skip to main content

Attention:

The NSF Public Access Repository (NSF-PAR) system and access will be unavailable from 5:00 PM ET until 11:00 PM ET on Friday, June 21 due to maintenance. We apologize for the inconvenience.


Title: A qualitative content analysis of watchlists vs safelists: How do they address the issue of predatory publishing?
Predatory journals and publishers are a growing concern in the scholarly publishing arena. As one type of attempt to address this increasingly important issue, numerous individuals, associations, and companies have begun curating journal watchlists or journal safelists. This study uses a qualitative content analysis to explore the inclusion/exclusion criteria stated by scholarly publishing journal watchlists and safelists to better understand the content of these lists, as well as the larger controversies that continue to surround the phenomenon that has come to be known as predatory publishing. Four watchlists and ten safelists were analyzed through an examination of their published mission statements and inclusion/exclusion criteria. Notable differences that emerged include the remaining influence of librarian Jeffrey Beall in the watchlists, and the explicit disavowal of his methods for the safelists, along with a growing recognition that the “list” approach may not fully address systemic aspects of predatory publishing that go beyond the individual author's ethical decision-making agency.  more » « less
Award ID(s):
1926348
NSF-PAR ID:
10196684
Author(s) / Creator(s):
; ; ; ; ;
Date Published:
Journal Name:
Journal of academic librarianship
Volume:
46
Issue:
6
ISSN:
0099-1333
Page Range / eLocation ID:
1-10
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. Researchers, evaluators and designers from an array of academic disciplines and industry sectors are turning to participatory approaches as they seek to understand and address complex social problems. We refer to participatory approaches that collaboratively engage/ partner with stakeholders in knowledge creation/problem solving for action/social change outcomes as collaborative change research, evaluation and design (CCRED). We further frame CCRED practitioners by their desire to move beyond knowledge creation for its own sake to implementation of new knowledge as a tool for social change. In March and May of 2018, we conducted a literature search of multiple discipline-specific databases seeking collaborative, change-oriented scholarly publications. The search was limited to include peerreviewed journal articles, with English language abstracts available, published in the last five years. The search resulted in 526 citations, 236 of which met inclusion criteria. Though the search was limited to English abstracts, all major geographic regions (North America, Europe, Latin America/Caribbean, APAC, Africa and the Middle East) were represented within the results, although many articles did not state a specific region. Of those identified, most studies were located in North America, with the Middle East having only one identified study. We followed a qualitative thematic synthesis process to examine the abstracts of peer-reviewed articles to identify practices that transcend individual disciplines, sectors and contexts to achieve collaborative change. We surveyed the terminology used to describe CCRED, setting, content/topic of study, type of collaboration, and related benefits/outcomes in order to discern the words used to designate collaboration, the frameworks, tools and methods employed, and the presence of action, evaluation or outcomes. Forty-three percent of the reviewed articles fell broadly within the social sciences, followed by 26 percent in education and 25 percent in health/medicine. In terms of participants and/ or collaborators in the articles reviewed, the vast majority of the 236 articles (86%) described participants, that is, those who the research was about or from whom data was collected. In contrast to participants, partners/collaborators (n=32; 14%) were individuals or groups who participated in the design or implementation of the collaborative change effort described. In terms of the goal for collaboration and/or for doing the work, the most frequently used terminology related to some aspect of engagement and empowerment. Common descriptors for the work itself were ‘social change’ (n=74; 31%), ‘action’ (n=33; 14%), ‘collaborative or participatory research/practice’ (n=13; 6%), ‘transformation’ (n=13; 6%) and ‘community engagement’ (n=10; 4%). Of the 236 articles that mentioned a specific framework or approach, the three most common were some variation of Participatory Action Research (n=30; 50%), Action Research (n=40; 16.9%) or Community-Based Participatory Research (n=17; 7.2%). Approximately a third of the 236 articles did not mention a specific method or tool in the abstract. The most commonly cited method/tool (n=30; 12.7%) was some variation of an arts-based method followed by interviews (n=18; 7.6%), case study (n=16; 6.7%), or an ethnographic-related method (n=14; 5.9%). While some articles implied action or change, only 14 of the 236 articles (6%) stated a specific action or outcome. Most often, the changes described were: the creation or modification of a model, method, process, framework or protocol (n=9; 4%), quality improvement, policy change and social change (n=8; 3%), or modifications to education/training methods and materials (n=5; 2%). The infrequent use of collaboration as a descriptor of partner engagement, coupled with few reported findings of measurable change, raises questions about the nature of CCRED. It appears that conducting CCRED is as complex an undertaking as the problems that the work is attempting to address. 
    more » « less
  2. Abstract Background

    Over the past decade, there has been a shift in science, technology, engineering and math education, especially in engineering, towards a competency‐based pedagogy. Competency‐based learning (CBL) is an outcome‐based, student‐centered form of instruction where students progress to more advanced work upon mastering the necessary prerequisite content and skills. Many articles have been published on the implementation of CBL in engineering higher education; however, the literature lacks a systematic review that summarizes prior work to inform both future research and practice.

    Purpose

    The purpose of this review is to integrate previous literature as well as identify gaps in competency‐based engineering higher education research. It summarizes the different approaches for implementing CBL, the effects of the pedagogy on student outcomes, tools to enhance its effectiveness, and assessment strategies. In addition, suggestions and recommendations for future research are provided.

    Method

    Engineering education articles were obtained from several EBSCO educational databases. The search was limited to articles published from 2005‐2015, and inclusion criteria consisted of peer‐reviewed journal articles that address the use of CBL in engineering higher education. Articles were then classified into several categories, summarized, and evaluated.

    Conclusions

    Theoretical and applied perspectives are provided that address both the theoretical basis for the effectiveness of CBL and practical aspects of implementing successful CBL instruction in engineering education. There are gaps in the literature regarding how CBL programs should be structured and assessed. Future research directions include empirical quantitative evaluation of CBL's pedagogical effectiveness and the use of CBL for teaching professional skills.

     
    more » « less
  3. There are a variety of urgent calls for institutional initiatives and actions to transform engineering education. For a transformational change to occur, the initiatives must alter the culture of the institutions (Eckel, Hill, and Green, 1998). In this work in progress, we detail the methods used to conduct a scoping literature review (ScR) concerning the current state of the literature surrounding institutional culture and transformational change in engineering education at institutions of higher learning in the United States. As institutional culture and transformational change are currently underexplored topics in the engineering education literature, we investigated the larger body of computer science and engineering literature in the United States. Once completed, this study aims to reveal the current trends, theories, and potential gaps in the literature regarding these topics. Arksey and O’Malley’s methodology for conducting scoping reviews informed the development of our scoping review protocol, which similarly includes five stages: (1) identify the research questions, (2) identify relevant studies, (3) select relevant studies, (4) chart the data, and (5) collate, summarize, and report results (Arksey and O’Malley, 2005). University librarians who specialize in conducting systematic reviews aided in the refinement of this protocol. From the research question and aim of the study, three main inclusion criteria were created: (1) the literature must discuss both organizational culture and transformational change, (2) discussion of transformational change must describe the institution where the change happened, and (3) the literature must emphasize the agents of transformational change. Additional inclusion and exclusion criteria were created in collaboration with both the librarians and reviewers. These criteria guided the search for existing literature in the following online databases: Elsevier (Engineering Village – Compendex and Engineering Village – INSPEC), ProQuest (ERIC and Education Database), Scopus, and Web of Science. These six databases were selected as they often include publications relevant to the field of engineering education. After the search was conducted, the inclusion and exclusion criteria were turned into questions to inform a three-step screening process (title, abstract, and full text) used by reviewers to determine whether a publication was eligible for the study. Reviewers were assigned to review papers through Covidence, a cloud-based systematic literature review management platform. There are currently two primary reviewers and a third additional reviewer to resolve any conflicts or disagreements if they should arise. Before each review cycle, the inclusion and exclusion criteria are revisited, revised, and agreed upon by the three reviewers. This screening process is performed iteratively, allowing for critical reflection at each stage to drive the resulting findings by the reviewers in consultation with content matter experts. We are currently conducting our first round of screening in the study selection (third stage) of the scoping review protocol. After the removal of duplicates, 999 publications were found by searching in the six selected databases. This number is expected to be further reduced with each step of the screening process. When this scoping review is complete, the resulting publication will contain an analysis of the literature and synthesis of our findings, and present the prominent themes, theories, and potential gaps in the literature. This publication is expected to unite disparate lines of research on institutional culture and transformational change, challenge the assumptions in the field, and change the way engineering education views transformational change. 
    more » « less
  4. Abstract

    Young researchers are often excluded from the scholarly processes of peer‐review and publication, which are cornerstones of scholarly work. TheJournal of Emerging Investigatorsis an open access journal dedicated to publishing the research of middle and high school students. We surveyed student authors before and after they participated in the peer‐review and publication process of their scientific articles. Following peer‐review and publication, students report gains in their confidence and self‐efficacy in science, and increased feelings of identity and belonging in science. Our findings demonstrate that even the youngest scholars are capable of participating in the publication process, and our data suggest that participation in the process has positive outcomes.

     
    more » « less
  5. Background Home health aides (HHAs) provide necessary hands-on care to older adults and those with chronic conditions in their homes. Despite their integral role, HHAs experience numerous challenges in their work, including their ability to communicate with other health care professionals about patient care while caring for patients and access to educational resources. Although technological interventions have the potential to address these challenges, little is known about the technological landscape and existing technology-based interventions designed for and used by this workforce. Objective We conducted a scoping review of the scientific literature to identify existing studies that have described, designed, deployed, or tested technology-based tools and apps intended for use by HHAs to care for patients at home. To complement our literature review, we conducted a landscape analysis of existing mobile apps intended for HHAs providing in-home care. Methods We searched the following databases from their inception to October 2020: Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Cochrane Library, and CINAHL (EBSCO). A total of 3 researchers screened the yield using prespecified inclusion and exclusion criteria. In addition, 4 researchers independently reviewed these articles, and a fifth researcher arbitrated when needed. Among studies that met the inclusion criteria, data were extracted and summarized narratively. An analysis of mobile health apps designed for HHAs was performed using a predefined set of terms to search Google Play and Apple App stores. Overall, 2 researchers independently screened the resulting apps, and those that met the inclusion criteria were categorized according to their intended purpose and functionality. Results Of the 8643 studies retrieved, 182 (2.11%) underwent full-text review, and 4.9% (9/182) met our inclusion criteria. Approximately half (4/9, 44%) of the studies were descriptive in nature, proposing technology-based systems (eg, web portals and dashboards) or prototypes without a technical or user-based evaluation of the technology. In most (7/9, 78%) papers, HHAs were just one of several users and not the sole or primary intended users of the technology. Our review of mobile apps yielded 166 Android and iOS apps, of which 48 (29%) met the inclusion criteria. These apps provided HHAs with one or more of the following functions: electronic visit verification (29/48, 60%), clocking in and out (23/48, 48%), documentation (22/48, 46%), task checklist (19/48, 40%), communication between HHA and agency (14/48, 29%), patient information (6/48, 13%), resources (5/48, 10%), and communication between HHA and patients (4/48, 8%). Of the 48 apps, 25 (52%) performed monitoring functions, 4 (8%) performed supporting functions, and 19 (40%) performed both. Conclusions A limited number of studies and mobile apps have been designed to support HHAs in their work. Further research and rigorous evaluation of technology-based tools are needed to assess their impact on the work HHAs provide in patient’s homes. 
    more » « less