date: 2023-09-25T12:34:36Z
pdf:PDFVersion: 1.6
pdf:docinfo:title: Listing quality: Chinese journal lists in incoherent valuation regimes
xmp:CreatorTool: LuaLaTeX with hyperref package
access_permission:can_print_degraded: true
subject: DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scad052, Science and Public Policy, 00, 00, Published xx xxx xxx. 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.
pdfa:PDFVersion: A-3a
xmpMM:History:Action: converted
language: en-US
dc:format: application/pdf; version=1.6
pdf:docinfo:creator_tool: LuaLaTeX with hyperref package
access_permission:fill_in_form: true
xmpMM:History:When: 2023-09-14T19:45:34Z
pdf:encrypted: false
dc:title: Listing quality: Chinese journal lists in incoherent valuation regimes
modified: 2023-09-25T12:34:36Z
cp:subject: DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scad052, Science and Public Policy, 00, 00, Published xx xxx xxx. 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.
xmpMM:History:SoftwareAgent: Preflight
pdf:docinfo:subject: DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scad052, Science and Public Policy, 00, 00, Published xx xxx xxx. 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.
xmpMM:History:InstanceID: uuid:8cabc30b-2a43-4e06-a813-e14e30ad8dd0
pdf:docinfo:creator: Jing Wang
meta:author: Willem Halffman
trapped: Unknown
meta:creation-date: 2023-09-14T10:14:15Z
created: 2023-09-14T10:14:15Z
access_permission:extract_for_accessibility: true
Creation-Date: 2023-09-14T10:14:15Z
pdfaid:part: 3
Author: Willem Halffman
producer: LuaLaTeX; modified using iTextSharp 4.1.6 by 1T3XT
pdf:docinfo:producer: LuaLaTeX; modified using iTextSharp 4.1.6 by 1T3XT
pdf:unmappedUnicodeCharsPerPage: 0
dc:description: DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scad052, Science and Public Policy, 00, 00, Published xx xxx xxx. 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.
Keywords: "journal lists; valuation regimes; reactivity; epistemic cultures; Chinese science"
access_permission:modify_annotations: true
PDFVersion: 1.5
dc:creator: Willem Halffman
description: DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scad052, Science and Public Policy, 00, 00, Published xx xxx xxx. 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.
dcterms:created: 2023-09-14T10:14:15Z
Last-Modified: 2023-09-25T12:34:36Z
dcterms:modified: 2023-09-25T12:34:36Z
title: Listing quality: Chinese journal lists in incoherent valuation regimes
xmpMM:DocumentID: uuid:20541d75-9590-4590-a3ea-395fd1d7a333
Last-Save-Date: 2023-09-25T12:34:36Z
pdf:docinfo:keywords: "journal lists; valuation regimes; reactivity; epistemic cultures; Chinese science"
pdf:docinfo:modified: 2023-09-25T12:34:36Z
meta:save-date: 2023-09-25T12:34:36Z
pdf:docinfo:custom:PDFVersion: 1.5
Content-Type: application/pdf
X-Parsed-By: org.apache.tika.parser.DefaultParser
creator: Willem Halffman
pdfaid:conformance: A
dc:language: en-US
dc:subject: "journal lists; valuation regimes; reactivity; epistemic cultures; Chinese science"
access_permission:assemble_document: true
xmpTPg:NPages: 12
pdf:charsPerPage: 5457
access_permission:extract_content: true
access_permission:can_print: true
pdf:docinfo:trapped: Unknown
meta:keyword: "journal lists; valuation regimes; reactivity; epistemic cultures; Chinese science"
access_permission:can_modify: true
pdf:docinfo:created: 2023-09-14T10:14:15Z