Search for: All records

Abstract This study applies Harvey and Green’s (1993) model of quality to scholarly knowledge production. Although studies of quality in higher education have been commonplace for decades, there is a gap in understanding quality in terms of research production from stakeholders’ perspectives. This study begins to fill that gap through a qualitative interview study of quality in the knowledge production process. Stakeholders in all parts of the scholarly knowledge production process, from 17 countries, are included in the data sample. Analysis of interview data extends Harvey and Green’s (1993) model into the realm of knowledge production. Definitions and challenges of quality in producing scholarly knowledge are discussed. The findings indicate a rift between the institutional view of quality and the individual perceptions of quality, suggesting the need for institutional policies that respond to stakeholders’ perceptions of quality in scholarly knowledge production and celebrate, rather than erase, epistemic diversity. 

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.