Search results

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.

This study aims to examine human resource development (HRD) research as represented by the citations to the publications in the four journals sponsored by the Academy of Human Resource Development (AHRD) from 2005 to 2011.

The authors collected citation data from Google Scholar (GS) using Publish or Perish 3 (PoP3) and compared the four journals on the metrics of h, hc, g, e and other Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) commonly reported indexes.

Citation data during the seven-year period provided an overall picture on the status of HRD research and publications. It showed that while HRD journals have made impressive research impact by generating worldwide scholarly citations in multiple languages, additional effort in improving the quality and the impact of research and publications is needed.

This study offers new insights on a number of important issues related to HRD research assessment, research quality, journal impact and editorial performance.

This is an initial effort in the HRD literature that comprehensively analyzes and compares the four AHRD journals. It offers new insights on the assessment of HRD research and journal impact.

The study aims to provide an analytical overview of current innovations in peer review and their potential impacts on scholarly communication.

The authors created a survey that was disseminated among publishers, academic journal editors and other organizations in the scholarly communication ecosystem, resulting in a data set of 95 self-defined innovations. The authors ordered the material using a taxonomy that compares innovation projects according to five dimensions. For example, what is the object of review? How are reviewers recruited, and does the innovation entail specific review foci?

Peer review innovations partly pull in mutually opposed directions. Several initiatives aim to make peer review more efficient and less costly, while other initiatives aim to promote its rigor, which is likely to increase costs; innovations based on a singular notion of “good scientific practice” are at odds with more pluralistic understandings of scientific quality; and the idea of transparency in peer review is the antithesis to the notion that objectivity requires anonymization. These fault lines suggest a need for better coordination.

This paper presents original data that were analyzed using a novel, inductively developed, taxonomy. Contrary to earlier research, the authors do not attempt to gauge the extent to which peer review innovations increase the “reliability” or “quality” of reviews (as defined according to often implicit normative criteria), nor are they trying to measure the uptake of innovations in the routines of academic journals. Instead, they focus on peer review innovation activities as a distinct object of analysis.

The use of bibliographic citation is a crucial aspect in the creation and dissemination of information. Numerous studies have been done ranging from simple citation counts to more complex bibliographic coupling studies, and from citation classifications to citation motivation studies. This review focusses on the citation studies that have explored the complexities and the underlying norms of the citation process. The major emphasis is placed upon the studies which have dealt with citation functions, citation quality, citation concepts and citation motivation. The international perspectives of citation practice are also discussed.

Assistance in the preparation of this issue of Aslib Proceedings has been forthcoming from an unusual quarter which augurs well for the New Year. ‘Blackie’, the large pure black Persian cat from no. 6 Belgrave Square, paid a goodwill visit to the Publications Officer's desk and personally signed some of the copy.

New technologies allow for efficient dissemination of scientific knowledge objects (SKOs). Yet they are likely to transform SKOs as well. The aim of this paper is to propose a way to structure SKOs that allows for both a clear individuation of the main scientific contributions and a fine‐grained structure of credits and evaluation.

The authors review and analyze existing practices of structuring SKOs in different disciplines.

Provisionally considering the published paper as an atomic SKO, possible subatomic structures of SKOs are investigated. It is hypothesized that SKOs are meant to satisfy two separated but interdependent sets of constraints, one related to the contribution the SKO makes to the body of knowledge, and another related to the contribution the SKO makes to the reputation of its authors. It is hypothesized that existing SKO structures are not optimal for satisfying both sets of constraints at once.

A broader analysis may be needed that covers the totality of existing practices.

Guidelines are offered. This paper, including the present abstract, is an example of what the scientific paper of tomorrow could be like.

The paper proposes better apportioning of scientific credits and evaluation; substantive evolution of the academic publishing and credit attribution models.

The idea that the communication and evaluation function of a SKO are differently reflected in their structure is novel. The proposed fine‐grained credit attribution system is novel. The molecular/atomic/sub‐atomic distinction is a new way to fix the terminology.

This study aims to explore which outcome measures are used by occupational therapy staff in adult social care settings in the UK, and the factors affecting use of outcome measures.

A quantitative descriptive research design was used, using a cross-sectional study to explore occupational therapy staff views on the use of outcome measures. A 38-question survey was developed on Microsoft Forms. Recruitment occurred online over a three-week period in 2021 via the social media platform “Twitter”. Results were analysed using Excel using descriptive statistics and qualitative results used thematic analysis.

Participants (n = 20) used a range of outcome measures (13) in adult social care settings in the previous 12 months. Standardised measures were used by half the sample in the previous 12 months. The Therapy Outcome Measure and Barthel Index were in most use. The breadth of adult social care practice and practical factors such as caseload and lack of a meaningful tool were found to be barriers to outcome measure use. Facilitators included service improvement, accountability, use of audit and professional occupational therapy leadership.

The overall use of outcome measures can be considered low in this setting, with manager support seen to be key to the use of outcome measures. Further research is needed to investigate nationwide use.

Training, time and manager support are key to use of standardised tests and outcome measures in the adult social care settings. The use of occupational performance measures should be considered to demonstrate unique professional impact.

This contemporary study reveals use of outcome measures within occupational therapy adult social care services in the UK, which is an under researched and under published area.

Recent developments in information technology such as the Internet, enterprise resources planning systems and knowledge management systems necessitate the use of these technologies in order for the next generation manufacturers to co‐evolve and survive on the new business landscape. The purpose of this paper is to examine the impact of these technologies on managing next generation manufacturing, (NGM), and the benefits that can be reaped by effectively utilising these technologies. We present a model on how NGM companies develop, implement and manage these technologies to support their manufacturing operations. Our model is an extension of Youssef’s agile manufacturing model. The implications of this new model are discussed in detail. Our analysis indicates that perceived benefits, as well as potential business opportunities for next generation manufacturing companies, are likely to become key drivers for the use of electronic business.