Kok Hwee Chia
Academic Chair & Chief Advisor,
Merlion Academy, Singapore
ORCID: 0000-0002-3645-2602
Abstract
The
increasing emphasis on journal rankings and impact factors has shaped the contemporary
academic publishing culture, often equating scholarly quality with publication
prestige. However, publishing in lower-tier and/or lesser-known journals may
represent a legitimate and strategically sound academic decision. In this paper,
the author discusses the rationales supporting publication in emerging or
lower-ranked journals, particularly for exploratory, interdisciplinary,
practice-based, and context-specific research. He argues that such journals
often provide accessible platforms for innovative scholarship, rapid
dissemination, academic inclusivity, and the democratization of knowledge. The
discussion further highlights how niche journals may better accommodate applied
studies, practitioner-research, and culturally grounded interventions that may
not align with mainstream publication priorities. Additionally, the paper
critiques the overreliance on journal impact factors as the sole indicator of
research quality and emphasizes the importance of methodological rigor, ethical
scholarship, and practical relevance. Ultimately, publishing in lower-tier and/or
emerging journals (LTEJs) should not automatically be viewed as a marker of
inferior scholarship but rather as a reflection of strategic, contextual, and
developmental considerations within diverse academic ecosystems.
Keywords: academic publishing, journal
prestige, scholarly communication, interdisciplinary research, knowledge
democratization
1.
Introduction
Publishing in lesser-known lower-tier journals (LTJs) or
emerging journals (EJs), which collectively also known as lower-tier and/or
emerging journals (LTEJs), can be a rational and academically defensible
decision, especially when it is seen within the realities of emerging
scholarship, applied practice, interdisciplinary inquiry, and unequal access to
academic resources. The author of this paper believes that the value of
research should not be determined solely by journal prestige, but also by its
contribution to knowledge, practice, and societal impact (Brembs, Button, &
Munafò, 2013). Increasingly, scholars have challenged the overreliance on
journal rankings and impact factors as proxies for research quality, arguing
that such metrics often privilege institutional reputation, citation
visibility, and disciplinary dominance rather than methodological rigor or
social relevance (Mingers & Yang, 2017). For example, researchers from
developing countries or smaller institutions may encounter structural barriers (e.g.,
limited funding, lack of international collaboration networks, or language
disadvantages), reducing their chances of acceptance in elite journals despite
producing valuable and contextually important scholarship. In fields, such as community
development, educational studies, humanities, public health, and social studies,
locally focused research may be more appropriately published in regional or
emerging journals that directly reach practitioners and policymakers who can
implement the findings (Chan, Kirsop, & Arunachalam, 2005, 2011). Thus, the
place (or country) of publication should be evaluated not only through prestige
hierarchies, but also through accessibility, relevance, and knowledge
dissemination.
LTEJs can play a critical role in supporting
early-career researchers, doctoral students, and interdisciplinary scholars
whose work may not align neatly with the priorities of highly-ranked/top-tier journals
(HR/TTJs). Often prestigious HR/TTJs favor theoretically fashionable, highly
novel, or internationally generalized studies, which may marginalize
exploratory, replication, practice-based, or context-specific research (Brembs,
2019). Consequently, the LTEJs provide important intellectual spaces for
innovative or unconventional scholarship that may otherwise remain unpublished.
For instance, interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary studies combining
indigenous knowledge systems with environmental science, or practitioner-led
research in vocational education, may struggle to fit within the rigid
disciplinary expectations of top-tier outlets. Publishing in such journals
allows scholars to establish publication records, refine their academic
writing, and contribute incrementally to scholarly conversations over time.
Furthermore, many LTEJs adopt open-access models to increase their readership
and accessibility, especially in low-resource settings, where subscription fees
to elite journals are prohibitive (Suber, 2012). In this sense, LTEJs can
democratize knowledge production and expand participation within global
academic discourse.
Moreover, the assumption that HR/TTJs necessarily
publish more reliable or impactful research has been increasingly questioned in
scholarly debates. Studies have shown that journal prestige does not
consistently correlate with methodological quality, reproducibility, or
long-term scholarly influence (Brembs, Button, & Munafò, 2013). In some
cases, pressure to publish in elite or HR/TTJs may encourage sensationalism,
selective reporting, or exaggerated claims designed to attract editorial
attention and citations (Edwards & Roy, 2017). Conversely, LTEJs may
provide opportunities for careful, applied, and community-centered research
that prioritizes practical usefulness over citation potential. For example, a
regional journal focusing on agricultural innovation in Southeast Asia may have
a direct and measurable impact on local farming communities even if it lacks a
high impact factor. Similarly, practitioner-oriented journals (POJs) in
healthcare or education often influence professional practice more immediately
than highly theoretical publications in elite outlets. Hence, evaluation of
academic publication solely through prestige metrics can risk overlooking the wider
purposes of scholarship, including public engagement, professional application,
and social transformation. It is crucial to adopt a more balanced perspective that
recognizes meaningful research contributions coming from journals across
different tiers of the academic publishing ecosystem (see Figure 1 below).
Figure 1. The
Value of LTEJs in Scholarly Publishing
2.
Emerging
Journals as Platforms for Exploratory and Specialized Research
Often LTEJs (or LTJs + EJs) provide an essential
platform for exploratory, practice-based, or context-specific research that may
not initially align with the priorities of HR/TTJs. Innovative or
unconventional topics frequently encounter barriers in elite publication
systems that tend to favor mainstream paradigms, large datasets, and
well-funded projects (Merton, 1968). Researchers working in rather specialized
areas of interest (e.g., educational therapy, mandala therapy, neurodiversity,
trauma-informed practice, or community interventions) may, thus, find more
receptive audiences in niche or developing journals that appreciate the applied
significance of such work (Greenhalgh et al., 2016). In many cases, these
journals can operate as intellectual incubators, where emerging ideas can be
tested, refined, and gradually recognized within broader academic discourse.
For example, early scholarship on autism acceptance, inclusive education, and
neurodiversity was frequently published in specialized educational and
disability-focused journals or specialized journals (SpJs) before receiving
substantial attention in mainstream psychology and medical publications (Singer,
2017). Similarly, trauma-informed educational practices (now widely discussed
in education and mental health research) initially emerged through POJs and
interdisciplinary outlets that emphasized classroom realities and
community-based experiences rather than large-scale quantitative evidence (Carello
& Butler, 2015). Such publication spaces allow researchers to address
localized social issues, pilot innovative interventions, and share preliminary
findings that may later contribute to larger theoretical developments.
Additionally, LTEJs are especially valuable for
applied and community-engaged research that prioritizes practical outcomes over
citation prestige. Elite and/or HR/TTJs often emphasize theoretical abstraction
and broad international relevance, but may marginalize studies focusing on
specific populations, cultural contexts, or small-scale interventions (Bourdieu,
1988). For instance, research examining educational therapy strategies for
children with dyslexia in rural schools, culturally responsive counselling
approaches for indigenous communities, or trauma-informed support programs (e.g.,
mandala therapy and mindfulness) for refugees may not attract widespread
international citations, yet these studies can produce meaningful local impact
and inform professional practice, especially in the domain of implementation
science (Xu, Chen, &
Cai, 2024). Niche journals dedicated to applied education,
rehabilitation, social work, or community psychology frequently provide a more
suitable venue for such scholarship because they value contextual depth and
practitioner relevance (Reason & Bradbury, 2008). Moreover,
interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary journals and EJs often encourage
methodological diversity, including qualitative inquiry, participatory action
research, and case-study approaches that are sometimes undervalued in
high-impact publication cultures dominated by positivist traditions (Denzin
& Lincoln, 2017). Consequently, these journals can contribute to the
diversification of academic knowledge by amplifying voices, experiences, and
research contexts that might otherwise remain underrepresented within global
scholarly communication.
3.
Accessibility
and Timeliness in Scholarly Dissemination
In
academic publishing, accessibility and timeliness are important considerations.
High-impact HR/TTJs commonly involve lengthy peer-review and publication
timelines, sometimes delaying dissemination for years. However, smaller
journals or LTEJs may offer faster review processes, and they allow researchers
to communicate findings more quickly to practitioners, educators, therapists,
and caregivers who may benefit immediately from the information (Powell, 2016).
In disciplines involving vulnerable populations or urgent social issues, rapid
dissemination may be ethically crucial and professionally important. For
example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, many researchers turned to LTEJs,
preprint platforms, and open-access outlets to share their findings related to
mental health interventions, online learning strategies, and community
healthcare responses without waiting for prolonged editorial cycles (Fraser et
al., 2021). In areas, especially such as remedial and special education,
counseling, and social work, delayed publication may hinder the implementation
of urgently needed support strategies for children, trauma survivors, or
marginalized communities. Thus, POJs serve a crucial role in translating
research into actionable knowledge within a shorter timeframe. For example, studies
examining early intervention techniques for autistic children, trauma-informed
classroom approaches, or tele-therapy practices during periods of social
disruption often need timely dissemination because practitioners and caregivers
rely on current evidence to make informed decisions (Holmes et al., 2020).
Consequently, the practical value of research may sometimes outweigh the
symbolic prestige associated with slower, highly selective journals.
Accessibility
is equally significant because knowledge dissemination should extend beyond
elite academic audiences. HR/TTJs are frequently locked behind expensive
subscription paywalls, limiting access for independent researchers,
practitioners, policymakers, and institutions in low- and middle-income
countries (Suber, 2012). However, LTEJs, especially those that adopt
open-access models, can therefore widen their reach and social impact of
scholarship by making research freely available to wider communities. For example,
teachers implementing inclusive or remedial education strategies,
non-governmental organizations working with refugees, or allied therapists
supporting neurodiverse individuals may depend on openly accessible studies
rather than subscription-based publications inaccessible outside universities.
Open-access dissemination has also been shown to increase visibility and public
engagement with research findings, especially in applied and interdisciplinary
fields (Piwowar et al., 2018). Furthermore, community-based and
practitioner-focused journals often publish in more accessible language and
emphasize practical recommendations, making scholarly findings more usable for
non-academic stakeholders. In this regard, LTEJs contribute not only to
academic communication but also to the democratization of knowledge by ensuring
that research can inform real-world practice in a timely and inclusive manner.
4.
Academic
Inclusivity and the Democratization of Knowledge
Publishing in LTEJs can also reflect a commitment to
academic inclusivity and the democratization of knowledge. The global
publishing landscape is often shaped by institutional prestige, funding access,
and geographical inequalities that disadvantage scholars from smaller institutions
or developing regions (Chan, Kirsop, & Arunachalam, 2005, 2011). Supporting
LTEJs can contribute to widening scholarly participation and diversifying
academic voices, perspectives, and locally relevant knowledge systems (Smith,
Hunt, & Master, 2014). Scholars from the Global South, minority
communities, or underfunded institutions frequently face structural obstacles
in publishing within elite international HR/TTJs, including limited research
funding, restricted access to international collaboration networks, language
barriers, and editorial biases favoring Western theoretical frameworks (Altbach,
2013). As a result, many locally significant studies (e.g., research on
indigenous educational practices, culturally grounded counselling models, or
community-based healthcare interventions) may receive insufficient recognition
within mainstream publication systems despite their practical and societal
importance. Regional LTEJs therefore provide critical platforms for preserving
and disseminating contextually relevant knowledge that may otherwise remain
marginalized. For example, African, Asian, and Latin American journals have
increasingly published research addressing local environmental sustainability,
multilingual education, and rural public health challenges that are directly
relevant to their communities but may not align with the priorities of dominant
Western-centric journals (Canagarajah, 2002). In this sense, publishing in LTEJs
helps challenge the concentration of academic authority within a small number
of elite institutions and publishing networks.
The democratization of knowledge also involves
ensuring that scholarly communication reflects diverse epistemologies,
methodologies, and lived experiences rather than a narrow set of dominant
academic standards. Elite and/or HR/TTJs often privilege positivist
methodologies, English-language scholarship, and topics with broad
international citation potential, which can unintentionally exclude
qualitative, participatory, or culturally specific forms of inquiry (Connell,
2007). LTEJs, by contrast, may be more receptive to interdisciplinary and
community-engaged research approaches that prioritize collaboration with
marginalized populations and local stakeholders. For example, participatory
action research studies involving refugees, indigenous communities, or persons
with disabilities may be more appropriately valued in SpJs or regional journals
that recognize the importance of social justice and community empowerment (Fine,
2018). Similarly, journals that focus on local education systems or culturally
responsive therapy practices can amplify practitioner knowledge and grassroots
innovation that may not fit the conventional expectations of high-impact
outlets. Open-access LTEJs can further contribute to inclusivity by reducing
financial barriers to accessing research, enabling teachers, social workers,
healthcare practitioners, and policymakers outside elite universities to engage
with scholarly knowledge (Suber, 2012). Consequently, publishing in LTEJs can
represent not merely an alternative publication strategy, but an intentional
effort to promote equity, plurality, and broader participation within global
academic discourse.
5.
Supporting
Interdisciplinary and Practice-Oriented Scholarship
Interdisciplinary
and practice-oriented studies may not fit neatly within the scope of mainstream
journals. Research involving case studies, qualitative reflections, therapeutic
innovations, or culturally grounded interventions may be viewed as too specialized
for broader journals despite having substantial practical value (Flyvbjerg,
2006). Publishing in smaller journals allows such scholarship to reach the
professional communities most likely to apply and build upon the findings.
Interdisciplinary research frequently challenges conventional disciplinary
boundaries by integrating theories, methods, and perspectives from multiple
fields, making it difficult to position within highly specialized mainstream
journals (Repko & Szostak, 2021). For example, studies combining
educational psychology, occupational therapy, and neuroscience to develop
interventions for neurodiverse learners may not fully align with the editorial
priorities of traditional psychology or education journals. Similarly,
culturally grounded mental health interventions that integrate indigenous
healing practices with clinical counselling approaches may be perceived as too
context-specific or methodologically unconventional for elite international
publications. EJs as well as niche or SpJs therefore provide important venues
where innovative interdisciplinary work can be evaluated according to its
practical relevance and contextual contribution rather than solely through
rigid disciplinary expectations. In fields such as disability studies, social
work, rehabilitation sciences, and community health, smaller journals often
encourage practitioner-informed inquiry and qualitative methodologies that
capture the complexity of lived experiences often overlooked in highly
quantitative publication cultures (Denzin & Lincoln, 2017).
With
the emergence of implementation science since 2006 (Eccles et al., 2012), practice-oriented
scholarship has become particularly important in professions where applied
knowledge directly impacts on human well-being and service delivery. Research
grounded in classroom experiences, therapeutic settings, or community
interventions may prioritize actionable insights over theoretical abstraction,
making SpJs more appropriate dissemination channels (Schön, 1983). For
instance, a case report or study documenting the effectiveness of sensory-based
interventions for autistic children in inclusive classrooms may provide
immediate value to teachers and therapists even if the sample size is too small
for high-impact experimental journals. Likewise, qualitative reflections on
trauma-informed care practices in refugee support programs or culturally
responsive counselling approaches for minority communities can offer
practitioners contextually meaningful guidance that may not emerge from
large-scale statistical studies. Smaller SpJs dedicated to recreation therapy, counselling
practice, special education, or community psychology frequently emphasize
translational and practitioner-centered research because their readership
consists largely of professionals seeking applicable solutions to real-world
challenges (Greenhalgh & Wieringa, 2011). Moreover, interdisciplinary and
practice-based journals often support methodological diversity, including
narrative inquiry, reflective practice, participatory action research, and
ethnographic approaches that are essential for understanding complex social and
therapeutic phenomena (Reason & Bradbury, 2008). Consequently, publishing
in LJEJs and SpJs contributes to bridging the gap between academic research and
professional practice by ensuring that valuable applied knowledge remains
accessible to the communities that can most effectively implement it.
6.
Critiquing
the Overreliance on Journal Prestige
The
intrinsic value of a paper should be judged by its methodological rigor,
ethical integrity, originality, and usefulness rather than by impact factor
alone. Overreliance on journal rankings has been criticized for distorting
academic priorities and undervaluing meaningful scholarship that serves local
communities or professional practice (Seglen, 1997). Many influential ideas in social
sciences and humanities initially appeared in modest or lesser-known venues or
LTEJs before later gaining wider recognition. Critics of journal prestige
systems argue that impact factors often measure citation frequency rather than
the actual quality, reliability, or social usefulness of research (Brembs,
Button, & Munafò, 2013). Citation patterns can be influenced by
disciplinary size, editorial networks, language dominance, and trends within
highly visible academic communities rather than by methodological excellence
alone (Mingers & Yang, 2017). Consequently, important practice-based or
regionally focused studies may receive limited citations despite producing
substantial real-world impact. For example, educational interventions designed
for rural schools, culturally responsive mental health programs, or community
healthcare initiatives may primarily influence local practitioners and
policymakers rather than international citation databases. Such work may
therefore be undervalued within academic systems that equate prestige with
impact factor rankings. Furthermore, pressure to publish in elite and/or HR/TTJs
has been associated with “publish or perish” cultures that encourage strategic
citation practices, sensationalized findings, and preference for statistically
significant results over replication studies or negative findings (Edwards
& Roy, 2017). This environment can marginalize careful, contextually
grounded scholarship that prioritizes long-term societal benefit over academic
visibility.
Historical
examples also demonstrate that transformative scholarship does not always
emerge from prestigious publication venues. Gregor Mendel’s foundational work
on genetics, for instance, was initially published in the relatively obscure Proceedings
of the Natural History Society of Brünn and remained largely unnoticed for
decades before becoming central to modern biology (Henig, 2000). Similarly, early feminist, postcolonial, and
indigenous scholarship often developed through smaller academic presses and SpJs
before gaining broader legitimacy within mainstream academia (Connell, 2007).
In applied disciplines, POJs have frequently introduced innovations later
adopted more widely in professional practice. For example, trauma-informed
educational strategies, community-based rehabilitation approaches, and
neurodiversity-affirming practices were often first discussed in niche or
interdisciplinary outlets before receiving mainstream scholarly attention.
Emerging journals (EJs) can therefore function as spaces for intellectual
experimentation and alternative perspectives that challenge dominant paradigms
(Kuhn, 1962, 2012). Evaluating scholarship solely through journal prestige
risks overlooking these contributions and reinforces hierarchical systems that
privilege established institutions and dominant epistemologies. A more balanced
evaluation framework would assess research according to transparency,
methodological soundness, ethical responsibility, and practical contribution to
knowledge and society rather than relying disproportionately on journal
rankings as indicators of academic worth.
7.
Practical
Considerations for Practitioner-Researchers and Independent Scholars
For independent scholars, practitioner-researchers, or
professionals balancing clinical, educational, or caregiving responsibilities,
lower-tier journals (LTJs) may provide a realistic and sustainable pathway for
scholarly contribution. Practice-based evidence and field observations remain
important components of knowledge generation, particularly in applied
disciplines where lived experiences and contextual understanding are central to
improving interventions and services (Green, 2008). Unlike researchers employed
within research-intensive universities, practitioner-scholars often work under
significant time, financial, and institutional constraints that limit their
ability to conduct large-scale studies expected by elite journals (Bazeley,
2010). Teachers, therapists, nurses, counsellors, and social workers frequently
engage in action research while simultaneously managing demanding professional
responsibilities and direct client care. As a result, smaller and POJs become
important platforms where these professionals can disseminate valuable insights
derived from real-world experiences. For example, a special education teacher
documenting effective classroom adaptations for neurodiverse learners, or a
speech therapist reporting outcomes from culturally adapted communication
interventions, may produce findings that are highly beneficial to practitioners
despite involving modest sample sizes or qualitative methodologies. Such
studies involving very small groups or single subjects may not meet the
statistical expectations of HR/TTJs, yet they contribute substantially to
evidence-informed practice and professional learning (Schön, 1983). In applied
disciplines, practical relevance and contextual applicability are often as
important as theoretical generalizability.
LTEJs also create opportunities for independent
scholars and community-based researchers whose work may otherwise remain
invisible within mainstream academic systems. Independent researchers often
lack access to institutional funding, research assistants, journal
subscriptions, or formal mentorship networks that facilitate publication in
elite and/or HR/TTJs (Altbach, 2013). Nevertheless, these scholars may possess
extensive experiential knowledge and close engagement with the communities they
study. For instance, caregivers advocating for autistic children, practitioners
developing trauma-informed community programs, or educators implementing
inclusive learning strategies may generate innovative forms of practice-based
knowledge through continuous observation and reflection. Smaller SpJs dedicated
to professional practice (as in POJs), community development, or applied social
sciences frequently value reflective case reports or studies, action research,
and practitioner narratives because they directly address real-world problems
and service improvement (Reason & Bradbury, 2008). Furthermore, POJs can
foster collaborative knowledge-sharing between academics and professionals by
bridging the gap between theory and practice (Greenhalgh
& Wieringa, 2011). In this regard, publishing in LTEJs is not merely a
compromise driven by limited resources, but a meaningful avenue for ensuring
that experiential expertise, contextual understanding, and practitioner
innovation contribute to broader scholarly and professional conversations.
8.
Conclusion
Publishing
in LTJs or EJs (collectively, LTEJs) should not automatically be interpreted as
an indication of weak scholarship or limited academic ambition. Rather, it may
represent a strategic, ethical, and contextually appropriate decision shaped by
the goals of accessibility, inclusivity, interdisciplinary relevance, and
timely dissemination of knowledge. EJs often provide critical spaces for
exploratory research, practitioner-based scholarship, and culturally grounded
studies that may otherwise remain underrepresented in HR/TTJs. Furthermore, the
overemphasis on impact factors risks narrowing the diversity of academic voices
and undervaluing research that holds substantial practical or social
significance. Therefore, scholarly contribution should be evaluated not merely
through journal prestige but through the quality, integrity, applicability, and
long-term impact of the work itself.
Author’s
Disclaimer
The views
expressed in this paper are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect the official position or policies of the organization with which the
author is affiliated.
The author
also acknowledges that generative AI tool (ChatGPT) was used to assist in Figure
1 design, language refinement and editorial improvements during the preparation
of this manuscript. The author holds full responsibility for the content.
References
1.
Altbach, P. G. (2013). The international imperative
in higher education. Boston, MA: Sense Publishers.
2.
Bazeley, P. (2010). Conceptualizing research
performance. Studies in Higher Education, 35(8), 889-903. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070903348404
3.
Bourdieu, P. (1988). Homo academicus. Redwood
City, CA: Stanford University Press.
4.
Brembs, B. (2019). Reliable novelty: New should not
trump true. PLoS Biology, 17(2). Article ID: e3000117. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000117
5.
Brembs, B., Button, K., & Munafò, M. (2013). Deep
impact: Unintended consequences of journal rank. Frontiers in Human
Neuroscience, 7. Article No. 291. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00291
6.
Canagarajah, A. S. (2002). A geopolitics of
academic writing. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
7.
Carello, J., & Butler, L. D. (2015). Practicing
what we teach: Trauma-informed educational practice. Journal of Teaching in
Social Work, 35(3), 262-278. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841233.2015.1030059
8.
Chan, L., Kirsop, B., & Arunachalam, S. (2005).
Open access archiving: The fast track to building research capacity in
developing countries. Available from https://www.scidev.net/global/features/open-access-archiving-the-fast-track-to-building-r/
9.
Chan, L., Kirsop, B., & Arunachalam, S. (2011).
Towards open and equitable access to research and knowledge for development. PLoS
Medicine, 8(3). Article ID: e1001016. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001016
10.
Connell, R. (2007). Southern theory: The global
dynamics of knowledge in social science (1st ed.). London, UK: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003117346
11.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2017). The
SAGE handbook of qualitative research (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications.
12.
Eccles, M. P., Foy, R., Sales, A., Wensing, M., &
Mittman, B. (2012). Implementation science six years on: Our evolving scope and
common reasons for rejection without review. Implementation Science, 7(1),
71. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-7-71
13.
Edwards, M. A., & Roy, S. (2017). Academic
research in the 21st century: Maintaining scientific integrity in a climate of
perverse incentives and hypercompetition. Environmental Engineering Science,
34(1), 51-61. https://doi.org/10.1089/ees.2016.0223
14.
Fine, M. (2018). Just research in contentious
times: Widening the methodological imagination. Chicago, IL: Teachers
College Press.
15.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about
case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219-245. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800405284363
16.
Fraser, N., Brierley, L., Dey, G., Polka, J. K.,
Pálfy, M., Nanni, F., & Coates, J. A. (2021). The evolving role of
preprints in the dissemination of COVID-19 research and their impact on the
science communication landscape. PLoS Biology, 19(4), Article ID:
e3000959. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000959
17.
Green, L. W. (2008). Making research relevant: If it
is an evidence-based practice, where's the practice-based evidence? Family
Practice, 25(Suppl. 1), i20-i24. https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/cmn055
18.
Greenhalgh, T., Jackson, C., Shaw, S., & Janamian,
T. (2016). Achieving research impact through co-creation in community-based
health services: Literature review and case study. The Milbank Quarterly, 94(2),
392-429. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.12197
19.
Greenhalgh, T., & Wieringa, S. (2011). Is it time
to drop the “knowledge translation” metaphor? A critical literature review. Journal
of the Royal Society of Medicine, 104(12), 501-509. https://doi.org/10.1258/jrsm.2011.110285
20.
Henig, R. M. (2000). The monk in the garden: The
lost and found genius of Gregor Mendel, the father of genetics. Boston, MA:
Houghton Mifflin.
21.
Holmes, E. A., O'Connor, R. C., Perry, V. H., Tracey,
I., Wessely, S., … Bullmore, E. (2020). Multidisciplinary research priorities
for the COVID-19 pandemic: A call for action for mental health science. The
Lancet Psychiatry, 7(6), 547-560. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(20)30168-1
22.
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific
revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
23.
Kuhn, T. S. (2012). The structure of scientific
revolutions (50th anniversary ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press.
24.
Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science. Science,
159(3810), 56-63. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.159.3810.56
25.
Mingers, J., & Yang, L. (2017). Evaluating journal
quality: A review of journal citation indicators and ranking in business and
management. European Journal of Operational Research, 257(1), 323-337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2016.07.058
26.
Piwowar, H., Priem, J., Larivière, V., Alperin, J. P.,
Matthias, L., … & Hausteinet, S. (2018). The state of OA: A large-scale
analysis of the prevalence and impact of open access articles. PeerJ, 6.
Article ID: e4375. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4375
27.
Powell, K. (2016). Does it take too long to publish
research? Nature, 530, 148-151. https://doi.org/10.1038/530148a
28.
Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (Eds.). (2008). The
SAGE handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice (2nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781848607934
29.
Repko, A. F., & Szostak, R. (2021). Interdisciplinary
research: Process and theory (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications.
30.
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner:
How professionals think in action. New York, NY: Basic Books.
31.
Seglen, P. O. (1997). Why the impact factor of
journals should not be used for evaluating research. British Medical
Journal, 314(7079). Article No. 497. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.314.7079.497
32.
Singer, J. (2017). Neurodiversity: The birth of an
idea. Judy Singer (Self-published).
33.
Smith, E., Hunt, M., & Master, Z. (2014).
Authorship ethics in global health research partnerships between researchers
from low- or middle-income countries and high-income countries. BMC Medical
Ethics, 15. Article 42. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6939-15-42
34.
Suber, P. (2012). Open access. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9286.001.0001
35.
Xu, D., Chen, J., & Cai, Y. (2024). Past and
present of implementation science (Part 1): Origin and development. Medical
Journal of Peking Union Medical College Hospital, 15(2), 442-449. https://doi.org/10.12290/xhyxzz.2024-0023
