Trash journals in China

Lin, Shou-De; Zhan, Lijuan

doi:10.1087/20140208

Cited by 8 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The problems facing scholarly communication in China tend to be framed as relating to quality and transparency, rather than to cost and access (Ren and Montgomery 2015). Predatory 'pay to publish' operators and academic fraud and corruption are seen as particularly urgent problems that will need to be solved if China is to succeed in transforming its research and innovation sectors (Lin and Zhan 2014). The value proposition of Chinese open access journals thus centres around notions of quality, credibility and transparency, rather than public access: a key difference between China and other publishing markets.…”

Section: Case Study 1: Chinese Journals and Open Accessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding Open Knowledge in China: A Chinese Approach to Openness?

Montgomery

Ren

2018

Cultural Science Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper examines the development of open knowledge in China through two case studies: the development of Chinese open access (OA) journals, and national-level OA repositories. Open access and open knowledge are emerging as a site of both grass-roots activism, and top-down intervention in the practices of scholarship and scholarly publishing in China. Although the language, vision and strategies of the global open knowledge movement are undoubtedly present, so too are the messy realities of open access and open knowledge innovation in a local context. In attempting to position open access developments in China within a diverse and contested global landscape of open knowledge innovation we draw on Moore’s (2017) conception of open access as a boundary object: an object that is understood differently within individual communities but which maintains enough structure to be understood between communities (Moore 2017; Star and Griesemer 1989). Viewed as a boundary object, the concept of open knowledge is making it possible for China to engage with the global open knowledge movement, as a beneficiary of the innovation of others, and as an open knowledge innovator in its own right.

show abstract

Section: Case Study 1: Chinese Journals and Open Accessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding Open Knowledge in China: A Chinese Approach to Openness?

Montgomery

Ren

2018

Cultural Science Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…authors for publications in highly ranked Northern journals (Enago Academy, 2018). Research and scientific misconduct in China was once concerning (Cyranoski, 2018), as were local, Chinese-language journals for lower tier scholars (Lin and Zhan, 2014). More recently, China introduced new standards to mitigate low-quality publishing (Tao, 2020 (Montgomery and Ren, 2018).…”

Section: Other Southern Open Accessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bibliodiversity at the Centre: Decolonizing Open Access

Berger¹

2021

Development and Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The promise of open access for the global South has not been fully met. Publishing is dominated by Northern publishers, which disadvantages Southern authors through platform capitalism and open access models requiring article processing charges to publish. This article argues that through the employment of bibliodiversity — a sustainable, anticolonial ethos and practice developed in Latin America — the South can reclaim and decolonize open access and nurture scholarly communities. Self‐determination and locality are at the core of bibliodiversity which rejects the domination of international, English‐language journal publishing. As articulated by the Jussieu Call, wide‐ranging, scholarly‐community‐based, non‐profit and sustainable models for open access are integral to bibliodiversity, as is reform of research evaluation systems. Predatory publishing exploits open access and perpetuates the marginalization of Southern scholars. Predatory journals are often also conflated with legitimate Southern journals. The article concludes with a discussion of Southern open access initiatives, highlighting large‐scale infrastructure in Latin America and library‐based publishing in Africa, which express the true spirit of open access as a commons for knowledge as a public good.

show abstract

“…These initiatives are aimed at changing individual behaviour of researchers or at improving research organization evaluation policies, but the Chinese research publishing system itself has not attracted enough attention. Some scholars have researched problems in the journal licensing system (Lin, 2013a, 2013b; Lin & Zhan, 2014), shortages of journal administrative resources (He, Chen, & Shen, 2012; J. Xu & Wahls, 2012), or the initiatives to make journal peer review more effective (Lin, 2013a, 2013b; X. Zhang, 2012; Y. Zhang, Yuan, & Jiang, 2003). However, the Chinese publication is developing quickly and also national research policies are gone through significant modifications.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Chinese scientific publication system: Specific features, specific challenges

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

By introducing new policy initiatives, China is trying to change the evaluation of scientific research, shifting the focus from counting publication output to stressing high-quality research, with the objective of achieving excellent science. Against this background, the scientific publication system itself is important for safeguarding high-quality publications and highquality journals. However, the Chinese scientific publication system has some specificities and unique features, which also create particular challenges. This article describes the scientific publication system in China. It covers the Chinese ex-ante journal licensing examination, the triple ownership management structure and provides an overview of the editorial process of Chinese scientific journals. It analyses how difficulties in the Chinese scientific publication system relate to concerns over research quality and integrity. We conclude with an agenda of the crucial issues facing the current Chinese attempts to promote quality in scientific publications.

show abstract

Trash journals in China

Abstract: ABSTRACT. Over the last two decades, China has seen an enormous rise in the number

Cited by 8 publications

References 2 publications

Understanding Open Knowledge in China: A Chinese Approach to Openness?

Understanding Open Knowledge in China: A Chinese Approach to Openness?

Bibliodiversity at the Centre: Decolonizing Open Access

The Chinese scientific publication system: Specific features, specific challenges

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About