Search results

This study explores faculty members' outputs and citations by gender and academic rank in Israeli academia. The study focuses on the connection between research productivity and underrepresentation of women in academia. To this end, four fields were chosen, each representing a different discipline: Psychology (social sciences), Public Health (health sciences), Linguistics (humanities), and Chemistry (Exact sciences).

The name, the rank and the gender of the researchers were collected from the researchers' websites and those of their departments. The number of publications and citations were retrieved from Scopus.

Findings revealed that there is a significant difference between the median number of men and women in Chemistry concerning publications and citations and in Psychology concerning citations. Moreover, in all four disciplines, females' average number of publications was lower than that of males', and that in three out of the four disciplines (Psychology, Public Health and Chemistry), men published more in top journals (the top 5%) than females, while the reverse was true of Linguistics. Furthermore, in three disciplines (Public Health, Linguistics and Chemistry), there is an increase in the average citations per female researchers between 2015 and 2019. Further, in all disciplines, women collaborated more than men.

As only a few studies in Israel have explored faculty members' outputs and citations, this study contributes and enlarges the Israeli research concerning this topic.

This study aims to provide an extensive overview of OA journals’ status and quality in 27 research areas based on all Scopus-indexed journals. It shows the volume of OA journals, proportion of publications in OA journals and the quality of these journals in comparison with subscription-based counterparts.

This research investigated 22,256 active peer-reviewed journals indexed by Scopus in 2015. Data were gathered using the Journal Metrics website. The current research adopted four indicators to compare the quality of OA and non-OA journals indexed in Scopus under each subject area, namely citedness rate, CiteScore, SNIP and SJR.

OA journals comprised approximately 17 per cent out of the total journals indexed by Scopus in 2015. The results revealed an uneven spread of OA journals across disciplines, ranged from 5.5 to 28.7 per cent. Studying the quality of journals as measured by CiteScore, SJR SNIP leads us to the finding that, in all research areas, except for health profession and nursing, non-OA journals attain statistically significant higher average quality than do OA journals.

Although OA publishing improves the visibility of scholarly journals, this increase is not always coupled with increase in journals’ impact and quality.

This study aims to explore the degree to which the editorial policies of business and management journals explicitly or implicitly discourage replication studies.

The paper examines differences in editorial policy toward replication studies relative to journal quality, age and sub-discipline area. A total of 600 journals (listed as Q1 and Q2 in Scopus) were selected for the current study.

The results reveal that out of 600 selected journals, only 28 (4.7%) were explicitly open to considering replication studies, while 331 (55.2%) were neutral, being neither explicitly nor implicitly dismissive of replication studies. A further 238 (39.7%) were implicitly dismissive of replication studies, and the remaining 3 (0.5%) journals were explicitly disinterested in considering replication studies for publication. CiteScore and Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) of neutral journals were significantly lower than those of journals, which were implicitly discouraging replication research. With regard to the journals implicitly discouraging replications (238), journals in the subcategory of business and international management (51) had the highest percentage (21.4%) followed by strategy and management 30 (12.6%) and Organizational Behavior (OB) and Human Resource (HR) 25 (10.5%).

The available literature does not explore the degree to which the editorial policies of business and management journals explicitly or implicitly discourage replication studies. The current study attempts to address this gap in the literature. Given the lack of support for replications among business and management journals, the current paper sets forth the suggested steps which are deemed crucial for moving beyond the replication crisis in the business and management field.

While the number of hybrid journals has increased with the conversion from subscription journals, article processing charges (APCs) have not been examined as frequently as gold open access journals. This study compared the factors affecting APCs for hybrid and gold open access journals by formulating a charge equation.

This study examined the APCs for 1,354 hybrid and gold open access journals in the Springer imprint. Using the ordinary least squares method, it investigated the determinants of charges, including the relationship between subscription prices and APCs for hybrid journals.

The results revealed that the charges set by hybrid journals were higher than those set by gold open access journals by US$1,620, after controlling for other variables. A reason could be the oligopolistic market structure of the leading publishers. Although the publisher imprint set the APCs based on the journal characteristics, the difference in the determinants of the charges between the two journal types may be due to the business models specific to the journal types.

The findings suggested that policymakers must consider the market power of leading publishers to establish a healthy scholarly communication market.

This study examined the relationship between subscription prices and charges for hybrid journals as well as the determinants of charges for both journal types, considering various characteristics of individual journals.

The purpose of this paper is to develop insight into the scholarly communications trends in hospitality and tourism management by looking at the practice of publishing Special Issues (SIs) in top-ranked hospitality and tourism management (HTM) academic journals: examining the relationship of SIs to journal impact as a measurement of quality, identifying some principal topics of SI and the trend of publishing SI as monographs.

This paper consists of an analysis of 22 top-ranked HTM journals from 1995 to 2020, in-depth case studies reviewing studies in two top-ranked HTM journals and an examination of which publishers supplement their revenue by selling their special issues as monographs. This paper includes a substantial review of literature regarding special issue publishing within business academic journals.

There was growth in the publication of HTM SI from 1995 to 2020, both in numbers and as a percentage of total issues. There is no evidence that SI are reducing impact within HTM journals; impact has grown exponentially since the mid-1990s. In one case, there was a significant increase in SI publication as well as in impact. The number of Regular Issues (RI) published increased during the same period but at a marginally lower rate. There is no evidence that SI are negatively affecting RI. The in-depth analysis of the two journals concurred with the above findings and suggested that SI studies discuss topics of the highest impact. SI increased the revenue of the publisher through monograph publishing. This practice also furthered the field by making SI available to be purchased as a monograph by nonsubscribers.

This study provides a deeper understanding of scholarly publishing in top-ranking HTM journals and provides a foundation for future research on HTM publishing practices. Its practical implications extend to practitioners who rely on HTM scholarship for dissemination of vital research that can guide or drive decision-making. This study also informs the critical question as to whether such research is compromised by publishing practices. Other practical implications include providing reassuring information to editors who publish SI that these issues do not appear to contribute to lower journal impact. For researchers who are considering submitting manuscripts to SIs, this study similarly implies that their paper should not be considered of lower value and that there is no indication that its impact will be lessened. Furthermore, the authors hope that this study encourages would-be guest editors to publish SI if they have held back because of quality/impact concerns. Finally, this paper may provide evidence to journal editors who do not regularly publish SI because of quality and impact concerns that they may reconsider this choice. Implications for HTM journal editors and guest editors include adding or increasing SI in their publishing practice will not decrease the journal’s quality, while SI publishing also could contribute to the goals of their publication and increase revenues for the publishers. Researchers who may have been reluctant to publish in SI should be more inclined to submit to them or endeavor to become guest editors to explore avenues of developing their field.

SI publication and impact within the field of hospitality and tourism scholarly communications are rarely discussed. Literature reviews on SI publication in business are also limited. Investigation into publication practices of focused/special issues can help inform researchers, publishers and editors and provide a state of the industry.

There are different opinions about the quality and reputation of publications. Given that one of the ways to analyze the quality of journals and articles is citation indicators, the purpose of this paper is to compare the citation indicators of open access (OA), full subscription and hybrid journals and articles based on the Scopus in the field of library and information science (LIS) for a period of ten years (2004-2013).

The research population is all LIS journals and articles in LIS hybrid journals in Scopus. The data related to citation indicators (number of received citations, two years’ impact, Citescore [IPP] and H-index) were extracted from Scopus, Journal Metrics and SCImago and analyzed using descriptive and analytical statistics with SPSS and Excel.

The findings indicate that number of OA journals and articles were less than that of full subscription and hybrid journals. The average rate of all citation indicators in hybrid journals were more than that of OA and full subscription journals. However, in the level of articles, the average number of citations received by OA articles (15.6) was more than that of non-OA articles (2.25).

Unlike journals, OA seems to be an advantage for articles in LIS. LIS hybrid journals receive more citations than OA and subscription journals. Thus, the authors’ approach to publishing in OA, hybrid or subscription journals and the publishers approach to the publication type may also be influenced by the findings of the present study.

In 2017, one study (Derek Pyne; Journal of Scholarly Publishing; DOI: 10.3138/jsp.48.3.137; University of Toronto Press) in the “predatory” publishing literature attracted global media attention. Now, over three years, according to adjusted Google Scholar data, with 53 citations (34 in Clarivate Analytics' Web of Science), that paper became that author's most cited paper, accounting for one-third of his Google Scholar citations.

In this paper, the authors conducted a bibliometric analysis of the authors who cited that paper.

We found that out of the 39 English peer-reviewed journal papers, 11 papers (28%) critically assessed Pyne's findings, some of which even refuted those findings. The 2019 citations of the Pyne (2017) paper caused a 43% increase in the Journal of Scholarly Publishing 2019 Journal Impact Factor, which was 0.956, and a 7.7% increase in the 2019 CiteScore.

The authors are of the opinion that scholars and numerous media that cited the Pyne (2017) paper were unaware of its flawed findings.

The purpose of this paper is to reflect upon the focus and changing nature of measuring academic accounting research quality. The paper addresses contemporary changes in academic publishing, metrics for determining research quality and the possible impacts on accounting scholars. These are considered in relation to the core values of interdisciplinary accounting research ‒ that is, the pursuit of novel, rigorous, significant and authentic research motivated by a passion for scholarship, curiosity and solving wicked problems. The impact of changing journal rankings and research citation metrics on the traditional and highly valued role of the accounting academic is further considered. In this setting, the paper also provides a summary of the journal’s activities for 2018, and in the future.

Drawing on contemporary data sets, the paper illustrates the increasingly diverse and confusing array of “evidence” brought to bear on the question of the relative quality of accounting research. Commercial products used to rate and rank journals, and judge the academic impact of individual scholars and their papers not only offer insight and visibility, but also have the potential to misinform scholars and their assessors.

In the move from simple journal ranking lists to big data and citations, and increasingly to concerns with impact and engagement, the authors identify several challenges facing academics and administrators alike. The individual academic and his or her contribution to scholarship are increasingly marginalised in the name of discipline, faculty and institutional performance. A growing university performance management culture within, for example, the UK and Australasia, has reached a stage in the past decade where publication and citation metrics are driving allocations of travel grants, research grants, promotions and appointments. With an expanded range of available metrics and products to judge their worth, or have it judged for them, scholars need to be increasingly informed of the nuanced or not-so-nuanced uses to which these measurement systems will be put. Narrow, restricted and opaque peer-based sources such as journal ranking lists are now being challenged by more transparent citation-based sources.

The issues addressed in this commentary offer a critical understanding of contemporary metrics and measurement in determining the quality of interdisciplinary accounting research. Scholars are urged to reflect upon the challenges they face in a rapidly moving context. Individuals are increasingly under pressure to seek out preferred publication outlets, developing and curating a personal citation profile. Yet such extrinsic outcomes may come at the cost of the core values that motivate the interdisciplinary scholar and research.

This paper provides a forward-looking focus on the critical role of academics in interdisciplinary accounting research.

The study aims to explore a retrospective overview of the Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting and Financial Management, a prestigious international journal in the discipline. It also analyses the bibliometric information of its publications between 2011 and 2021 in terms of authors, countries, documents, themes, topics and sources.

The performance analysis and science mapping were conducted using the data from Scopus between 2011 and 2021. The bibliometric information of 301 publications was visualised through the analysis types, such as co-authorship, co-citation and bibliographic coupling, through the VOSviewer software programme.

The main finding is that the journal has recently improved in several areas (e.g. its productivity and visibility, citations, index scores and international collaborations). Although financial aspects such as accounting and accountability, financial management and public budgeting maintained their importance during the analysing period, some other features were revealed as new research themes. However, there are some research gaps regarding sustainable development goals, climate change and other matters, and the solutions for them through public fiscal policies.

The analyses are primarily backwards oriented by their very nature. Although they were excellent at portraying the past, the findings provided limited information about subjects that would be hot topics in future. The study has some limitations. The information on publications was collected from the Scopus database. However, bibliometric analyses were conducted from 2011 to 2021 as its data on Scopus did not cover before 2011. Second, the data are dynamic over time and may contain various changes in the future. Therefore, the bibliometric analysis may be repeated by including new studies of JPBAFM in the following years.

A performance analysing that the editorial team could benefit from in order to monitor the productivity of JPBAFM, one of the popular and favoured journals in the discipline, was conducted in this paper. The editorial team may also find ideas for the intellectual development of the journal as a result of mapping the performance of the publications.

The bibliographic analysis of the Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting and Financial Management has yet to be conducted. The study presents comprehensive findings on the performance and bibliometric analysis of the journal to guide authors and readers.

Open-access mega-journals (OAMJs), which apply a peer-review policy based solely on scientific soundness, elicit opposing views. Sceptical authors believe that OAMJs are simply an easy target to publish uninteresting papers that would not be accepted in more selective traditional journals. The purpose of this paper is to investigate any differences in scholars’ considerations of OAMJs by analysing the productivity and impact of Spanish authors in Biology and Medicine who publish in PLOS ONE.

Scopus was used to identify the most prolific Spanish authors in Biology and Medicine between 2013 and 2017 and to determine their publication patterns in PLOS ONE. Any differences in terms of citation impact between Spanish authors who publish frequently in PLOS ONE and the global Spanish output in Biology and Medicine were measured.

Results show a moderate correlation between the total number of articles published by prolific authors in Biology and Medicine and the number of articles they publish in PLOS ONE. Authors who publish frequently in PLOS ONE tend to publish more frequently than average in Quartile 1 and Top 10 per cent impact journals and their articles are more frequently cited than average too, suggesting that they do not submit to PLOS ONE for the purpose of gaining easier publication in a high-impact journal.

The study is limited to one country, one OAMJ and one discipline and does not investigate whether authors select PLOS ONE for what they might regard as their lower quality research.

Very few studies have empirically addressed the implications of the soundness-based peer-review policy applied by OAMJs.