Search results

This paper aims to conduct a comprehensive analysis to evaluate the current situation of journals, examine the factors that influence their development, and establish an evaluation index system and model. The objective is to enhance the theory and methodologies used for journal evaluation and provide guidance for their positive development.

This study uses empirical data from economics journals to analyse their evaluation dimensions, methods, index system and evaluation framework. This study then assigns weights to journal data using single and combined evaluations in three dimensions: influence, communication and novelty. It calculates several evaluation metrics, including the explanation rate, information entropy value, difference coefficient and novelty degree. Finally, this study applies the concept of fuzzy mathematics to measure the final results.

The use of affiliation degree and fuzzy Borda number can synthesize ranking and score differences among evaluation methods. It combines internal objective information and improves model accuracy. The novelty of journal topics positively correlates with both the journal impact factor and social media mentions. In addition, journal communication power indicators compensate for the shortcomings of traditional citation analysis. Finally, the three-dimensional representative evaluation index serves as a reminder to academic journals to avoid the vortex of the Matthew effect.

This paper proposes a journal evaluation model comprising academic influence, communication power and novelty dimensions. It uses fuzzy Borda evaluation to address issues related to the weighing of single evaluation methods. This study also analyses the relationship of the three dimensions and offers insights for journal development in the new media era.

This paper aims to investigate the development of accounting academia in an emerging country situated in Central and Eastern Europe.

First, the authors analyze publications in the main three local Romanian journals dedicated to accounting, using content analysis and statistical tests in line with the issues analyzed for accounting publications in the international literature. Second, they mobilize personal experience of, and observations of local developments by, the authors.

The authors find that the decision of establishing a national journal ranking system in Romania in 2005 had both positive and negative consequences. Romanian accounting academics were asked after 2005 to focus on a very short notice on writing research papers, following a long period of communism and about 15 years of post-communism during which they wrote textbooks and professional papers. Journal and university rankings therefore influenced the publication behavior of such researchers, leading to searches for efficiency, ease of publications, publications outside accounting as well as to a difficult publication of their research outcome by internationally relevant accounting journals.

Publications in the three Romanian accounting journals for one year were analyzed and the personal experience of the authors mobilized. However, following this study, university administrators and national regulators can better ascertain the effect of their actions, and use these findings to better plan their future actions.

This paper contributes to accounting research literature by offering insights into the current state of accounting research and publication in an emerging economy (Romania), and by investigating the institutional factors that may be responsible for this state of affairs.

The purpose of this paper is to address the following research question: how do the interlocking editorial advisory boards (EABs) of operations and supply chain management (OSCM) journals map out the field’s diverse academic communities and how demographically diverse is the field and its communities?

The study applies social network analysis (SNA) to web-based EAB data for 38 journals listed under operations management (OM) in the 2010 ABS Academic Journal Quality Guide.

The members of EABs of the 38 journals are divided into seven distinct communities which are mapped to the field’s knowledge structures and further aggregated into a core and periphery of the network. A burgeoning community of supply chain management academics forms the core along with those with more traditional interests. Male academics affiliated to the US institutions and to business schools predominate in the sample.

A new strand of research is opened up connecting journal governance networks to knowledge structures in the OSCM field. OM is studied separately from its reference and associated disciplines. The use of the ABS list might attract comments that the study has an implicit European perspective – however the authors do not believe this to be the case.

The study addresses the implications of the lack of diversity for the practice of OM as an academic discipline.

The confirmation of the dominance of particular characteristics such as male and US-based academics has implications for social diversity of the field.

As the first study of its kind, i.e. SNA of EAB members of OSCM journals, this study marks out a new perspective and acts as a benchmark for the future.

The purpose of this paper is to propose and examine streams in the literature related to academic publishing, with a focus on works in marketing. The content of the works within each theme are then explored to identify what issues have been examined and their implications.

The paper is a literature review, drawing on 30 years of research on academic publishing in marketing. The review is designed to cover the underlying issues examined, but is not designed to be comprehensive in terms of all the works exploring each stream of research.

There are five main streams in the literature focusing on: rankings; theory and knowledge development; how to publish;, criticisms of publishing; and other issues. Within each stream, a number of sub‐areas are explored. The works tend to be fragmented and there is generally limited in‐depth qualitative research within streams exploring the underlying assumptions on which publishing is based.

The focus of the research is on the streams of works, rather than the findings within each stream and future research could explore each of these streams and sub‐streams in more detail. Generally, the works appear to becoming increasingly sophisticated in terms of their analysis, which is only possible with the new technologies available. New metrics proposed in the literature that can be used to better understand publishing and additional qualitative research exploring some of the basic assumptions could also be explored.

The research suggests that some streams with regard to academic publishing may have reached saturation and future publishing in these areas will need to be innovative in its approach and analysis, if these works are to be published.

This paper is the first attempt to develop streams within the literature on academic publishing in marketing and thus draws together a diverse cross‐section of works. It provides suggestions for directions for future research in the various streams.

The purpose of this paper is to assess the use of journal‐ranking lists for academic librarian promotion and tenure (P&T) decision.

Using a case study, the researchers analyzed a proposed journal‐ranking list created for P&T decisions. A quantitative analysis of peer‐reviewed journal articles was performed to support this analysis.

The paper shows that the use of journal‐ranking lists for P&T decisions inadequately conflates academic librarians with teaching faculty members.

The study relied primarily on a single case study, so it may not be scientifically generalized.

This study identifies journal‐ranking lists as an inadequate tool for the evaluation of academic librarians and encourages action to divorce the valuation of intellectual achievement from quantitative structures.

The analysis of the quantitative/metric underpinnings of intellectual labor in higher education is necessary for academic freedom.

This paper presents the findings of an investigation designed to reveal the destination of the refereed journal research output of accounting and finance faculty members across their entire academic careers. A geographic approach was adopted with the intention of providing a historical data‐set to inform the development of a region‐centric model of academic research productivity. The study focuses on publication careers of accounting and finance academics from one particular geographic region, New Zealand. The data were collected through a detailed examination of electronic databases of journal holdings and research reports of tertiary institutions. The results of this study provide evidence that, across their careers, New Zealand's academics have published a significant number of papers in journals located in two regions, Australia‐New Zealand and the United Kingdom, and that this academic community has attained publication success in international journals generally regarded as high quality.

The purpose of this paper is to introduce altmetric indicators and combine with traditional citation indicators to comprehensively evaluate the impact of academic journals from the perspective of multidimensional and multi-indicator fusion.

The authors take international multidisciplinary journals as an example, combining 14 traditional citation indicators of academic journals and introducing 14 altmetric indicators to build a comprehensive evaluation model of the impact of academic journals (academic impact and societal impact). At the same time, the authors systematically construct a journal evaluation indicator system from three dimensions. Then, the indicators data of three dimensions are evaluated by normalized processing, correlation analysis, reliability and validity analysis, PCA and factor analysis.

Two-dimensional and three-dimensional analyses can exactly provide some useful information for academic journals’ location in the respective coordinate systems. There are strong positive correlations among the measured indicators in the three dimensions, and each indicator has a significant consistency between whole and internal. The correlation coefficient between FD1 and FD2 is 0.888 with a strong positive correlation. It shows that the traditional citation indicators provided by WoS and Scopus database are highly consistent, and they are comparable and alternative in evaluating the academic impact of journals. The correlation coefficients of FD1, FD2 with FD3 are 0.831 and 0.798. There are strong positive correlations among them, which indicate that the evaluation of journals’ societal impact based on altmetrics indicator can be considered as a potential supplement to academic impact evaluation based on citation and to reflect the multidimensional nature of journals impact in an immediate way.

Multidimensional and multi-indicator perspective evaluation can provide references for the selection of impact evaluation indicators and model optimization of academic journals, and also provide new ideas for improving the status of the impact evaluation of academic journals.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the construction of articles published in three highly ranked interdisciplinary accounting journals.

The analysis is based on articles published during 2010 in Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal (AAAJ), Accounting, Organizations and Society (AOS) and Critical Perspectives on Accounting (CPA). The authors develop a framework and examine characteristics of the published articles, including the prose.

Based on the construction of accounting academic articles in the highly ranked interdisciplinary journals, the authors introduce a simplified concept of the five distinct major parts of an article, make some taken-for-granted aspects of article construction explicit and conclude that alternatives, if used effectively, can add to the quality of an article. Finally, there is a discussion of, and a reflection on, how the taken-for-granted rules of academic publishing can be challenged.

This article is limited by the authors ' own analysis and interpretations of AAAJ, AOS and CPA articles published during 2010.

As far as can be ascertained, the authors are the first to examine the construction of research articles published in high ranking interdisciplinary accounting journals. The paper can assist emerging scholars in the process of planning and writing their own articles. For seasoned researchers, the paper ' s insights may serve to reaffirm or help further develop their approach. The paper also contributes to the ongoing debate around the pressure to publish, the measurement of publications, and the difficulties of getting published.

The aim of this paper is to explore the relationship between practitioners and academics in scholarly communication in library and information science (LIS) journals.

The research is based on a reader survey, a citation analysis and an editor survey. The reader survey identifies both differences in journal rankings between practitioners and academics and the contribution of practitioners to LIS journals. The editor survey provides the proportions of practitioners and academics for the journals. The citation analysis shows the disparities in information exchange between the journals mainly preferred by practitioners and those more favoured by academics. Furthermore, it is possible to explore if practitioner journals differ from academic journals in the citation indicators and in other data collected in the editor survey.

It is found that: practitioners play an active role both as readers and as authors of articles in LIS journals; there is only a low level of information exchange between practitioner and academic journals; the placement of advertisements, the size of the editorial board, requirements concerning an extensive bibliography, the number and the half‐life of the references show a clear distinction between practitioner and academic journals. Interestingly, the impact factor did not turn out to be a good indicator to differentiate a practitioner from an academic journal.

This research is only exploratory because it is based on separate studies previously conducted. Further research is also needed to explore the relationship between practitioners and academics more deeply.

The value of this paper lies in bringing together the findings from complementary studies (reader survey, editor survey and citation analysis) and identifying hypotheses for future research, especially with regards to the roles of and interactions between LIS practitioners and academics in scholarly communication.

This paper examines the engagement of business practitioners with academic business research. The purpose of this paper is to assess whether there is a gap between academic research and business people, and, if so, how to bridge this gap.

Over 150 senior business practitioners were interviewed, in order to capture their views on the usefulness of academic research to them in their roles as practicing managers. Survey questions covered both their current access and reading of business-related publications and what the ideal academic business journal should be, in terms of access and contents.

Academic journals are not very well known among business professionals. If these professionals could choose, they would like academic journals to be written by experienced business people, to contain business cases and to be accessible on line. Existing academic business journal “repositories,” such as Google Scholar, are not mentioned in the survey results.

The findings indicate that potential solutions to bridge the gap between academic journals and business practitioners should not be complicated to implement, and would greatly help bring these two communities closer, with mutually enriching results.

This paper takes a very pragmatic view of the gap between academic journals and business practitioners, and seeks to assess this gap in terms of how it can be bridged on an everyday basis, rather than take a theoretical approach. It begs for the definition of actionable next steps.