Search results

With the rise of alternate discovery services, such as Google Scholar, in conjunction with the increase in open access content, researchers have the option to bypass academic libraries when they search for and retrieve scholarly information. This state of affairs implies that academic libraries exist in competition with these alternate services and with the patrons who use them, and as a result, may be disintermediated from the scholarly information seeking and retrieval process. Drawing from decision and game theory, bounded rationality, information seeking theory, citation theory, and social computing theory, this study investigates how academic librarians are responding as competitors to changing scholarly information seeking and collecting practices. Bibliographic data was collected in 2010 from a systematic random sample of references on CiteULike.org and analyzed with three years of bibliometric data collected from Google Scholar. Findings suggest that although scholars may choose to bypass libraries when they seek scholarly information, academic libraries continue to provide a majority of scholarly documentation needs through open access and institutional repositories. Overall, the results indicate that academic librarians are playing the scholarly communication game competitively.

The study of the diffusion of innovations into libraries has become a cottage industry of sorts, as libraries have always provided a fascinating test-bed of nonprofit institutions attempting improvement through the use of new policies, practices, and assorted apparatus (Malinconico, 1997). For example, Paul Sturges (1996) has focused on the evolution of public library services over the course of 70 years across England, while Verna Pungitore (1995) presented the development of standardization of library planning policies in contemporary America. For the past several decades, however, the study of diffusion in libraries has tended to focus on the implementation of information technologies (e.g., Clayton, 1997; Tran, 2005; White, 2001) and their associated competencies (e.g., Marshall, 1990; Wildemuth, 1992), the improvements in performance associated with their use (e.g., Damanpour, 1985, 1988; Damanpour & Evan, 1984), and ways to manage resistance to technological changes within the library environment (e.g., Weiner, 2003).

The popularity of cryptocurrency and blockchain technology has been increasing in recent years. Thus, the study uses bibliometric analysis to examine the development of research on cryptocurrency and blockchain trends.

The very few researchers analyse the bibliometric trends in blockchain and cryptocurrency research to classify the articles according to research methodology and journal quality. Further, a complete study of citations or co-citations based on co-occurrence analysis needs to be added to the bibliometric research. Therefore, it is required to study this topic in detail.

The VOSviewer software and Scopus analysis are used to conduct a bibliometric study on the biographies of articles published on cryptocurrency and blockchain trends. A total of 1,186 papers from the Scopus database are retrieved to analyse the trends in this field of research.

The study examines the total citations, papers with the most citations, authors and journals, prominent institutions and country contributions. In addition to listing the top 10 most significant articles with their years of publication and total citations, this study provides insight into the top 10 prominent journals of cryptocurrency and blockchain trends. Additionally, during the past 15 years, the United States and the United Kingdom have received the most citations and publications on cryptocurrencies and blockchain trends. This study also identifies and critically investigates the top 10 journals in the specialised field with the highest Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP), SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) and citation scores.

This chapter includes a citation analysis of the first 16 volumes of Advances in Accounting Education: Teaching and Curriculum Innovations (henceforth, Advances in Accounting Education). Using this analysis, we identified the top 20 articles of the 195 articles published. This analysis provides an understanding of the relative contribution and impact of the papers published in Advances in Accounting Education, and the information provides past authors with a measure of how their contributions compare with the contributions of other authors. Also, this analysis may be valuable for potential contributors who are developing a research topic in that it will enable them to identify the types of articles that have traditionally had the greatest impact.

We also identify the top 30 authors of the 383 who have published in the journal. This analysis not only gives feedback to the authors listed, but also helps accounting education researchers identify authors whose work may be relevant to their interests.

We report the research categories (issues) and methodologies used for all articles published from 1998 to 2015 in Advances in Accounting Education. We also compare the research issues and research methodologies used in Advances in Accounting Education to those in the Journal of Accounting Education and Issues in Accounting Education for the period 2006–2015. Authors considering submitting a manuscript to one of these journals can use this information to determine which journal might be the best fit for their work.

This chapter offers a complementary view to the “quality of knowledge” perspective whereby citations to academic articles are a result of efficient market processes. The chapter suggests that any academic research can be seen through the prism of two types of knowledge networks – production and usage. Author(s) of papers are located in these two networks and their absolute and relative position in these networks can help the diffusion of the focal research. The hypotheses are tested on a dataset of 1,085 papers published in the top five management journals between 1993 and 1997. Results suggest that controlling for attributes of a paper, the position occupied by author(s) in the usage networks and production networks contributes substantially to future citations received by a paper in these five journals. However, under conditions of extreme prominence in the usage network, increases in prominence in the production network dampen increase in future citations. Similarly under conditions of extreme prominence in the production network, increases in prominence in the usage network dampen increase in future citations. Implications of these results are discussed in the context of knowledge creation, dissemination, and recognition efforts of authors.

This chapter analyses the evolution of strategic corporate social responsibility (CSR). Despite extensive research on the strategic aspects of CSR, the absence of a well-defined theoretical concept has hindered the development of the field. The authors build on the four mechanisms that conceptually distinguish strategic CSR from CSR in general: enhancing firm reputation, increasing stakeholder reciprocation, mitigating firm risk, and strengthening innovation capacity. By using bibliometric methods, we analyze the main topics, references, and sources of papers, found in the Web of Science Core Collection database. The analysis of the strategic CSR field discusses main topics through three periods (1991–2009, 2010–2014, and 2015–2019). The findings help identify the mapping of conceptual space of the strategic CSR field and suggest grounds for continuing the debates on how to advance the micro-level perspectives on CSR.

Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) member schools often compare their faculties’ research records to journal lists of their “peer and aspirational” programs. They often survey faculty and administrators’ perceptions of journal quality; number of Social Sciences Citation Index downloads; or “count” the number of faculty publications – but rarely analyze accounting programs’ actual journal quality lists. To examine this issue, we use a survey of national accounting programs. We identify a set of quality-classified journal lists by sampling 38 programs nationwide, varying by mission (e.g., urban or research), degrees granted (e.g., doctoral degrees in accounting), and national ranking (e.g., classified as a Top 75 Research Program) – from which we derive 1,436 data points that classify 359 journals that appear on these 38 programs’ journal lists. We also describe a case study that an accounting program used to revise its old journal list. We also find that while programs generally use generally accepted “bright lines” among the top three categories (A+, A, A−), they tailor their listings from the wide variety of B or C classified journals to create their own sets of acceptable journals in these categories. The study provides guidance and data for accounting programs who wish to develop or revise their own journal lists. While many studies have examined journal rankings, this is the first study to document the use of journal lists by accounting programs with a wide array of missions.