The issue of “predatory” publishing and the scholarly value of journals that claim to operate within an academic framework, namely, by using peer review and editorial…
The issue of “predatory” publishing and the scholarly value of journals that claim to operate within an academic framework, namely, by using peer review and editorial quality control, but do not, while attempting to extract open access (OA) or other publication-related fees, is an extremely important topic that affects academics around the globe. Until 2017, global academia relied on two now-defunct Jeffrey Beall “predatory” OA publishing blacklists to select their choice of publishing venue. This paper aims to explore how media has played a role in spinning public impressions about this issue.
The authors focus on a 2017 New York Times article by Gina Kolata, on a selected number of peer reviewed published papers on the topic of “predatory” publications and on an editorial by the Editor-in-Chief of REM, a SciELO- and Scopus-indexed OA journal.
The Kolata article offers biased, inaccurate and potentially misleading information about the state of “predatory” publishing: it relies heavily on the assumption that the now-defunct Beall blacklists were accurate when in fact they are not; it relies on a paper published in a non-predatory (i.e., non-Beall-listed) non-OA journal that claimed incorrectly the existence of financial rewards by faculty members of a Canadian business school from “predatory” publications; it praised a sting operation that used methods of deception and falsification to achieve its conclusions. The authors show how misleading information by the New York Times was transposed downstream via the REM editorial.
Education of academics.
The purpose of this paper is to investigate the beliefs of undergraduate business students studying in Canada and partners in China about the quality of the program; what…
The purpose of this paper is to investigate the beliefs of undergraduate business students studying in Canada and partners in China about the quality of the program; what they consider effective signals of quality; and their willingness to pay to improve the quality.
A survey was designed and distributed to 481 students in the transnational program during the 2009 and 2011 academic years. Statistical tests were conducted to examine mean differences in the perception of quality, different signals of quality and willingness to pay to improve quality.
The findings of the study indicate that Canadian University and Chinese partner students, mostly in their final years of study, have similar beliefs about the quality of the program. They consider the program as good quality but not top rated. Chinese partners' students in their earlier years of study have a lower perception of quality but this gets better as they progress through the program. Students perceive high quality reputation and professional accreditation as equally important in terms of signalling quality. Finally, many students are willing to pay more to improve the quality of the program.
Some limitations of the study include convenience sample selection and size, translation of survey, the framing of the survey questions and controlling for factors such as grade point average, gender and other factors.
The paper provides important information to monitor quality and to place a value on pursuing accreditation and tuition fee increases.
Students' perception of quality has remained under‐examined in the literature. The research establishes a framework which can lead to future explorations.