Listing quality: Chinese journal lists in incoherent valuation regimes | Science and Public Policy | Oxford Academic

peter.suber's bookmarks 2023-09-23


Abstract:  Lists of endorsed and discouraged scholarly publications recently emerged as an important transition in Chinese journal evaluation. Among the targeted users of these lists are researchers, who are to avoid publishing in discouraged journals and focus efforts on endorsed journals. However, it is unclear how these lists affect researchers’ valuations when choosing publication outlets. This explorative study investigates the reception of such journal lists in Chinese scientists’ research practices. Our findings suggest that three logics interact in respondents’ journal valuations: institutional evaluation regimes, differing epistemic cultures, and the influence of the commercial publishing industry. The reactive effects of both endorsed and discouraged journal lists appear to differ with the ranking status of universities, the seniority of scholars, and research fields. Apart from the new institutional evaluation regimes in this interplay, there appear to be more predominant factors than journal lists that inform publishing choices: quantitative indicators, publishers’ branding, epistemic cultures, and editorial procedures and publishing models.



From feeds:

Open Access Tracking Project (OATP) » peter.suber's bookmarks

Tags: oa.quality oa.china oa.journals oa.incentives oa.rankings oa.disciplines oa.practices oa.prestige oa.culture

Date tagged:

09/23/2023, 15:08

Date published:

09/23/2023, 11:08