Search results

This paper aims to analyze the relationships between discourse leading indicators and citations from perspectives of integrating altmetrics indicators and tries to provide references for comprehending the quantitative indicators of scientific communication in the era of open science, constructing the evaluation indicator system of the discourse leading for academic journals and then improving the discourse leading of academic journals.

Based on the theory of communication and the new pattern of scientific communication, this paper explores the formation process of academic journals' discourse leading. This paper obtains 874,119 citations and 6,378,843 altmetrics indicators data from 65 international multidisciplinary academic journals. The relationships between indicators of discourse leading (altmetrics) and citations are studied by using descriptive statistical analysis, correlation analysis, principal component analysis, negative binomial regression analysis and marginal effects analysis. Meanwhile, the connotation and essential characteristics of the indicators, the strength and influence of the relationships are further analyzed and explored. It is proposed that academic journals' discourse leading is composed of news discourse leading, social media discourse leading, peer review discourse leading, encyclopedic discourse leading, video discourse leading and policy discourse leading.

It is discovered that the 15 altmetrics indicators data have a low degree of centralization to the center and a high degree of polarization dispersion overall; their distribution patterns do not follow the normal distributions, and their distributions have the characteristics of long-tailed right-peaked curves. Overall, 15 indicators show positive correlations and wide gaps exist in the number of mentions and coverage. The academic journals' discourse leading significantly affects total cites. When altmetrics indicators of international mainstream academic and social media platforms are used to explore the connotation and characteristics of academic journals' discourse leading, the influence or contribution of social media discourse, news discourse, video discourse, policy discourse, peer review discourse and encyclopedia discourse on the citations decreases in turn.

This study is innovative from the academic journal level to analyze the deep relationships between altmetrics indicators and citations from the perspective of correlation. First, this paper explores the formation process of academic journals' discourse leading. Second, this paper integrates altmetrics indicators to study the correlation between discourse leading indicators and citations. This study will help to enrich and improve basic theoretical issues and indicators’ composition, provide theoretical support for the construction of the discourse leading evaluation system for academic journals and provide ideas for the evaluation practice activities.

Under the background of open science, this paper integrates altmetrics data and combines multiple evaluation methods to analyze and evaluate the indicators' characteristics of discourse leading for academic journals, which is of great significance to enrich and improve the evaluation theory and indicator system of academic journals.

This paper obtained 795,631 citations and 10.3 million altmetrics indicators data for 126,424 published papers from 151 medicine, general and internal academic journals. In this paper, descriptive statistical analysis and distribution rules of evaluation indicators are first carried out at the macro level. The distribution characteristics of evaluation indicators under different international collaboration conditions are analyzed at the micro level. Second, according to the characteristics and connotation of the evaluation indicators, the evaluation indicator system is constructed. Third, correlation analysis, factor analysis, entropy weight method and TOPSIS method are adopted to evaluate and analyze the discourse leading in medicine, general and internal academic journals by integrating altmetrics. At the same time, this paper verifies the reliability of the evaluation results.

Six features of discourse leading integrated with altmetrics indicators are obtained. In the era of open science, online academic exchanges are becoming more and more popular. The evaluation activities based on altmetrics have fine-grained and procedural advantages. It is feasible and necessary to integrate altmetrics indicators and combine the advantages of multiple methods to evaluate the academic journals' discourse leading of which are in a diversified academic ecosystem.

This paper uses descriptive statistical analysis to analyze the distribution characteristics and distribution rules of discourse leading indicators of academic journals and to explore the availability of altmetrics indicators and the effectiveness of constructing an evaluation system. Then, combining the advantages of multiple evaluation methods, The author integrates altmetrics indicators to comprehensively evaluate the discourse leading of academic journals and verify the reliability of the evaluation results. This paper aims to provide references for enriching and improving the evaluation theory and indicator system of academic journals.

This study explores the use and perceptions of scholarly journal ranking lists in the management field based on stakeholders’ lived experience.

The results are based on a survey of 463 active knowledge management and intellectual capital researchers.

Journal ranking lists have become an integral part of contemporary management academia: 33% and 37% of institutions and individual scholars employ journal ranking lists, respectively. The Australian Business Deans Council (ABDC) Journal Quality List and the UK Academic Journal Guide (AJG) by the Chartered Association of Business Schools (CABS) are the most frequently used national lists, and their influence has spread far beyond the national borders. Some institutions and individuals create their own journal rankings.

Management researchers employ journal ranking lists under two conditions: mandatory and voluntary. The forced mode of use is necessary to comply with institutional pressure that restrains the choice of target outlets. At the same time, researchers willingly consult ranking lists to advance their personal career, maximize their research exposure, learn about the relative standing of unfamiliar journals, and direct their students. Scholars, academic administrators, and policymakers should realize that journal ranking lists may serve as a useful tool when used appropriately, in particular when individuals themselves decide how and for what purpose to employ them to inform their research practices.

The findings reveal a journal ranking lists paradox: management researchers are aware of the limitations of ranking lists and their deleterious impact on scientific progress; however, they generally find journal ranking lists to be useful and employ them.

Given the importance of interdisciplinary research in addressing wicked problems, this paper aims to explore the development of and prospects for interdisciplinary research through evidence gained from academic accountants in Australia.

Extant literature is complemented with interviews of accounting academics in Australia to reveal the challenges and opportunities facing interdisciplinary researchers and reimagine prospects for the future.

Evidence indicates that accounting academics hold diverse views toward interdisciplinarity. There is also confusion between multidisciplinarity and interdisciplinarity in the journals in which academic accountants publish. Further, there is mixed messaging among Deans, disciplinary leaders and emerging scholars about the importance of interdisciplinary research to, on the one hand, publish track records and, on the other, secure grants from government and industry. Finally, there are differing perceptions about the disciplines to be encouraged or accepted in the cross-fertilisation of ideas.

This paper is novel in gathering first-hand data about the opportunities, challenges and tensions accounting academics face in collaborating with others in interdisciplinary research. It confirms a discouraging pressure for emerging scholars between the academic research outputs required to publish in journals, prepare reports for industry and secure research funding, with little guidance for how these tensions might be managed.

The purpose of the present study was to identify the conditions that affect the absorptive capacity (AC) of knowledge, discover its consequences and design an AC paradigm pattern in public academic libraries. To do so, AC was investigated at the levels of individual and organizational learning.

In this paper, to answer the three major questions of this qualitative-survey study, the views of 24 experts were examined using an in-depth semi-structured interview and grounded theory strategy. The data were collected using a nonrandom combined targeted sampling procedure (targeted and snowball) and analyzed based on Strauss and Corbin’s (1998) approach and utilizing MAX Qualitative Data Analysis (MAXQDA) software.

Throughout the grounded analytic stages, 121 open codes were identified. These were distributed around the AC axial category in academic libraries in terms of individual and organizational learning. The 33 axial concepts were then categorized into 16 selective general categories. The paradigm pattern was initially designed to explore the relationships between causal, intervening, strategies, context and consequences conditions. The transition from academic libraries to learning organizations, their increased functional value and the development of their innovation were identified as the consequences of AC development.

This qualitative research is the first in the field of Library and Information Science (LIS) to support AC both theoretically and empirically in terms of learning in academic libraries. This study thus not only addresses a key research gap in LIS but also provides significant insights and direction to interested librarians and researchers.

Due to the high expense of obtaining and accessing scientific research, readers with diverse financial abilities are not offered equal opportunities. This study investigates the preferences for journal access types among Arab university academics and explores the implications of publishing research articles in open access vs closed access journals in low- and lower-middle income countries.

An online survey and an in-person focus group consisting of 74 scholars from Arab institutions throughout the Arab World were conducted.

Findings show that most professors at Arab universities favour open access publication without author fees. The results also show that this method of publishing research will help these nations advance by giving all citizens equal access to information and providing researchers with a good opportunity to be read and cited, which contributes to the overall progress of science.

This topic has not been investigated yet, and it is of great importance to university professors and stakeholders in higher education institutions in the Arab world.

The purpose of this study is to examine research on academic libraries and the social web published from July 1, 2019, to June 30, 2023.

The article search and filtering procedures mirrored those of Choi and Harper (2020) and Carlsson (2015), resulting in a total sample size of 93 articles. These articles underwent examination based on the same eight variables (i.e. journal outlet, research theme, publication year, social web type, method, keyword, study participant type and study country) as employed by Choi and Harper (2020) and Carlsson (2015), with the addition of two new variables (i.e. research purpose and the impact of COVID-19).

The research article volume has consistently maintained a stable trend. A notable difference from Choi and Harper (2020) and Carlsson (2015) is the rise of “user perspectives” as the second most prevalent theme. Unlike Choi and Harper (2020), the “survey” method is predominant. Many research purposes, excluding “marketing and promotion,” lack attention. Additionally, there’s a dearth of studies on the impact of COVID-19.

The findings from the study not only offer a snapshot of the current research landscape on academic libraries and their engagement with the social web but also offer insights for future scholarly endeavors.

There is a limited effort in exploring the recent literature regarding the role of the social web in academic libraries. This study serves as a valuable guide for contributing to this dynamic research stream and provides various up-to-date implications.

This study aims to verify empirically that when a group of isomorphic organisations is subjected to institutional pressure that conflicts with their technical efficiency or interests, this group will embrace opaqueness and decoupling.

This is a multiple case study of 16 Brazilian academic journals. The authors analyse whether the editorial boards of these journals play an effective or merely ceremonial role in the administration of the journals.

The authors find indications that isomorphic organisations revert to decoupling when the pressures they are subjected to are in conflict with their technical efficiency or interests. The authors also find indications of an inverted U-shaped relationship between the collaboration recruiting power of a journal in an academic field and decoupling. This collaboration recruiting power is closely related to the journal’s position in academic rankings.

The authors have shown that, although some scientific journals can deal with internationalisation pressures, for others, this is difficult and leads to decoupling and opaqueness. This is not a desirable situation. It can be counterproductive and draw attention to bureaucratic procedures.

This relation between opaqueness and institutional pressure for a group of organisations within the context of neo-institutional theory has not yet been verified empirically. This study’s results show how institutional pressure and organisational opaqueness are related in an organisational field. This theoretical contribution has practical implications because of decoupling’s potentially negative effects.

Academic coaching (AC) has gained a significant attention to support student success and achievement in higher education, management and psychology. This study aimed to conduct a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of AC literature to identify the top authors, research patterns, hotspots and research topics in the field.

The study utilized a bibliometric analysis of articles published between 1987 and 2023, using descriptive and network analysis methods with tools such as RStudio, Biblioshiny, Excel and VOSviewer. The study also conducted functional, mapping and content analysis, to identify AC literature's key themes and research areas.

The results revealed an increasing interest in AC, with increased publications. However, there are gaps in geographical diversity and authorship. Most studies were conducted in the United States of America and the UK, and were published in education, psychology and coaching journals. Common themes included coaching, professional development, higher education and mentoring. Emerging research areas include: coaching efficacy in education, AC as an online learning support and professional learning communities. More studies are needed in different contexts and with larger sample sizes.

This comprehensive bibliometric analysis adds to the existing literature by presenting a detailed analysis of the field of AC, filling a gap in the current literature. The study's unique contribution is its examination of emerging research areas and themes in AC literature, providing directions for future research. This study is particularly relevant for researchers, practitioners and policymakers interested in understanding AC's state of the art and identifying promising areas for future research.

With the technological innovation dominating higher education, the university libraries, as physical spaces, continue to play a crucial role in connecting students with knowledge. The emergence of the “Learning Commons” serves as a catalyst in the design of library spaces, renewing libraries’ roles and missions and making them popular to Millennials for new reasons. This study aims to record Greek librarians' views on the current situation in Greek academic libraries regarding physical space design, services provided and the existence of the “Learning Commons” model characteristics.

This study was conducted through an online survey structured questionnaire (closed-ended, five-point Likert scale, multiple-choice and statements questions). This study population comprised librarians working in 37 academic institutions and colleges. The collected data were subjected to descriptive statistical analysis. The research questions were answered using variables creation and the tests, t-test, ANOVA and Kruskal–Wallis. The groups of questions were tested for their reliability using the Cronbach's alpha coefficient.

In total, 186 librarians responded to this study. The responses revealed that participants were willing and ready to accept and support a different approach to academic library physical spaces use, according to the shared learning spaces model. However, this requires changes in the organization's vision, further growth and evolution. Although recently most Greek academic libraries have made significant progress in developing their services to function as information and digital hubs, they do not function as learning collaborative hubs, since the “Learning Commons” model is not reflected in their buildings.

The creation of new academic libraries according to the “common” model is a rapidly evolving issue that affects Greek libraries. This paper highlights the characteristics of libraries that should be adopted in the modern era, the new roles of academic librarians and the importance of an appropriate design of the physical space to achieve optimal learning outcomes. At the same time, this paper is one of the few that illustrates librarians', and not users', perceptions of these changes. This paper is a good research example, and the methodology for measuring this type of context could be used by other future research approaches in other countries.