There has been a rapid growth of academic research and publishing in non-Western countries. However, academic journal articles in these peripheral countries suffer from low citation impact and limited global recognition. This critical review systematically analyzed 1,096 education research journal articles that were published in China in a 10-year span using a multistage stratified cluster and random sampling method and a validated rubric for assessing research quality. Our findings reveal that the vast majority of the articles lacked rigor, with insufficient or nonsystematic literature reviews, incomplete descriptions of research design, and inadequately grounded recommendations for translating research into practice. Acknowledging the differences in publishing cultures in the center-periphery divide, we argue that education research publications in non-Western countries should try to meet Western publishing standards in order to participate in global knowledge production and research vitality. Implications for emerging countries that strive to transform their research scholarship are discussed.
AltbachP. G. (2002). Centers and peripheries in the academic profession: The special challenges of developing countries. In AltbachP. (Ed.), The decline of the guru: The academic profession in developing and middle-income countries (pp. 1–22). Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College Center for International Higher Education.
2.
American Educational Research Association. (2006). Standards for reporting on empirical social science research in AERA publications: American Educational Research Association. Educational Researcher, 35(6), 33–40. doi:10.3102/0013189X035006033
3.
American Educational Research Association. (2009). Standards for reporting on humanities-oriented research in AERA publications: American Educational Research Association. Educational Researcher, 38, 481–486. doi:10.3102/0013189x09341833
4.
American Psychological Association. (2008). Reporting standards for research in psychology: Why do we need them? What might they be? AmericanPsychologist, 63, 839–851. doi:10.1037/0003-066x.63.9.839
5.
American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
6.
AppaduraiA. (2000). Grassroots globalization and the research imagination. In AppaduraiA. (Ed.), Globalization (pp. 1–21). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
7.
ArunachalamS. (2008). The science race continues in Asia. Current Science, 94, 848–849.
8.
Association for the Study of Higher Education. (n.d.). Scholarly paper review criteria. Retrieved from http://www.ashe.ws/?page=345
9.
AtkinsonD. (1999). TESOL and culture. TESOL Quarterly, 33, 625–654. doi:10.2307/3587880
10.
AydinliE.MathewsJ. (2000). Are the core and periphery irreconcilable? The curious world of publishing in contemporary international relations. International Studies Perspectives, 1, 289–303. doi:10.1111/1528-3577.00028
11.
BeckettG. H.ZhaoJ. (2016). Deweyan student-centered pedagogy and Confucian epistemology: Dilemmatic pragmatism and neo-patriotism? In ChouC. P.SpanglerJ. (Eds.), Chinese education models in a global age: Transforming practice into theory (pp. 265–277). Singapore: Springer.
12.
BooteD. N.BeileP. (2005). Scholars before researchers: On the centrality of the dissertation literature review in research preparation. Educational Researcher, 34(6), 3–15. doi:10.3102/0013189x034006003
13.
BrewerJ. (2005). Three formulating research problems. In BrewerJ.HunterA. (Eds.), Foundations of multimethod research: Synthesizing styles (pp.39–57). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
14.
CanagarajahA. S. (2002). A geopolitics of academic writing. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
15.
CanagarajahA. S. (2003). A somewhat legitimate and very peripheral participation. In CasanaveC. P.VandrickS. (Eds.), Writing for scholarly publications: Behind the scenes in language education (pp. 197–210). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
16.
ChenS. (1994). Research trends in mainland Chinese comparative education. Comparative Education Review, 38, 233–252. doi:10.1086/447243
17.
CicchettiD. (2001). The precision of reliability and validity estimates re-visited: Distinguishing between clinical and statistical significance of sample size requirements. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 23, 695–700. doi:10.1076/jcen.23.5.695.1249
18.
CochranW. G. (1977). Sampling techniques (3rd ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley.
19.
CreswellJ. W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
20.
CrottyM. J. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
FanB. S. (2000). Dangdai zhongguo shehui kexue baokan wenxian fenxi: 1978–1995 [An analysis of contemporary China journal and newspaper social science literature: 1978–1995]. Shanghai, China: East China Normal University Press.
24.
FengH.BeckettG. H.HuangD. (2013). From “import” to “import-export” oriented internationalization: The impact of national policy on scholarly publication in China. Language Policy, 12, 251–272. doi:10.1007/s10993-013-9285-8
25.
FraenkelJ. R.WallenN. E. (2009). How to design and evaluate research in education (7th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
26.
GaoY.LiL.LüJ. (2001). Trends in research methods in applied linguistics: China and the west. English for Specific Purposes, 20(1), 1–14. doi:10.1016/s0889-4906(99)00015-0
27.
GallM. D.GallJ. P.BorgW. R. (2003). Educational research: An introduction (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
28.
GastelB. (2002). Guide published for peer reviewers of research manuscripts. Science Editor, 25, 46–48.
29.
GoodwinL. D.GoodwinW. L. (1985). Statistical techniques in AERJ articles, 1979–1983: The preparation of graduate students to read the educational research literature. Educational Researcher, 14(2), 5–11. doi:10.3102/0013189x014002005
30.
GosdenH. (1992). Research writing and NNSs: From the editors. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1, 123–139.
Government Accountability Office. (1989). Content analysis: A methodology for structuring and analyzing written material. Retrieved from http://archive.gao.gov/d48t13/138426.pdf
33.
GubaE. G.LincolnY. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105–117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
GutiérrezK. D.PenuelW. R. (2014). Relevance to practice as a criterion for rigor. Educational Researcher, 43, 19–23. doi:10.3102/0013189x13520289
36.
HayhoeR.PanJ. (Eds.), Knowledge across cultures: A contribution to dialogue among civilizations. Hong Kong, SAR: University of Hong Kong, Comparative Education Research Center.
37.
HoweK. R. (2009). Positivist dogmas, rhetoric, and education science question. Educational Researcher, 38, 428–440.
38.
HutchinsonS. R.LovellC. D. (2004). A review of methodological characteristics of research published in key journals in higher education: Implications for graduate research training. Research in Higher Education, 45, 383–402. doi:10.1023/B:RIHE.0000027392.94172.d2
39.
HylandK. (2015). Academic publishing: Issues and challenges in the construction of knowledge. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
40.
JiangK. (2004). Hanyang kexue jingshen: Guanyu jiaoyu yanjiu fangfalun de shengsi [Building scientific spirit: Reflections on the methodology in educational research]. Journal of Peking University–Philosophy and Social Sciences, 41(1), 63–70.
41.
JuN.WangJ. (2008). Hexin qikan “banmianfei” zhenxiang [The truth about the publication fees charged by core journals]. Southern Weekly. Retrieved from http://www.infzm.com/content/trs/raw/38654
42.
KangY. (2002). Jiaoyu zhidu de neishengxing [Endogenousness of the education institutions]. Theory and Practice of Education, 22(2), 11–16.
43.
Koro-LjungbergM.Yendol-HoppeyD.SmithJ. J.HayesS. B. (2009). (E)pistemological awareness, instantiation of methods, and uninformed methodological ambiguity in qualitative research projects. Educational Researcher, 38, 687–699. doi:10.3102/0013189x09351980
44.
LandisJ. R.KochG. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174. doi:10.2307/2529310
45.
LiL. (2004). Analysis of factors restricting the development of science and technology journals in China. Publishing Research Quarterly, 19(4), 45–53. doi:10.1007/s12109-004-0007-0
46.
LillisT.CurryM. J. (2006). Professional academic writing by multilingual scholars: Interactions with literacy brokers in the production of English-medium texts. Written Communication, 23, 3–35. doi:10.1177/0741088305283754
LombardM.Snyder-DuchJ.BrackenC. C. (2010). Practical resources for assessing and reporting intercoder reliability in content analysis research projects. Retrieved from http://astro.temple.edu/~lombard/reliability
49.
MatsudaP. K. (2013, June). English only? Exploring the importance of academic writing across languages. Paper presented at the 7th conference of the European Association for the Teaching of Academic Writing, Budapest, Hungary. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3W295MGGgyo
50.
MillerW. R.WilbourneP. L. (2002). Mesa grande: A methodological analysis of clinical trials of treatments for alcohol use disorders. Addiction, 97, 265–277. doi:10.1046/j.1360-0443.2002.00019.x
MoiwoJ.TaoF. (2013). The changing dynamics in citation index publication position China in a race with the USA for global leadership. Scientometrics, 95, 1031–1051.
53.
MorleyJ. A.FinneyJ. W.MonahanS. C.FloydA. S. (1996). Alcoholism treatment outcome studies, 1980–1992: Methodological characteristics and quality. Addictive Behaviors, 21, 429–443. doi:10.1016/0306-4603(95)00073-9
54.
MoyerA.FinneyJ. W.SwearingenC. E. (2002). Methodological characteristics and quality of alcohol treatment outcome studies, 1970–98: An expanded evaluation. Addiction, 97, 253–263. doi:10.1046/j.1360-0443.2002.00017.x
55.
National Research Council. (2002). Scientific research in education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
56.
NeuendorfK. A. (2002). The content analysis handbook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
57.
NisbettR. (2003). The geography of thought: How Asians and westerners think differently . . . and why. New York, NY: Free Press.
58.
NunnR.AdamsonJ. (2007). Towards the development of alternative criteria for international journal paper evaluation. Asian EFL Journal, 9, 205–228.
PriceE. G.BeachM. C.GaryT. L.RobinsonK. A.GozuA.PalacioA.. . . CooperL. A. (2005). A systematic review of the methodological rigor of studies evaluating cultural competence training of health professionals. Academic Medicine, 80, 578–586. doi:10.1097/00001888-200506000-00013
61.
RandolphJ. J.BednarikR.MyllerN. (2005). A methodological review of the articles published in the proceedings of Koli calling 2001-2004. In SalakoskiT.MäntyläT.LaaksoM. (Eds.), Koli calling 2005: Proceedings of the 5th annual Finnish/Baltic Sea conference on computer science education (pp. 103–109). Turku, Finland: Turku Center for Computing.
62.
RandolphJ. J.JulnesG.LehmanS.SutinenE. (2008). A methodological review of computer science education research. Journal of Information Technology Education, 7, 135–162.
63.
ReichowB.VolkmarF. R.CicchettiD. V. (2008). Development of the evaluative method for evaluating and determining evidence-based practices in autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 38, 1311–1319. doi:10.1007/s10803-007-0517-7
RossH. (2000). In the moment-discourses of power, narratives of relationship: Framing ethnography of Chinese schooling, 1981–1997. In LiuJ.RossH.KellyD. (Eds.), The ethnographic eye: Interpretive studies of education in China (pp.123–152). New York, NY: Falmer Press.
66.
Salager-MeyerF. (2008). Scientific publishing in developing countries: Challenges for the future. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7, 121–132. doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2008.03.009
ShiL. (2002). How Western-trained Chinese TESOL professionals publish in their home environment. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 625–634.
70.
ShiL.WangW.XuJ. (2005). Publication culture of foreign language education journals in China. TESOL Quarterly, 39, 765–776. doi:10.2307/3588537
71.
StokesC. S.MillerM. K. (1975). A methodological review of research in rural sociology since 1965. Rural Sociology, 40, 411–434.
72.
SunM. (2011). Educational research in mainland China: Current situation and developmental trends. Comparative Education, 47, 315–325. doi:10.1080/03050068.2011.586764
73.
SuydamM. N. (1968). An instrument for evaluating experimental educational research reports. Journal of Educational Research, 61, 200–203. doi:10.1080/00220671.1968.10883645
74.
SwalesJ. M. (2004). Research genre: Explorations and applications. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
75.
SwalesJ. M.FeakC. B. (1994). Academic writing for graduate students. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
76.
TamK. Y. B.ChenM. L. (2010). Examining scholarship in China’s academe: An exploratory study. Higher Education, 60, 69–84. doi:10.1007/s10734-009-9288-8
77.
WangS.WangH.WeldonP. R. (2007). Bibliometric analysis of English-language academic journals of China and their internationalization. Scientometrics, 73, 331–343. doi:10.1007/s11192-007-1775-z
YangR. (2005). Internationalisation, indigenisation and educational research in China. Australian Journal of Education, 49, 66–88. doi:10.1177/000494410504900104
80.
YangR. (2006). What counts as “scholarship”? Problematising educational policy research in China. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 4, 207–221. doi:10.1080/14767720600752577
81.
ZhangJ.LuA. (2008). Review of teachers’ mental health research in China since 1994. Frontiers of Education in China, 3, 623–638. doi:10.1007/s11516-008-0041-3
82.
ZhaoY.ZhangG.YangW.KirklandD.HanX.ZhangJ. (2008). A comparative study of educational research in China and the United States. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 28, 1–17. doi:10.1080/02188790701849826
83.
ZhengR.CuiL. (2001). Ershinian lai woguo jiaoyu yanjiu fangfa de huiggu yu fansi [A review of educational research methods in the last two decades]. Educational Research, 6, 17–21.
