Search results

This study empirically demonstrates a contradiction between pillar 3 of Basel norms III and the designation of Systemically Important Banks (SIBs), also known as Too Big to Fail (TBTF). The objective of this study is threefold, which has been approached in a phased manner. The first is to determine the systemic importance of the banks under study; second, to examine if market discipline exists at different levels of systemic importance of banks and lastly, to examine if the strength of market discipline varies at different levels of systemic importance.

This study is based on all the public and private sector banks operating in the Indian banking sector. The Gaussian Mixture Model algorithm has been utilized to classify banks into distinct levels of systemic importance. Thereafter, market discipline has been observed by analyzing depositors' sentiments toward banks' risk (CAMEL indicators). The analysis has been performed by employing the system Generalized Method of Moments (GMM) to estimate models with different dependent variables.

The findings affirm the existence of market discipline across all levels of systemic importance. However, the strength of market discipline varies with the systemic importance of the banks, with weak market discipline being a negative externality of the SIBs designation.

By employing the Gaussian Mixture Model algorithm to develop a framework for categorizing banks on the basis of their systemic importance, this study is the first to go beyond the conventional method as outlined by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI).

The purpose of this paper is to find out which research topics and methods in information science (IS) articles are used in other disciplines as indicated by citations.

The study analyzes citations to articles in IS published in 31 scholarly IS journals in 2015. The study employs content analysis of articles published in 2015 receiving citations from publication venues representing IS and other disciplines in the citation window 2015–2021. The unit of analysis is the article-citing discipline pair. The data set consists of 1178 IS articles cited altogether 25 K times through 5 K publication venues. Each citation is seen as a contribution to the citing document’s discipline by the cited article, which represents some IS subareas and methodologies, and the author team's disciplinary composition, which is inferred from the authors’ affiliations.

The results show that the citation profiles of disciplines vary depending on research topics, methods and author disciplines. Disciplines external to IS are typically cited in IS articles authored by scholars with the same background. Thus, the export of ideas from IS to other disciplines is evidently smaller than the earlier findings claim. IS should not be credited for contributions by other disciplines published in IS literature.

This study is the first to analyze which research topics and methods in the articles of IS are of use in other disciplines as indicated by citations.

The purpose of this paper is to characterize library and information science (LIS) as fragmenting discipline both historically and by applying Whitley’s (1984) theory about the organization of sciences and Fuchs’ (1993) theory about scientific change.

The study combines historical source analysis with conceptual and theoretical analysis for characterizing LIS. An attempt is made to empirically validate the distinction between LIS context, L&I services and information seeking as fragmented adhocracies and information retrieval and scientific communication (scientometrics) as technologically integrated bureaucracies.

The origin of fragmentation in LIS due the contributions of other disciplines can be traced in the 1960s and 1970s for solving the problems produced by the growth of scientific literature. Computer science and business established academic programs and started research relevant to LIS community focusing on information retrieval and bibliometrics. This has led to differing research interests between LIS and other disciplines concerning research topics and methods. LIS has been characterized as fragmented adhocracy as a whole, but we make a distinction between research topics LIS context, L&I services and information seeking as fragmented adhocracies and information retrieval and scientific communication (scientometrics) as technologically integrated bureaucracies.

The paper provides an elaborated historical perspective on the fragmentation of LIS in the pressure of other disciplines. It also characterizes LIS as discipline in a fresh way by applying Whitley’s (1984) theory.

This study aims to assess the effectiveness of the banking market discipline in relation to the development of Financial Technology (FinTech) startups.

Using panel data collected from 144 banks in Indonesia from 2004 to 2018, this study’s regression models were estimated using fixed effects with robust standard errors.

This study finds that FinTech startups disturb bank deposits. Meanwhile, market discipline exists in Indonesian banks, as indicated by depositors’ behavior with higher credit and liquidity risks. However, market discipline does not exist for bank insolvency risk, which is indicated by a significant and positive relationship with the dependent variable. Therefore, the higher the number of FinTech startups, the more effective the market discipline. Empirical findings also revealed that the joint impact between FinTech startups and bank risk is also important in explaining the difference in the effectiveness of banking market discipline.

This study has policy implications for banks in mitigating risk associated with market discipline and instability of financial intermediation.

This study offers a significant contribution to the empirical literature because it specifically explores the effectiveness of the banking market discipline by focusing on the joint impact of FinTech startups and bank risk on deposits. Furthermore, this study contributes to providing empirical evidence that links between FinTech startups and bank risk affect depositor behavior at government-owned, private, large and small, as well as nonmobile and mobile adoption banks.

This paper aimed to explore the presence of altmetric data across the sub-categories of the medical science discipline and also explore whether the openness of articles results in (dis)advantage for altmetrics mentions.

The research implies data carpentry methods for gathering bibliographic data related to narrow fields of medical science discipline from the Scopus database with at least one Indian author affiliation during 2012–2021. The corresponding data were also collected from three different sources: Altmetric.com, Mendeley.com and Unpaywall.org, using OpenRefine and REST/API calls. Further, the authors observed open access altmetric advantages (OAAA) and categorical OAAA (COAAA) across seven altmetric platforms for all articles as well as discipline-wise.

The result shows that the overall coverage of altmetric events is still low, but it shows an increasing trend from the past. Mendeley has the largest coverage; almost 97.12% of publications are covered. The health policy discipline has extensive coverage across altmetric platforms (nearly 57.40% of publications in altmetrics and 99.23% in Mendeley), whereas the drug guides has the lowest (almost 0.92% in Altmetrics and 77.05% in Mendeley). Moreover, the OA articles have been highly covered in altmetrics than those of non-OA articles, and bronze OA articles covered mostly compared to others. News registered with the significant OA altmetric advantages across disciplines. Categorically, bronze and hybrid OA have the largest altmetric advantages.

This research is a unique attempt to apply OAAA and COAAA to explore OA altmetric advantages of narrow subject categories of medical science disciplines.

This commentary aims to identify the myopic drift of the marketing discipline and to opine on the areas in which the leadership of service scholars is needed. The authors identify specific areas where the input of service scholars is needed to enable the discipline to better contribute to users, providers, and society. For example, the growing gap between marketing scholarship and practical business needs is acknowledged, emphasizing the unique position of service scholars to bridge this divide. While consumer well-being is crucial, the exclusive focus on behavioral science is critiqued. Marketing’s roots are deeply connected to economics, shaping consumer choices, and service scholars can help revive marketing’s essence.

Personal reflections and historical literature assessment.

The services discipline is caught in the general myopic behavioral drift of the marketing discipline. However, they are well positioned to reverse the trend by seeking leadership in PhD programs, journal editorships and review boards, faculty recruiting, hiring and promotion, and by continuing its engagement with industry professionals.

The authors suggest extensive goals for service scholars. To accomplish these goals, it will be necessary to challenge the increasing behavioral drift of the majority of existing scholars in the discipline.

This work is original and controversial. It is meant to inspire discussion and focus attention on the problems inherent in the increasingly myopic behavioral orientation of the members of the discipline’s academic community.

This paper aims to reveal the interdisciplinarity of information science (IS) from the perspective of the evolution of theory application.

Select eight representative IS journals as data sources, extract the theories mentioned in the full texts of the research papers and then measure annual interdisciplinarity of IS by conducting theory co-occurrence network analysis, diversity measure and evolution analysis.

As a young and vibrant discipline, IS has been continuously absorbing and internalizing external theoretical knowledge and thus formed a high degree of interdisciplinarity. With the continuous application of some kernel theories, the interdisciplinarity of IS appears to be decreasing and gradually converging into a few neighboring disciplines. Influenced by big data and artificial intelligence, the research paradigm of IS is shifting from a theory centered one to a technology centered one.

This study helps to understand the evolution of the interdisciplinarity of IS in the past 21 years. The main limitation is that the data were collected from eight journals indexed by the Social Sciences Citation Index and a small amount of theories might have been omitted.

This study identifies the kernel theories in IS research, measures the interdisciplinarity of IS based on the evolution of the co-occurrence network of theory source disciplines and reveals the paradigm shift being happening in IS.

This paper offers a definition of the core of information science, which encompasses most research in the field. The definition provides a unique identity for information science and positions it in the disciplinary universe.

After motivating the objective, a definition of the core and an explanation of its key aspects are provided. The definition is related to other definitions of information science before controversial discourse aspects are briefly addressed: discipline vs. field, science vs. humanities, library vs. information science and application vs. theory. Interdisciplinarity as an often-assumed foundation of information science is challenged.

Information science is concerned with how information is manifested across space and time. Information is manifested to facilitate and support the representation, access, documentation and preservation of ideas, activities, or practices, and to enable different types of interactions. Research and professional practice encompass the infrastructures – institutions and technology –and phenomena and practices around manifested information across space and time as its core contribution to the scholarly landscape. Information science collaborates with other disciplines to work on complex information problems that need multi- and interdisciplinary approaches to address them.

The paper argues that new information problems may change the core of the field, but throughout its existence, the discipline has remained quite stable in its central focus, yet proved to be highly adaptive to the tremendous changes in the forms, practices, institutions and technologies around and for manifested information.

The expansion of bike-sharing enterprises has led to a series of social problems, and due to the high breakage rate and high recycling cost of bike sharing, enterprises are reluctant to maintain them. Therefore, government regulation does play a leading role in maintaining bike sharing. This study’s purpose is to investigate how the government should regulate the bike-sharing enterprises that maintain bicycles.

Firstly, the authors assume that there is only one bike-sharing enterprise and establish a game model that the government regulates the enterprise. Furthermore, the authors extend the model to the case that there are two competing enterprises in the market. Finally, through numerical analysis, the influence of various factors on the government strategy and revenue is analyzed.

The authors find that the regulatory probability of two enterprises are regulated by the government is larger than that of one enterprise. When two bike-sharing enterprises compete without government regulation, both will choose the non-self-discipline strategy, thus falling into the Prisoner's Dilemma. If the government regulates them, then both enterprises will choose the self-discipline strategy. Finally, through numerical analysis, it is found that the self-discipline behavior of bike-sharing enterprises is related to the government regulatory probability, the cost of self-discipline, the probability of being reported and the penalties. Interestingly, the cost of government regulation will not affect the regulation probability of government.

This research provides a theoretical reference for the government to make the regulation strategies of bike sharing and achieve the sustainable development of bike sharing.

This research provides a theoretical reference for the government to make the regulation strategies of bike sharing and achieve the sustainable development of bike sharing.

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.