Search

This paper investigates different uses of the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) in national journal rankings and discusses the merits of supplementing metrics with expert assessment. Our focus is national journal rankings used as evidence to support decisions about the distribution of institutional funding or career advancement. The seven countries under comparison are China, Denmark, Finland, Italy, Norway, Poland, and Turkey—and the region of Flanders in Belgium. With the exception of Italy, top‐tier journals used in national rankings include those classified at the highest level, or according to tier, or points implemented. A total of 3,565 (75.8%) out of 4,701 unique top‐tier journals were identified as having a JIF, with 55.7% belonging to the first Journal Impact Factor quartile. Journal rankings in China, Flanders, Poland, and Turkey classify journals with a JIF as being top‐tier, but only when they are in the first quartile of the Average Journal Impact Factor Percentile. Journal rankings that result from expert assessment in Denmark, Finland, and Norway regularly classify journals as top‐tier outside the first quartile, particularly in the social sciences and humanities. We conclude that experts, when tasked with metric‐informed journal rankings, take into account quality dimensions that are not covered by JIFs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The development and promotion of educational games are still outpacing knowledge of these games' effects, raising calls for evidence of benefits and challenges. Studies suggest that students and teachers like games, but the payoff of the investment in terms of increased motivation and achievement remains unclear. Objectives: This study investigates the pure effect of a marketing simulation game on motivation, perceived learning and achievement, above and beyond regular student‐active instruction. Methods: We applied a randomized, controlled experiment in a marketing course in upper‐secondary schools (Nclasses = 22; Nstudents = 433) comparing a collaborative–competitive marketing simulation game with regular, case‐based, student‐active instruction on three groups of outcome measures: motivation, perceived ability, and achievement. Additionally, students and teachers provided quantitative and qualitative feedback on game experiences. Results and Conclusions: We showcase the importance of a robust study design with valid compound instruments. Moreover, investigations of the game implementation and experiences reveal insights about intervention timing, differential negative consequences by gender and need for reflection opportunities. We find no clear evidence of positive or negative effects of the game, despite students' and teachers' satisfaction. Implications: Beyond the effect evaluation, we offer recommendations to researchers and developers of educational games about scaffolding, timing and teacher competence building. Lay Description: What is already known about this topic: Some curricula contains many terms and complex knowledge links.Simulation games are a popular remedy for these challenges.Prior studies have relied on users' satisfaction with the game and unrealistic comparisons. What this paper adds: This experiment compares game usage and regular student‐active instruction.They use various measures of satisfaction, motivation, perceived learning and achievement.The game has no effect on main outcomes. Implications for practice and/or policy: Game implementation requires digitally acquainted and trained teachers.Uncritical game design and use may motivate competitive boys over collaborative girls. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]