Beyond quality metrics: defying journal rankings as the philosopher’s stone of mathematics education research

Andrade-Molina, Melissa; Montecino, Alex; Aguilar, Mario Sánchez

doi:10.1007/s10649-020-09932-9

Cited by 19 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We regularly get inquiries about the rejection rates of ESM. Although we do not think that such statistics or impact factors are good indicators of quality (Andrade-Molina, Montecino, & Aguilar, 2020 ), they may still be informative to readers (see Table 1 ).…”

Section: Some Statisticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Editorial

Bakker

Wagner

2021

Educ Stud Math

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Some Statisticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Editorial

Bakker

Wagner

2021

Educ Stud Math

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Prueba de ello son las investigaciones que abordan cuestiones de calidad en el área, poniendo la atención en diferentes aspectos que se entrecruzan en los procesos de publicación dentro de las revistas (ver Nivens & Otten, 2017;Toerner & Arzarello, 2012;Williams & Leatham, 2017). A la luz de estas discusiones, se han dado forma a diferentes rankings de revistas de la especialidad, como es el caso del ranking de revistas anglosajonas propuesto por la investigación de Williams y Leatham (2017); y el ranking de revistas iberoamericanas propuesto por la investigación de Andrade-Molina et al (2020). También es posible encontrar estudios, desde una posición más crítica, que problematizan la configuración de un espacio de segregación y exclusión en el proceso de producción y diseminación del conocimiento.…”

Section: Producción De Conocimiento: Una Cuestión De Estudiounclassified

Investigación y producción de conocimiento en educación matemática: una cuestión de mercado, poder y estética

Montecino

2021

REVIEM

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Este artículo pretende abrir una discusión sobre las condiciones que hacen posible ciertos entendimientos sobre qué es la investigación y la (re)producción de conocimiento dentro del área. A partir de una problematización de las redes discursivas en la que circulan formas de ser y actuar deseados se desempaca formas de conducir las prácticas investigativas y el devenir del investigador. Investigando la investigación, como estrategia analítica, este artículo busca desplazar el foco de atención más allá de una mirada positivista o neopositivista de la producción del conocimiento, con ello posicionar la mirada en la lógica de mercado y su dinámica, el poder, el autor y la estética. Ergo, se muestra que las normas que delinean la investigación y la producción de conocimiento no tienen autoridad por sí mismas, más bien estas se configuran como parte de redes de poder. Por otra parte, se acentúa el hecho que la investigación debe abrirnos posibilidades de acción y reacción, ya sea estas incomodas o gratas.

show abstract

“…Journals are evaluated critically using a range of metrics, mostly citation-based, that purportedly indicate the impact a journal has on the research community and, by extension, permit the ranking of journals based on their relative influence (e.g., Zhang et al 2019, Dunnigan 2020. Although there are numerous critics of citation analysis in general MacRoberts 2010, 2018) and in particular the notion that the quality of a paper may be judged by the journal in which it appears (Seglen 1992, 1997, Zhang et al 2017, Bankovsky 2019, Andrade-Molina et al 2020, the perceived status of a journal may determine its viability through its influence on researchers' decisions on whether or not to submit, review or serve on editorial boards (Bajo et al 2020).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Century of Peer-reviewed Australian Zoological Research: Prominent Authors, Themes and Usage of Papers from Australian Zoologist

Calver

Crawford

Fletcher

2021

Australian Zoologist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The peer-reviewed Australian Zoologist, first published in 1914, is Australia’s longest-lived zoological journal. Its publication history shows changes in the zoological topics covered over the last 100 years, including the animals studied, characteristics of the authors and readership, and the influence of the databases used to study the journal on information retrieval. Searches in different databases retrieved different numbers of papers; Scopus (including secondary documents not in the database but cited by documents that are in the database) was the most comprehensive. Although authors from 22 countries contributed papers over the history of the Australian Zoologist, over 90% of authors were Australian. Most international authors came from the USA, the UK, Canada and New Zealand. Approximately two-thirds of authors citing Australian Zoologist were Australian-based, but there were still 10 or more authors from each of thirty-four other countries citing Australian Zoologist: while regional, the journal has an international profile. Highly cited papers in Australian Zoologist had high mean Scopus percentile ranks (20th century 83.9, 21st century 73.7), indicating that in comparison to their fields globally, these papers are used well above average. Considering all papers published in Australian Zoologist, over time the proportion of papers in the categories ‘Biodiversity & Conservation’ and ‘Environmental Sciences & Ecology’ rose significantly, reflecting the increased research in these areas. Between 2013 and 2019, when relevant metrics are available in Scopus, Australian Zoologist declined in no metric measured while improving significantly in CiteScore, Highest Percentile, and % Cited, indicating increasing references to Australian Zoologist papers by other peer-reviewed publications. Between 2010 and 2019, 2.1% of Australian Zoologist papers were ranked within the top 10% in their fields globally, based on citation impact. Authors considering publishing in Australian Zoologist should note that longer papers are acceptable, colour imagery (including photographs) is encouraged, the journal is visible in major databases, it is cited internationally and there are no page charges.

show abstract

Beyond quality metrics: defying journal rankings as the philosopher’s stone of mathematics education research

Cited by 19 publications

References 13 publications

Editorial

Editorial

Investigación y producción de conocimiento en educación matemática: una cuestión de mercado, poder y estética

A Century of Peer-reviewed Australian Zoological Research: Prominent Authors, Themes and Usage of Papers from Australian Zoologist

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About