Beyond
Prestige: Rationales for Publishing in Lower-Tier and/or Emerging Academic
Journals
Dr 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
.jpg)
