Communalism and Internationalism: Publication Norms and Structures in International Social Science

This article presents a historical-sociological case-study that addresses the “enactment” of the ideals of communalism and internationalism in the social sciences. It focuses on the transformations in/of two journals, Isis and International Sociology, which deliberately attempt to enhance international social science. Our analyses of the publication practices in these journals point to the skewed global orientation in/of these journals, despite their outspoken internationalist ideals. Internationalization looks more like Americanization, when we compare the publication practices in international social science journals with their own ideal of balanced national representation

Communalism and Internationalism: Publication norms and structures in international social science

oai:ojs.pkp.sfu.ca:article/53This article present a historical-sociological case-study that addresses the “enactment” of the ideals of communalism and internationalism in the social sciences. It focuses on the transformations in/of two journals, Isis and International Sociology, which deliberately attempt to enhance international social science. Our analyses of the publication practices in these journals point to the skewed global orientation in/of these journals, despite their outspoken internationalist ideals. Internationalization looks more like Americanization, when we compare the publication practices in international social science journals with their own ideal of balanced national representation

Identifying publications in questionable journals in the context of performance-based research funding

In this article we discuss the five yearly screenings for publications in questionable journals which have been carried out in the context of the performance-based research funding model in Flanders, Belgium. The Flemish funding model expanded from 2010 onwards, with a comprehensive bibliographic database for research output in the social sciences and humanities. Along with an overview of the procedures followed during the screenings for articles in questionable journals submitted for inclusion in this database, we present a bibliographic analysis of the publications identified. First, we show how the yearly number of publications in questionable journals has evolved over the period 2003–2016. Second, we present a disciplinary classification of the identified journals. In the third part of the results section, three authorship characteristics are discussed: multi-authorship, the seniority–or experience level–of authors in general and of the first author in particular, and the relation of the disciplinary scope of the journal (cognitive classification) with the departmental affiliation of the authors (organizational classification). Our results regarding yearly rates of publications in questionable journals indicate that awareness of the risks of questionable journals does not lead to a turn away from open access in general. The number of publications in open access journals rises every year, while the number of publications in questionable journals decreases from 2012 onwards. We find further that both early career and more senior researchers publish in questionable journals. We show that the average proportion of senior authors contributing to publications in questionable journals is somewhat higher than that for publications in open access journals. In addition, this paper yields insight into the extent to which publications in questionable journals pose a threat to the public and political legitimacy of a performance-based research funding system of a western European region. We include concrete suggestions for those tasked with maintaining bibliographic databases and screening for publications in questionable journals

Predatory Open Access journals: A review of past screenings within the Flemish performance based research funding system (2014 – 2018)

From 2013 – 2014 onwards, our group (ECOOM - UAntwerpen) has been monitoring Predatory Open Access publication patterns in Flemish (Belgium) SSH scholarship. In light of the Flemish Performance Based Research Funding System, these screening exercises are conducted to assist university review boards with the decision-making processes concerning what is and what is not to be considered a peer reviewed periodical. Each year, the results of these monitoring exercises than, are published in as a report, and presented to the Authoritative Penal. In the introductory part of this essay, we will present a general background against which these yearly screenings emerged. Second, we will present the sources used and the methods deployed for the yearly screenings. Thereafter, we will shortly present the yearly results these exercises yielded. In the third section, we present a more comprehensive analysis of the results. We conclude with reflecting on the past exercises and the findings presented in this report, and discuss some implications for colleagues and scholars manoeuvring through the contemporary journal landscape

Predatory Open Access journals: A review of past screenings within the Flemish performance based research funding system (2014 – 2018)

From 2013 – 2014 onwards, our group (ECOOM - UAntwerpen) has been monitoring Predatory Open Access publication patterns in Flemish (Belgium) SSH scholarship. In light of the Flemish Performance Based Research Funding System, these screening exercises are conducted to assist university review boards with the decision-making processes concerning what is and what is not to be considered a peer reviewed periodical. Each year, the results of these monitoring exercises than, are published in as a report, and presented to the Authoritative Penal. In the introductory part of this essay, we will present a general background against which these yearly screenings emerged. Second, we will present the sources used and the methods deployed for the yearly screenings. Thereafter, we will shortly present the yearly results these exercises yielded. In the third section, we present a more comprehensive analysis of the results. We conclude with reflecting on the past exercises and the findings presented in this report, and discuss some implications for colleagues and scholars manoeuvring through the contemporary journal landscape

Predatory Open Access journals: A review of past screenings within the Flemish performance based research funding system (2014 – 2018)

From 2013 – 2014 onwards, our group (ECOOM - UAntwerpen) has been monitoring Predatory Open Access publication patterns in Flemish (Belgium) SSH scholarship. In light of the Flemish Performance Based Research Funding System, these screening exercises are conducted to assist university review boards with the decision-making processes concerning what is and what is not to be considered a peer reviewed periodical. Each year, the results of these monitoring exercises than, are published in as a report, and presented to the Authoritative Penal. In the introductory part of this essay, we will present a general background against which these yearly screenings emerged. Second, we will present the sources used and the methods deployed for the yearly screenings. Thereafter, we will shortly present the yearly results these exercises yielded. In the third section, we present a more comprehensive analysis of the results. We conclude with reflecting on the past exercises and the findings presented in this report, and discuss some implications for colleagues and scholars manoeuvring through the contemporary journal landscape

Joshua Eykens' Quick Files

The Quick Files feature was discontinued and it’s files were migrated into this Project on March 11, 2022. The file URL’s will still resolve properly, and the Quick Files logs are available in the Project’s Recent Activity