scholarly journals Journal Evaluation Systems: Evolution and Practices in China’s Social Sciences

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ying HUANG ◽  
Ruinan LI ◽  
Xiaoting LIU ◽  
Lin Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Comprehensive Evaluation ◽  
Professional Associations ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Healthy Development ◽  
Evaluation Systems ◽  
Global Innovation ◽  
Grant Applications ◽  
Social Science Journal ◽  
Journal Evaluation

Journal evaluation systems play an important role in academic evaluation. With many papers published in high-ranking journals, one can expect greater success in grant applications, higher internal resource allocations, faster promotions, and access to many other trappings of academic life. The expansion of China’s research and development systems and its rise as a significant contributor to global innovation have seen journal evaluation become a significant and much-scrutinized issue. Thus, in this chapter, we offer a comprehensive analysis of the current state-of-the-art in journal evaluation systems and practices. The review begins with a history of social science journal evaluation in China. We then systematically compare the two most influential journal lists of the present day: the Chinese Social Sciences Citation Index (CSSCI) and the “Attraction, Management and Influence” Comprehensive Evaluation Report (AMI). A small selection of influential lists produced by universities, research institutions, and professional associations are also discussed. The material presented provides deep insights into how social sciences research in China is assessed. These findings may also reveal some information about the journal evaluation activities of other countries. Overall, our aim is to make a valuable contribution to the theory and practice of journal evaluation so as to promote the sustainable and healthy development of journal management and evaluation systems both in China and abroad.

scholarly journals A comprehensive analysis of the journal evaluation system in China

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ying HUANG ◽  
Ruinan LI ◽  
Lin Zhang ◽  
Gunnar Sivertsen
Keyword(s):  
Evaluation System ◽  
Comprehensive Evaluation ◽  
Innovation System ◽  
Professional Associations ◽  
Research Assessment ◽  
Academic Journal ◽  
Evaluation Systems ◽  
Research And Innovation ◽  
Global Science ◽  
Journal Evaluation

Journal evaluation systems are important in science because they focus on the quality of how new results are critically reviewed and published. They are also important because the prestige and scientific impact of journals is given attention in research assessment and in career and funding systems. Journal evaluation has become increasingly important in China with the expansion of the country’s research and innovation system and its rise as a major contributor to global science. In this paper, we first describe the history and background for journal evaluation in China. Then, we systematically introduce and compare the most influential journal lists and indexing services in China. These are: the Chinese Science Citation Database (CSCD); the journal partition table (JPT); the AMI Comprehensive Evaluation Report (AMI); the Chinese STM Citation Report (CJCR); the “A Guide to the Core Journals of China” (GCJC); the Chinese Social Sciences Citation Index (CSSCI); and the World Academic Journal Clout Index (WAJCI). Some other lists published by government agencies, professional associations, and universities are briefly introduced as well. Thereby, the tradition and landscape of the journal evaluation system in China is comprehensively covered. Methods and practices are closely described and sometimes compared to how other countries assess and rank journals.

scholarly journals A comprehensive analysis of the journal evaluation system in China

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-27
Author(s):  
Ying Huang ◽  
Ruinan Li ◽  
Lin Zhang ◽  
Gunnar Sivertsen
Keyword(s):  
Evaluation System ◽  
Comprehensive Evaluation ◽  
Journal Citation Report ◽  
Professional Associations ◽  
Research Assessment ◽  
Academic Journal ◽  
Research And Innovation ◽  
Global Innovation ◽  
Journal Evaluation ◽  
Assessment Performance

Journal evaluation systems reflect how new insights are critically reviewed and published, and the prestige and impact of a discipline’s journals is a key metric in many research assessment, performance evaluation, and funding systems. With the expansion of China’s research and innovation systems and its rise as a major contributor to global innovation, journal evaluation has become an especially important issue. In this paper, we first describe the history and background of journal evaluation in China and then systematically introduce and compare the most currently influential journal lists and indexing services. These are: the Chinese Science Citation Database (CSCD), the Journal Partition Table (JPT), the AMI Comprehensive Evaluation Report (AMI), the Chinese S&T Journal Citation Report (CJCR), “A Guide to the Core Journals of China” (GCJC), the Chinese Social Sciences Citation Index (CSSCI), and the World Academic Journal Clout Index (WAJCI). Some other influential lists produced by government agencies, professional associations, and universities are also briefly introduced. Through the lens of these systems, we provide comprehensive coverage of the tradition and landscape of the journal evaluation system in China and the methods and practices of journal evaluation in China with some comparisons to how other countries assess and rank journals.

Critical self-reflection: A performative act 批判的自己内省 ―パフォーマティヴな実践―

2010 ◽  
Vol 34 (4) ◽  
pp. 49
Author(s):  
Misako Tajima
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Secondary School ◽  
School Teacher ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
English Learner ◽  
Academic Journal ◽  
Self Reflection ◽  
Academic Fields ◽  
Global Spread ◽  
The Relationship

Autobiographic and narrative research has recently grown in stature in the field of social sciences. Inspired by Asian TESOL researchers’ critical analyses of self-stories, this paper attempts to reflect upon the author’s personal history in relation to English and discuss ways in which she can position herself as both an English learner and a non-native English speaker (NNES) teacher. The self-reflection and discussion is followed by an argument for performativity, a notion drawing on poststructuralism to understand language itself and the global spread of English. This paper, itself a performative act conducted by a secondary school teacher, exemplifies the concept. The non-academic schoolteacher’s very act of writing in an academic journal aims to contribute to questioning assumptions underlying the relationship between theory and practice and to reconstituting the academic fields of applied linguistics and TESOL. 近年、自伝的かつ語りを含む研究が社会科学の分野で活発になってきている。本稿では、TESOLを専門とする、あるアジア人研究者が彼女たち自身の物語を素材として実施した批判的分析に着想を得て、英語にまつわる自己の歴史を振り返り、英語学習者としての、またNNESの英語教師としてのポジショナリティをどこに位置づけるのかという問題について議論する。さらに、この批判的自己内省を経て、言語そのもの、あるいは英語という言語の地球規模的広がりを理解するために、ポスト構造主義の概念であるパフォーマティヴィティについて検証する。なお、本稿これ自体がある高校教師によるパフォーマティヴな実践であることに言及しておきたい。研究者ではなく、一高校教師が学術雑誌に投稿することを通じ、理論と実践の関係性の背後にある前提に疑問を投げかけ、その結果、応用言語学やTESOLという学問分野の再構築に貢献できることを希望している。

scholarly journals Measuring Disability Inclusion Performance in Cities Using Disability Inclusion Evaluation Tool (DIETool)

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 1378 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nataša Rebernik ◽  
Marek Szajczyk ◽  
Alfonso Bahillo ◽  
Barbara Goličnik Marušić
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
The Political ◽  
Sustainable Cities ◽  
Evaluation Tool ◽  
Sustainable City ◽  
Evaluation Systems ◽  
European Cities ◽  
Technical Developments

Cities are exposed to a growing complexity, diversity and rapid socio-technical developments. One of the greatest challenges is as of how to become fully inclusive to fit the needs of all their citizens, including those with disabilities. Inclusive city, both in theory and practice, still lacks attention. Even in the context of ambitious contemporary concepts, such as smart and sustainable city, the question remains: Do smart and sustainable cities consider inclusiveness of all their inhabitants? Among numerous evaluation systems that measure city’s smartness, sustainability or quality of life, those tackling inclusion are very rare. Specifically, disability inclusion is hardly covered. This may be one of the reasons why cities struggle with applying disability inclusion to practice in a holistic and integrative way. This paper proposes a Disability Inclusion Evaluation Tool (DIETool) and Disability Inclusion Performance Index (DIPI), designed to guide cities through a maze of accessibility and disability inclusion related requirements set within the political, legislative and standardization frameworks. The testing in two European cities shows that the tool is beneficial for providing diagnosis as to how disability friendly a city is, and as such offers an opportunity for designing informed corrective measures towards disability inclusive city design.

scholarly journals Relevance of financial reporting quality - Theory and practice in Vietnamese enterprises

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (Q2) ◽  
pp. 119-128
Author(s):  
Thuan Quoc Pham
Keyword(s):  
Conceptual Framework ◽  
Financial Reporting ◽  
Accounting Standards ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Professional Associations ◽  
Financial Statements ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Financial Information ◽  
Financial Reporting Quality

Financial reporting quality is one the most interesting topics which draw a great deal of attention to researchers and scientists in the field of accounting (Céline Michailesco, 2010). In the review of research on financial information from 1980 to 2016, Pham (2016) found that characteristics of useful financial information are relatively diverse with as many as 15 attributes being identified. In addition, he also found that all research in any period has employed the characteristics published by professional associations such as American Institute of Accountants, Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) and the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB as theoretical basis. Research on the quality of financial information is diverse yet have many things in common, above all is the Relevance characteristic which considered to be the basic qualitative component of the quality of financial information in financial statements. Conceptual Framework officially issued by FASB & IASB in 2010 (FASB & IASB 2010) has further confirmed Relevance is the basic quality component of financial information. Compared with previous announcements, there has been a considerable change in the criteria and attributes used to evaluate the appropriateness of Relevance characteristic of financial information in financial statements. This study aims at confirming the importance of the Relevance component in evaluating the quality of financial information, clarifyingg the characteristics of Relevance measurement before and after Conceptual Framework 2010 and constructing relevant scales as well as measuring the qualitative characteristic of Relevance among enterprises in Vietnam.

scholarly journals Are book publications disappearing from scholarly communication in the social sciences and humanities?

2018 ◽  
Vol 70 (6) ◽  
pp. 592-607 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tim C.E. Engels ◽  
Andreja Istenič Starčič ◽  
Emanuel Kulczycki ◽  
Janne Pölönen ◽  
Gunnar Sivertsen
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Evaluation System ◽  
Research Evaluation ◽  
Book Publishing ◽  
Scholarly Book ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Evaluation Systems ◽  
Social Sciences And Humanities ◽  
The Social ◽  
Comprehensive Coverage

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to analyze the evolution in terms of shares of scholarly book publications in the social sciences and humanities (SSH) in five European countries, i.e. Flanders (Belgium), Finland, Norway, Poland and Slovenia. In addition to aggregate results for the whole of the social sciences and the humanities, the authors focus on two well-established fields, namely, economics & business and history. Design/methodology/approach Comprehensive coverage databases of SSH scholarly output have been set up in Flanders (VABB-SHW), Finland (VIRTA), Norway (NSI), Poland (PBN) and Slovenia (COBISS). These systems allow to trace the shares of monographs and book chapters among the total volume of scholarly publications in each of these countries. Findings As expected, the shares of scholarly monographs and book chapters in the humanities and in the social sciences differ considerably between fields of science and between the five countries studied. In economics & business and in history, the results show similar field-based variations as well as country variations. Most year-to-year and overall variation is rather limited. The data presented illustrate that book publishing is not disappearing from an SSH. Research limitations/implications The results presented in this paper illustrate that the polish scholarly evaluation system has influenced scholarly publication patterns considerably, while in the other countries the variations are manifested only slightly. The authors conclude that generalizations like “performance-based research funding systems (PRFS) are bad for book publishing” are flawed. Research evaluation systems need to take book publishing fully into account because of the crucial epistemic and social roles it serves in an SSH. Originality/value The authors present data on monographs and book chapters from five comprehensive coverage databases in Europe and analyze the data in view of the debates regarding the perceived detrimental effects of research evaluation systems on scholarly book publishing. The authors show that there is little reason to suspect a dramatic decline of scholarly book publishing in an SSH.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document