No abstract

No abstract

This article analyzes the People’s Republic of China’s elite-making higher education policies that began in the early 1990s, notably with the 211 Project and then 985 Project, which led to the formation of the C9 League, a group of nine leading institution’s dubbed China’s “Ivy League.” This elite grouping is compared with other Chinese universities in terms of global rankings from 2003 to 2015 to ascertain the separation by these top tiered institutions. Furthermore, the C9 League will be compared with other global elite coalitions in the United States, Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom over the same period. University rankings, despite considerable criticism, have provided the Chinese leadership with key benchmarks for their vision of world-class higher education. This article finds that the C9 League has made some separation from other Chinese universities and has also caught up with its Western peers (notably passing Canada’s U15) in terms of international rankings.

PurposeThe academic community has warned that predatory journals may attempt to capitalize on the confusion caused by the COVID-19 pandemic to further publish low quality academic work, eroding the credibility of scholarly publishing.Design/methodology/approachThis article first chronicles the risks of predatory publishing, especially related to misinformation surrounding health research. Next, the author offers an empirical investigation of how predatory publishing has engaged with COVID-19, with an emphasis on journals related to virology, immunology and epidemiology as identified through Cabells' Predatory Reports, through a content analysis of publishers' websites and a comparison to a sample from DOAJ.FindingsThe empirical findings show that there were 162 titles related to these critical areas from journals listed on Cabells with a range of infractions, but most were defunct and only 39 had published on the pandemic. Compared to a DOAJ comparison group, the predatory journal websites were less likely to mention slowdowns to the peer review process related to the pandemic. Furthermore, another 284 predatory journals with COVID-19 engagement were uncovered from the initial exploration. These uncovered journals mostly centered on medical or biological science fields, while 42 titles came from other broader fields in social science, other STEM or humanities.Originality/valueThis study does not prove that predatory publications have released misinformation pertaining to COVID-19, but rather it exemplifies the potential within a complex academic publishing space. As these outlets have proven to be vectors of misleading science, libraries and the broader educational community need to stay vigilant as information intermediaries of online research.

No abstract