefore reflect research policy changes, such as a shift away from output‐dominated research evaluation, the specific concerns about research misconduct, and balancing national research needs against international standards, resulting in distinctly Chinese quality criteria. However, contrasting concerns and inaccuracies lead to contradictions in the “qualify” and “disqualify” binary logic and demonstrate inherent tensions and limitations in journal lists as policy tools.
Funder
China Scholarship Council
Subject
Library and Information Sciences,Information Systems and Management,Computer Networks and Communications,Information Systems
Reference64 articles.
1. Abalkina A.(2021 February 4).Guest post—Unethical practices in research and publishing: Evidence from Russia.https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2021/02/04/guest‐post‐unethical‐practices‐in‐research‐and‐publishing‐evidence‐from‐russia/?informz=1
2. Retraction of Predatory publishing in Scopus: evidence on cross-country differences lacks justification
3. The journal list and its use: motivation, perceptions, and reality
4. Association of Business Schools. (n.d.).Academic Journal Guide 2021.https://charteredabs.org/academic-journal-guide-2021/
5. Predatory journals and the breakdown of research cultures
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献