<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><sec><h3>Purpose</h3><p>This paper presents an overview of different kinds of lists of scholarly publication channels and of experiences related to the construction and maintenance of national lists supporting performance-based research funding systems. It also contributes with a set of recommendations for the construction and maintenance of national lists of journals and book publishers.</p></sec><sec><h3>Design/methodology/approach</h3><p>The study is based on analysis of previously published studies, policy papers, and reported experiences related to the construction and use of lists of scholarly publication channels.</p></sec><sec><h3>Findings</h3><p>Several countries have systems for research funding and/or evaluation, that involve the use of national lists of scholarly publication channels (mainly journals and publishers). Typically, such lists are <italic>selective</italic> (do not include all scholarly or non-scholarly channels) and <italic>differentiated</italic> (distinguish between channels of different levels and quality). At the same time, most lists are embedded in a system that encompasses multiple or all disciplines. This raises the question how such lists can be organized and maintained to ensure that all relevant disciplines and all types of research are adequately represented.</p></sec><sec><h3>Research limitation</h3><p>The conclusions and recommendations of the study are based on the authors’ interpretation of a complex and sometimes controversial process with many different stakeholders involved.</p></sec><sec><h3>Practical implications</h3><p>The recommendations and the related background information provided in this paper enable mutual learning that may feed into improvements in the construction and maintenance of national and other lists of scholarly publication channels in any geographical context. This may foster a development of responsible evaluation practices.</p></sec><sec><h3>Originality/value</h3><p>This paper presents the first general overview and typology of different kinds of publication channel lists, provides insights on expert-based versus metrics-based evaluation, and formulates a set of recommendations for the responsible construction and maintenance of publication channel lists.</p></sec></abstract>

PurposeThis paper presents an overview of different kinds of lists of scholarly publication channels and of experiences related to the construction and maintenance of national lists supporting performance-based research funding systems. It also contributes with a set of recommendations for the construction and maintenance of national lists of journals and book publishers.Design/methodology/approachThe study is based on analysis of previously published studies, policy papers, and reported experiences related to the construction and use of lists of scholarly publication channels.FindingsSeveral countries have systems for research funding and/or evaluation, that involve the use of national lists of scholarly publication channels (mainly journals and publishers). Typically, such lists are selective (do not include all scholarly or non-scholarly channels) and differentiated (distinguish between channels of different levels and quality). At the same time, most lists are embedded in a system that encompasses multiple or all disciplines. This raises the question how such lists can be organized and maintained to ensure that all relevant disciplines and all types of research are adequately represented.Research limitationThe conclusions and recommendations of the study are based on the authors’ interpretation of a complex and sometimes controversial process with many different stakeholders involved.Practical implicationsThe recommendations and the related background information provided in this paper enable mutual learning that may feed into improvements in the construction and maintenance of national and other lists of scholarly publication channels in any geographical context. This may foster a development of responsible evaluation practices.Originality/valueThis paper presents the first general overview and typology of different kinds of publication channel lists, provides insights on expert-based versus metrics-based evaluation, and formulates a set of recommendations for the responsible construction and maintenance of publication channel lists.

National Lists of Scholarly Publication Channels: An Overview and Recommendations for Their Construction and Maintenance

University of Antwerp, Faculty of Social Sciences

Journal of Data and Information Science

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

PurposeThis paper presents an overview of different kinds of lists of scholarly publication channels and of experiences related to the construction and...

National Lists of Scholarly Publication Channels: An Overview and Recommendations for Their Construction and Maintenance

Article Category: Research Paper

Online veröffentlicht: 23. Okt. 2020

Seitenbereich: 50 - 86

Eingereicht: 07. Apr. 2020

Akzeptiert: 08. Juni 2020

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/jdis-2021-0004

Schlüsselwörter
Publication channel lists, Research funding, Scholarly communication, Journal ranking

© 2021 Janne Pölönen et al., published by Sciendo

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

National Lists of Scholarly Publication Channels: An Overview and Recommendations for Their Construction and Maintenance

Article Category: Research Paper

Online veröffentlicht: 23. Okt. 2020

Seitenbereich: 50 - 86

Eingereicht: 07. Apr. 2020

Akzeptiert: 08. Juni 2020

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/jdis-2021-0004

SchlüsselwörterPublication channel lists, Research funding, Scholarly communication, Journal ranking

© 2021 Janne Pölönen et al., published by Sciendo

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Schlüsselwörter
Publication channel lists, Research funding, Scholarly communication, Journal ranking