Search results

The purpose of this paper is to determine the relationship between the access mode of research articles [Open Access (OA) and Toll-Access (TA)] and their subsequent citation counts in Biological and Physical Sciences in three Impact factor zones (High, Medium and Low).

Three subjects each from Biological Sciences (Biochemistry, Cell Biology and Genetics) and Physical Sciences (Astronomy, Oceanography and Optics) were selected for the study. A comprehensive list of journals (TA and OA) in select subjects of Biological and Physical Sciences was prepared by consulting Journal Citation Report’s Master Journal List (for the compilation of both Open Access and Toll Access journal list) and Directory of Open Access Journals (for the compilation of Open Access journal list). For each journal, essential details like content language, format, year of publication, access mode (Open Access or Toll Access), etc. were obtained from Ulrich’s Periodical Directory. Web of Science (WoS) was used as citations indexing tool in this study. The data set was run on the WoS to collect the citation data.

The results of the study indicate that open mode of access is not a prerequisite for higher citation boost as in the majority of the cases in this study, TA articles have garnered a greater number of citations as compared to open access articles in different Impact factor zones in Biological and Physical Sciences.

A novel approach has been adopted to understand and compare the research impact of open access (OA) and toll access (TA) journal articles in the field of Biological and Physical Sciences at three Impact factor zone levels to reveal the citation metrics encompassing three parameters, i.e. citedness, average citation count and year wise distribution of citations in select subjects of Biological and Physical Sciences.

The peer review history for this article is available at: https://publons.com/publon/[DOI]/10.1108/OIR-01-2021-0029

The purpose of this study is to analyze the share of coronavirus publications and its citation-based indicators in various journal impact factor quartiles to discover their relationship and analyze the advantages of Q1 publications.

Bibliometric analyses of world coronavirus research publications (articles and reviews) indexed in Web of Science database over 20 years among four journal quartiles were performed.

The publication and citation shares in various journal quartiles were decreased in the following order: Q1 > Q2 > Q3 > Q4. World coronavirus publications/citations share in Q1 journals were on average 1.78/4.18, 2.75/7.90 and 5.07/27.79 times greater than Q2, Q3 and Q4 publications, respectively. Moreover, similar patterns were obtained for various research performance dimensions: impact, excellence, corporate interest and funding indicators. These indicators of Q1 publications were much better than the corresponding values for world overall and infectious disease literature. Thus, there was a clear research performance advantage of Q1 coronavirus publications.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study analyzing the journal impact factor quartiles and its impact on coronavirus research performance. The results/findings of this study are useful for many stakeholders to enhance the research influence by considering journal impact factor quartiles especially Q1 journals.

This paper aims to conduct a comprehensive analysis to evaluate the current situation of journals, examine the factors that influence their development, and establish an evaluation index system and model. The objective is to enhance the theory and methodologies used for journal evaluation and provide guidance for their positive development.

This study uses empirical data from economics journals to analyse their evaluation dimensions, methods, index system and evaluation framework. This study then assigns weights to journal data using single and combined evaluations in three dimensions: influence, communication and novelty. It calculates several evaluation metrics, including the explanation rate, information entropy value, difference coefficient and novelty degree. Finally, this study applies the concept of fuzzy mathematics to measure the final results.

The use of affiliation degree and fuzzy Borda number can synthesize ranking and score differences among evaluation methods. It combines internal objective information and improves model accuracy. The novelty of journal topics positively correlates with both the journal impact factor and social media mentions. In addition, journal communication power indicators compensate for the shortcomings of traditional citation analysis. Finally, the three-dimensional representative evaluation index serves as a reminder to academic journals to avoid the vortex of the Matthew effect.

This paper proposes a journal evaluation model comprising academic influence, communication power and novelty dimensions. It uses fuzzy Borda evaluation to address issues related to the weighing of single evaluation methods. This study also analyses the relationship of the three dimensions and offers insights for journal development in the new media era.

The purpose of the research was to find out if there are any differences in the readability score between abstracts published in scientific journals from library and information science with and without an impact factor. Therefore, the author made a comparison between the readability of abstracts from one journal with (Journal of Documentation) and one journal without (Knjižnica or Library) an impact factor.

As a measure of readability, the Flesch Reading Ease Readability Formula was used. Then, with the help of statistical experts, a comparison of the readability scores between the abstracts of two selected journals was performed.

The results showed that some statistically important differences exist between the abstracts published in the Journal of Documentation and Knjižnica. The statistically important differences were found in the number of words and sentences in abstracts and in the readability of abstracts included in the research. Therefore, it can be said that there exists a statistically important difference between abstracts with and without an impact factor.

The primary purpose was to find out whether there is a statistically important difference in the readability score of abstracts with and without an impact factor in the field of library and information science. Some similar research studies have been conducted in other scientific fields.

The purpose of this research study is to empirically investigate the Figma prototyping technology adoption factors among entrepreneurship and innovation libraries for providing support to startups by developing and evolving the prototype solutions in collaboration with health libraries.

This study uses the technology adoption model (TAM) as a framework and the partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) method of structural equation modeling (SEM) using SmartPLS 3.2.9 software version to investigate the prototyping adoption factors among entrepreneurship and innovation libraries for rural health innovations. A total of 40 libraries, spread over 16 entrepreneurship and innovation libraries, participated in this survey, including participants from Europe (35%), Asia (15%) and USA (50%).

The findings show that previous experience, social impact, brand image and system quality have a significant positive impact on entrepreneurship and innovation libraries' perceived usefulness (PU) of prototyping technology. Perceived ease of use of prototype technology is positively influenced by usability, training materials and documentation, experience and self-efficacy. Together, perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use have a significant influence on behavioural intention. Behavioural intention is positively impacted by minimal investment and shallow learning curve. Technology adoption is furthered by behavioural intention. The control variables, for instance location, gender and work experience (as librarian), were found not having any impact on Figma technology adoption.

Through strategic partnerships with other libraries (including health libraries), policymakers, and technology providers, the adoption of prototype technology can be further accelerated. The important ramifications for policymakers, technology providers, public and entrepreneurship and innovation libraries to create a self-reliant innovation ecosystem to foster rural health innovation based on entrepreneurship are also listed in the article.

This research is distinctive since it integrates several areas of study, including entre, advances in rural healthcare and libraries. A novel idea that hasn't been thoroughly investigated is the collaboration between entrepreneurship and innovation libraries and health libraries for supporting businesses. This study offers insights into the factors that drive technology adoption and offers practical advice for policymakers and technology providers. It also advances understanding of the adoption of Figma prototyping technology among libraries for rural health innovation. Overall, this study provides a novel viewpoint on the nexus between different disciplines, showing the opportunity for cooperation and innovation in favour of rural health.

Replication is a primary self-correction device in science. In this paper, we have two aims: to examine how and when the results of replications are used in management and organization research and to use the results of this examination to offer guidelines for improving the self-correction process.

Study 1 analyzes co-citation patterns for 135 original-replication pairs to assess the direct impact of replications, specifically examining how often and when a replication study is co-cited with its original. In Study 2, a similar design is employed to measure the indirect impact of replications by assessing how often and when a meta-analysis that includes a replication of the original study is co-cited with the original study.

Study 1 reveals, among other things, that a huge majority (92%) of sources that cite the original study fail to co-cite a replication study, thus calling into question the impact of replications in our field. Study 2 shows that the indirect impact of replications through meta-analyses is likewise minimal. However, our analyses also show that replications published in the same journal that carried the original study and authored by teams including the authors of the original study are more likely to be co-cited, and that articles in higher-ranking journals are more likely to co-cite replications.

We use our results to formulate recommendations that would streamline the self-correction process in management research at the author-, reviewer- and journal-level. Our recommendations would create incentives to make replication attempts more common, while also increasing the likelihood that these attempts are targeted at the most relevant original studies.

The purpose of this study is to assess the value of altmetrics or other indicators, showcasing the impact of academic output, which is seen too often correlated with the citation count.

This study considered three reputed journals of Library and Information Science (LIS) published by Elsevier. A total of 1,164 articles were found in these journals from 2016 to 2020 and the relationships between altmetric attention scores (AAS) and citations were examined. The analysis was extended to compare the grouped data set based on percentile ranks of AAS like top 50%, top 25%, top 10% and top 1%.

Using Spearman correlation analysis, the findings reveal a positive correlation between AAS and citations with different significant levels for all articles, and articles with AAS, as well as for normalized AAS in the top 50%, top 25%, top 10% and top 1% data set. For the three journals International Journal of Information Management (IJIM), Journal of Informetrics (JIF) and Library and Information Science Research (LISR), a significant positive correlation is observed across all data sets. But an unexpected result was observed: in the case of the top 50% of articles for the IJIM and JIF showed no significant correlation but the LISR journal showed a positive correlation for the whole data set. This journal though has fewer articles in comparison to the other two.

A source item that is highly cited may not be having high social media attention as reflected in the findings. This demarcates AAS with citations implying various factors on which these measurements are dependent. The study distinguishes these metrics lucidly. There is not a single guideline or uniformity in assessing the correlation found. But the problem is that the interpretation of the correlation strength affects the conclusion of the study. Moreover, this study will be a role model as a draft for librarians to select relevant journals for their libraries and will facilitate authors in the choice of the publication outlets for their papers, particularly concerning the journals that have both visibility and research impact.

The study reported devising a comprehensive tool to validate AAS as a measure of scholarly impact to include appropriate social media sources and verify its relationship with other metrics. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this paper is the first attempt to discover the correlation between AAS and citations for the highly impactful LIS journal published by Elsevier. The empirical evidence lies in the citation and altmetric data extracted from the dimension database.

Journal of Knowledge Management (JKM) is the foremost academic source of knowledge management research. Therefore, to understand the intellectual structure of knowledge management research, this study aims to examine the thematic patterns and evolution of research in JKM.

Using bibliographic coupling analysis, this study analyzes and maps the intellectual structure of the research published in JKM from 1977 to 2021. It also presents the trends among methodological choices of JKM authors. The study also explores the major components of JKM’s impact, wherein a negative binomial regression analysis is used to uncover the major factors influencing the journal’s citations.

The findings suggest that the intellectual structure of JKM broadly consists of four major themes: antecedents and consequences of knowledge management, innovation and knowledge management, complexities in knowledge management and firm performance, and knowledge sharing in knowledge management. The findings also reveal the drivers of citations for JKM through the universalism (article order, open access), social constructivism (European and FT100 institution affiliation, references, funding) and presentation (tables, models, appendices, article age) perspectives.

This inclusive overview of JKM will provide useful insights for its editorial board, readers and scholars to chart the ways forward for JKM and the future of knowledge management.

To the best of the authors' knowledge, this study is the first of its kind to identify the factors that contribute to JKM's impact from a citation perspective.

To the best of the authors' knowledge, this is the first study that aims to present a comprehensive view of the auditing ethics literature by unboxing 40 years of efforts in the field.

This study combined bibliometric, social network and content analysis by analyzing 114 articles published in accounting and top business ethics journals on the Web of Science database from 1980 to 2021.

The results show a rising interest in this topic and reveal auditors’ ethical decision-making and moral reasoning as the most discussed topics in the literature. The work also clusters the literature according to keywords and scopes, identifying literature gaps and suggesting new avenues for future research.

The research results assist provide an overarching image of the auditing ethics field. In addition, these results draw possible future avenues to bridge the void in the current auditing ethics literature by presenting indispensable directions for potential research. For example, future research could pay more attention to whistleblowing, fraud, personal auditor characteristics, auditor ethical sensitivity, auditor ethical conflict, ethical climate and underreporting of time. Moreover, the rapidly changing business environment necessitates the auditing ethics research to move to more practical implications to mitigate previous mistakes and avoid any future risks.

All crises are an ideal breeding ground to motivate fraud and audit failures. In fact, auditing ethics research has been subordinated to the different economic crises. However, despite increasing awareness of the topic’s relevance, no comprehensive study focuses on auditing ethics literature. Now, the devastating effects of the COVID-19 crisis are producing a new wave of financial distresses and avoiding former mistakes is timelier than ever. With this novel and integrated approach, this work goes one step forward, developing a comprehensive picture of the auditing ethics literature.

The purpose of the study is to evaluate the relationship of Journal Publication Timeline (submission to first decision and submission to final decision) with various Journal Metrics (citing half-life, article influence score, the immediacy index, the acceptance rate, the impact factor (IF), five years IF, Eigenfactor and cited half-life) of top 600 journals retrieved from Journal Citation Report (JCR) 2020 under the tag, Elsevier Unified.

Top 600 journals in the decreasing order of the IFs under the tag, “Elsevier Unified” were retrieved from JCR 2020 of Clarivate Analytics. Information about “Journal Metrics” was ascertained using “Customized Service” of JCR, while information about the “Publication Timeline” of each journal was obtained using Elsevier's “Journal Insights Service.” It was found that only 177 journals provided the complete information regarding the “Publication Timeline” and hence considered for the study. Descriptive statistics and correlation analysis was conducted to test the different hypotheses.

It was found that submission to first decision has a significant relationship with the immediacy index, citing half-life and the acceptance rate. Submission to final decision has a significant relationship with Journal Impact Factor (JIF), the immediacy index, Eigenfactor, citing half-life and the acceptance rate.

The study will provide the authors with sound and valuable information to support their selection of journals. Inferences in light of fluctuations in the scholarly communication process in terms of Publication Timelines and Journal Metrics can be deeply understood with the aid of the current study's findings. What considerations authors have to take before submitting their papers is the main implication of the study. Journal administrators can also benefit from the findings of the current study as it can help recruit and manage reviewers, which will ensure a successful publication timeline.

The study correlates Publication Timeline Indicators with Journal Metrics Indicators using secondary cross-sectional data. Though most previous studies only examine the relationship of the Publication Timeline with the Journal Impact Factor (JIF), there is very scarce literature that deciphers the influence of Publication Timeline indicators on different Journal Metrics indicators (including JIF).

The peer review history for this article is available at: https://publons.com/publon/10.1108/OIR-02-2022-0108.