Seemingly unscrupulous entities, referred to as “predatory” journals, have appeared in scholarly publishing over the past decade. Predatory journals have been characterized as using questionable publishing practices and consequently, as publishing questionable research. At the outset of this thesis, such assertions were based on little evidence, making it difficult to understand how to identify a predatory journal and judge the extent of the potential problem they present. This thesis sought to: (1) determine how the apparent operations of predatory journals differ from their presumed legitimate counterparts; (2) to characterize the epidemiology and reporting of biomedical research published in predatory journals; and (3) to determine what, if any, guidance health research funders provide about selecting journals in which to publish funded research. Predatory journals appear to be distinct from presumed legitimate journals in several ways. For example, they lack descriptions of their editorial processes, ethical policies, and content preservation arrangements more often than presumed legitimate journals. Researchers, globally, have published clinical and preclinical studies reporting on millions of research subjects in predatory journals. Such content is poorly reported against established reporting guidelines; some of it originates from high profile institutions and is supported by well-known biomedical research funders. Most major funders propose journal publication as one way of achieving open access, yet few provide guidance on how to select a journal for this purpose. These thesis findings suggest that some features encountered on journals’ websites may signal potentially questionable journal practices. These features should be further evaluated to determine their accuracy in detecting predatory journals. Additionally, researchers may be sending research to predatory journals which may be of low quality, low priority, or unacceptable in legitimate journals. This is problematic because genuine research efforts/participant contributions may go undetected and never contribute to future knowledge generation. Future research ought to be done to determine why and how researchers, globally, choose where to publish. Research funders ought to agree on guidance and policies to ensure funded research can be found by others and is published in journals indicating basic standards for facilitating this.

Recent debates about decolonising research suggest that researchers should reframe how they think of research participants in the Global South: not as data points, but as partners who are involved from research design to dissemination. However, the findings of development research are rarely shared with participants or other non-decision-maker audiences in the Global South.This study explores the structural factors that have led a research funder, the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Development Office (FCDO) (formerly Department for International Development (DFID)), to focus its research communication efforts almost exclusively on policy audiences, and how this has shifted in the years since DFID was first established in 1997.

Large resources are invested in healthcare research, but despite this there is a wide gap between research knowledge and healthcare practice. Implementation researchers have addressed this gap, focusing mostly on the role of healthcare practitioners. However, a narrow focus on implementation does not take into consideration the preceding stages and the roles of different actors during the whole innovation process, which starts from research and ends with implementation. The aim of this thesis is to examine the behaviors of three key actors during an innovation process and to explore the influence of selected contextual factors on their behavior. Study I (n=10 funders) identifies several facilitative roles for funders and suggests that implementation risks becoming no one’s responsibility as the funders identify six different actors responsible for implementation, the majority of whom embody a collective or an organization. Study II finds that the implementation knowledge of Swedish funding managers (n=18) is mostly based on experience-based knowledge. The majority of the funding managers define implementation as a process and express limited knowledge of implementation. The findings of Study III (n=4 innovation cases) show that the roles and involvement of academic inventors and ISAs (innovation-supporting actors) are more connected to intellectual property (IP) nature than to intellectual property rights (IPR) ownership. Study IV (n=4 innovation cases) identifies three different logics that influence the behavior of academic inventors: market, academic and care logics. A pattern emerges where the behavior of academic inventors is guided by a unique logic and there is no interaction between logics, despite the existence of multiple logics. The individual strategies to handle multiple logics coincide with the influence of logics. In addition, IP nature, distinguishing between high-tech and low-tech innovations, is connected to the influence of institutional logics: low-tech connected to the care logic and high-tech connected to the market logic. This thesis has three main theoretical and practical implications relevant for practitioners, policymakers and researchers. First, implementation responsibility is an important issue to study and discuss, because without clearly defined responsibilities and management of responsibilities, responsibility might become no one’s responsibility. Second, the finding that experience-based implementation knowledge contributes heavily to policymakers’ knowledge encourages further studies and discussions regarding this relatively neglected issue. Third, the importance of IP nature in shaping innovation processes should be considered and further examined, not only as a factor influencing inventors and ISAs’ roles and involvement, but also as influencing the prevalence of different institutional logics. Further, the relevance of a distinction between low-tech and high-tech IP should be reflected on.