Search results

The purpose of this paper is to report successful authors’ views about the editorial review processes of a set of 42 accounting journals. The two main objectives are: to enlighten editors and journal publishers in their quest to improve their journals’ editorial review processes and to inform prospective authors about the past experiences successful authors have had with the 42 accounting journals.

A Webmail survey was used to collect data about authors’ experiences with publishing in one of the 42 accounting journals. A total of 856 responses (40 per cent response rate) was received. Various statistical analyses were used to explore a range of editorial review process features, including the timeliness of editorial feedback, timeliness of publishing accepted manuscripts, quality of the feedback provided and performance of the editor.

Authors were found to be generally quite satisfied with the editorial review processes of the journals in which they published. There were, however, notable leaders and laggards observed among the 42 journal titles. The survey findings also revealed that many journals use the practice of basing their editorial decisions on the comments of a single reviewer. In fact, this practice is most prevalent among the journals that are commonly perceived as the field’s “top” journals. These and other editorial review results – for example, comparisons between journal-tiers, geographical locations of editorial review offices and journal specialties – are discussed.

This paper extends and moves well beyond Adler and Liyanarachchi (2011), by exploring such additional author perceptions of the editorial review process as the performance of journal editors, the use of multiple reviewers and reviewers’ reporting of the typical faults/weaknesses in the papers they read. Exposing to public scrutiny an academic discipline’s editorial review processes is quite common in some fields of research, most notably medicine. Doing so in the accounting discipline addresses a need that many of the respondents felt was highly necessary and long overdue. While authors will benefit from the paper’s insights, editors and publishers are expected to as well.

This paper aims to determine the gender composition of journal editorial boards in the field of library and information science and to identify trends in the gender composition of different editorial roles and the country of affiliation and occupation of people fulfilling these roles.

In an analysis of 13 selected Library Information Science journals published by the Emerald Publishing group, data relating to 549 editors and editorial board members were obtained from the Open Editors online database. Data were assessed by role, gender, country and continent of their affiliation, and occupation.

Women were found to be under-represented as editors and editorial board members in 10 of the 13 journals. This was most evident in the highest-ranking role of editor or editor-in-chief. The majority of editors and editorial board members were from English-speaking countries located in Europe and the Americas, followed by Asia. The vast majority of editorial personnel belonged to the teaching and learning profession, with relatively few support staff, or researchers taking on these roles.

The findings of this study highlight the gender inequality in prestigious and career-advancing academic roles across multiple research areas. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, no such research has yet been conducted in the field of library and information science.

Publishing in scholarly journals is a practical necessity for academics. Put simply, this reality can be described as “publish or perish”. To be treated as a serious contender for tenure and promotion, scholarly research and activities directed towards publication are necessary aspects of faculty life. The purpose of this paper is to provide insights into “dealing” with the editorial review process of publishing from the perspective of a relatively new author.

Using the lens of Q and R theory, a case study approach combined with critical reflection provides a documented tour to enable other authors to enhance their understanding of the publication process through including references to associated reviews and correspondence with a journal editor. The review extracts from the editor and authors’ responses are discussed within the context of a theoretical schema and timeline.

Drawing from the theoretical schema, the paper identifies 11 lessons learned along the way to publishing, and these are summarised as the 11 commandments of publishing.

Utilisation of the Q and R theory can assist researchers as they reflect on how to maximise their publication outcomes.

The 11 commandments provide a practical approach for those wanting to improve their understanding and likelihood of publishing success.

The originality of this paper is that it considers the publication process from a novice author who subsequently draws on the knowledge of more experienced co-authors. The findings are based on a theoretical schema that is transferable and able to be adopted by others to guide publication outcomes.

The purpose of this paper is to better understand the theory and practice of peer review in open-access mega-journals (OAMJs). OAMJs typically operate a “soundness-only” review policy aiming to evaluate only the rigour of an article, not the novelty or significance of the research or its relevance to a particular community, with these elements being left for “the community to decide” post-publication.

The paper reports the results of interviews with 31 senior publishers and editors representing 16 different organisations, including 10 that publish an OAMJ. Thematic analysis was carried out on the data and an analytical model developed to explicate their significance.

Findings suggest that in reality criteria beyond technical or scientific soundness can and do influence editorial decisions. Deviations from the original OAMJ model are both publisher supported (in the form of requirements for an article to be “worthy” of publication) and practice driven (in the form of some reviewers and editors applying traditional peer review criteria to OAMJ submissions). Also publishers believe post-publication evaluation of novelty, significance and relevance remains problematic.

The study is based on unprecedented access to senior publishers and editors, allowing insight into their strategic and operational priorities. The paper is the first to report in-depth qualitative data relating specifically to soundness-only peer review for OAMJs, shedding new light on the OAMJ phenomenon and helping inform discussion on its future role in scholarly communication. The paper proposes a new model for understanding the OAMJ approach to quality assurance, and how it is different from traditional peer review.

The purpose of this viewpoint is to spotlight the role of reviewers within the collaborative triad of academic publishing. It argues that the significance of reviewers is often disregarded, leading to a gap in our understanding of the peer review process. This perspective emphasizes reviewers as unsung heroes in the publishing ecosystem, providing intentional and thought-provoking insights into the less-discussed yet impactful developments in the evolving peer review landscape.

Leveraging the author’s distinguished background as a recipient of the Journal of Service Marketing Outstanding Reviewer Award, this paper offers a personal reflection and synthesised viewpoints on the peer review process. Serving as a representative voice for reviewers, it provides insightful perspectives from the vantage point of a peer reviewer, diverging from conventional editorials and commentaries authored by editors.

Acknowledging the shrinking reviewer pool, this viewpoint suggests a mandatory “review for review” system alongside incentives like editorial positions, while considering financial rewards for reviewers. The rise of generative artificial intelligence (AI) in review prompts ethical concerns but offers solutions for handling diverse submissions and dealing with “Reviewer 2.” While embracing open review for its transparency, potential pitfalls surrounding article confidence and copyright require attention. Ultimately, this viewpoint advocates for a collaborative approach, valuing reviewers, exploring innovative solutions, navigating ethical dilemmas in the technological age and implementing transparent practices responsibly for the betterment of scholarly discourse.

This viewpoint highlights the invaluable contributions of reviewers, enriching the scholarly community and promoting intellectual growth.

The key purpose of this study is to gain an insight into the quality of the scholarly publishing and refereeing system used by Emerald’s Library and Information Science (LIS) journals from the perspectives of the Arab authors who are publishing in this wide-ranging database. It also tries to provide helpful guidance for authors to fit their authorship for publication.

Of the total 3,846 papers published in Emerald’s LIS journals in the past five years (the beginning of 2011 to the end of 2015), there were only 81 papers (research/technical/conceptual papers and case studies only) authored by Arabs, representing 2.11 per cent of the whole productivity in the discipline of the LIS in Emerald in this period. Corresponding authors (mostly first authors) (n = 73) were contacted to answer the questionnaire of the study. Five of those 73 authors could not be reached because of the lack of validity of their e-mails. Out of the remaining authors (n = 68), 47 returned their valid questionnaires, representing 69.1 per cent of the total number of the Arab authors.

This study revealed that the Arab male authors dominated (78.7 per cent) the publishing in Emerald’s LIS journals in the past five years. Two-thirds of the Arab authors are aged between 36 to 45 years (mostly males with doctoral degrees), followed by those authors (17 per cent) who are aged between 46 to 50 years (mostly males with doctoral degrees) and by those authors (12.8 per cent) aged between 31 to 35 years (all are males and half of them hold a doctorate). The study also found that there was a direct proportionality between the Arab authors’ research experience with the history of publishing in Emerald’s LIS journals because the more research experience they have, the greater the number of their research history of publishing in Emerald. Assistant Professors (44.7 per cent) were found to be the group most frequently publishing in Emeralds’ LIS journals with research experience ranging between 11 and 20 years (mainly with a publishing history of five years), followed by lectures with research experience ranging between 1 and 20 years (mostly with a publishing history of five years) and then associate professors with research experience ranging between 11 and 20 years (mostly with a publishing history of ten years). The findings also found that most Arab authors (80.9 per cent) publishing in Emerald’s LIS journals preferred the sole or single authorship. The co-authorship or co-authored works were not much preferred by many of them. A large number (87.2 per cent) of the Arab authors, who are mainly described as experts and advanced authors in using the Emerald refereeing system, see this system, at least, as good. Regarding the reasons/factors to submit articles to Emerald’s LIS journals, this study revealed that the availability of papers in electronic formats, the journal’s impact factor, the association with the research area, the academic coverage of the journal, abstracting and indexing services, the availability in hard copy, the speed of reviewing, the size of readership, the ease of acceptance and the standing of the editorial board were the most significant reasons and factors to submit articles papers for publication in Emerald. The Arab authors in this study have shown considerable positive attitude and perceptions towards the publishing in Emerald’s LIS journals because all of them, at least, agree that publishing in Emerald can increase the speed of finding information and reduce the use of papers. A very large number of them also showed that such publishing may also help create a wider spread, build confidence, be convenient, secure credibility and be objective. Compared to their positive attitude and perceptions towards the publishing in Emerald’s LIS journals, Arab authors had little negative feelings about the publishing in these journals. A few of them (8.5 per cent) have shown a considerable concern about the time it takes in reviewing their articles because they reported that such publishing requires a long time for the peer review process, and it also needs long communications with the editorial staff; this may affect negatively on the time of the research topic. Not being their first language, a few Arab authors (8.5 per cent) have also shown a considerable concern about the use of English being the publishing language in Emerald, as it requires certain skills needed not only to publish their articles but also to deal with the Emerald system and communicate with editorial staff. Overall, this small percentage did not affect the rest of the authors who described their concerns about this obstacle as modest to some extent. Although there is a lot of enthusiasm for publication in Emerald showed by the Arab authors, there have been also some concerns expressed by them towards that goal. A modest number of the Arab authors suggested that the lack of language skills needed for publishing in Emerald, followed by the lack of patience needed to wait for issuing papers, the technical problems related to the system and its interface and the lack of technical skills needed for publishing, as well as the time needed to be online, were significant to them when looking to publish in Emerald.

The paper investigates the quality of the scholarly publishing and refereeing system used in Emerald’s LIS journals from the perspectives of Arab authors who are publishing in this wide-ranging database. Such topic, to date, has limited previous research, as well as the limited size of the representation of the Arab authors in Emerald’s LIS journals in the past five years, which is due logically to the lack of their research and scientific contributions in this database during this period. Future research could focus on varied contexts or samples, such as other different disciplines and nationalities.

The paper provides valuable insight into the perception about the Emerald’s peer review quality by a very significant client group – academic researchers representing 22 Arab countries.

This study is to be the first one of its kind conducted by one of the Arab authors who has published in Emerald’s LIS journals. Being one of the few studies about the scholarly communication/productivity/collaboration of Arab authors in these journals, this study considers a pioneer one among many studies conducted in scholarly communication, especially with Arab authors.

The purpose of this paper is to offer strategies that can enhance the likelihood of successfully developing an idea through to publication in a high-quality journal. The paper also seeks to demystify what lies behind the editorial and review processes that form part of that journey.

This paper is based on the author’s 20+ years’ experience as a journal editor, editorial board member, ad hoc reviewer and author.

Successfully publishing in high-quality journals is a combination of a well-developed idea, meticulous planning and execution of the research, a thorough review of the target journal’s scope and expectations, attention to detail in drafting the paper and reasoned and reflective responses to guidance and recommendations from editors and referees, supplemented by some good fortune and natural talent.

This paper is intended primarily to be a resource that demystifies what lies behind the process for researchers seeking to develop their profile as an author of high-quality papers in high-quality peer-reviewed journals with a focus on the discipline of taxation. In this regard its primary intended audience is thesis students and those relatively new to academia.

Existing contributions to the literature concerning the publication process are numerous, but few studies offer a succinct summary for new and emerging researchers in mind, especially those undertaking taxation research.

The purpose of this paper is to reflect on the editorial operations underpinning the Journal of Humanitarian Logistics and Supply Chain Management in light of the review process and the quality of articles. It further outlines the articles in the special issue and relates them to the scope of the journal.

The editorial processes of the journal are analysed and reviewed.

The journal draws on a variety of research streams in humanitarian logistics; it is concluded that there is a need to stress the importance of research with managerial insights for humanitarians still further.

Humanitarian logistics is an emerging field and, unsurprisingly, there is still a lack of good empirical research and research with rigor as well as relevance. Based on submission statistics it can be concluded that the field has already reached a global dimension.

There is still a lack of empirical studies in humanitarian logistics research regardless of methods. However, an explicit discussion of managerial implications alongside theoretical conclusions would be essential in order to lead to any social and practical implications of the research.

These reflections on the editorial processes of JHLSCM as a new journal are used to raise the transparency of these processes.

The article shows how global the field of humanitarian logistics research has become, already, throughout the first year of the journal.

Researchers at the University of Tennessee Libraries experimented with crowdsourcing to determine if contributions by members of the public could be utilized to add citations and subject tags to a new online bibliography, Database of the Smokies (DOTS: dots.lib.utk.edu). The paper aims to discuss this issue.

The database is built in Drupal, an open source platform that provides a crowdsourcing mechanism. The public was offered the opportunity to create accounts and add content to DOTS. After three months, the project team performed a transaction log analysis of user submissions in order to determine whether an editorial process was necessary.

This analysis revealed that 18 percent of database content was the result of crowdsourcing and that much of the content submitted by participants was either obscure or difficult to locate. The analysis also showed that while contributors added valuable citations, an editorial review process was necessary to ensure this crowdsourced content could be published in the database. In addition, contributor supplied subject tags were not of significant uniqueness or quantity to substantially influence the existing taxonomy. Finally, the publicity of the crowdsourcing feature allowed other institutions to contribute to the project and add rare material.

This paper offers a model for utilizing crowdsourcing to entice a sophisticated user group to help build a bibliographic database.

To document a library web site redesign from start to finish, with special attention and emphasis placed on process – what worked and what did not.

Documentation and techniques used in the redesign are discussed in depth, with special attention as to why these techniques were chosen, how they were integrated into the process, and what problems were encountered.

One of the biggest problems with a redesign is the political dimension and communication issues involved, rather than the technical problems. Deciding what testing methodology to use to gather patron input and using that input efficiently in the site design are also a challenging area.

Since this is a case study, some of the problems encountered may not be applicable to other libraries in different environments. At the same time, many of the findings relating to problems with communication are general and could apply to redesign efforts in a variety of environments.

It is hoped that this paper may serve as a foundation on which a more generic process for effecting a redesign can be developed, one that may apply to all or most redesigns in all or most libraries.

There are very few papers in the literature dealing with the process of managing a redesign – most focus on other aspects, such as skill sets or test findings.