Search results

This study explores the use and perceptions of scholarly journal ranking lists in the management field based on stakeholders’ lived experience.

The results are based on a survey of 463 active knowledge management and intellectual capital researchers.

Journal ranking lists have become an integral part of contemporary management academia: 33% and 37% of institutions and individual scholars employ journal ranking lists, respectively. The Australian Business Deans Council (ABDC) Journal Quality List and the UK Academic Journal Guide (AJG) by the Chartered Association of Business Schools (CABS) are the most frequently used national lists, and their influence has spread far beyond the national borders. Some institutions and individuals create their own journal rankings.

Management researchers employ journal ranking lists under two conditions: mandatory and voluntary. The forced mode of use is necessary to comply with institutional pressure that restrains the choice of target outlets. At the same time, researchers willingly consult ranking lists to advance their personal career, maximize their research exposure, learn about the relative standing of unfamiliar journals, and direct their students. Scholars, academic administrators, and policymakers should realize that journal ranking lists may serve as a useful tool when used appropriately, in particular when individuals themselves decide how and for what purpose to employ them to inform their research practices.

The findings reveal a journal ranking lists paradox: management researchers are aware of the limitations of ranking lists and their deleterious impact on scientific progress; however, they generally find journal ranking lists to be useful and employ them.

This study aims to verify empirically that when a group of isomorphic organisations is subjected to institutional pressure that conflicts with their technical efficiency or interests, this group will embrace opaqueness and decoupling.

This is a multiple case study of 16 Brazilian academic journals. The authors analyse whether the editorial boards of these journals play an effective or merely ceremonial role in the administration of the journals.

The authors find indications that isomorphic organisations revert to decoupling when the pressures they are subjected to are in conflict with their technical efficiency or interests. The authors also find indications of an inverted U-shaped relationship between the collaboration recruiting power of a journal in an academic field and decoupling. This collaboration recruiting power is closely related to the journal’s position in academic rankings.

The authors have shown that, although some scientific journals can deal with internationalisation pressures, for others, this is difficult and leads to decoupling and opaqueness. This is not a desirable situation. It can be counterproductive and draw attention to bureaucratic procedures.

This relation between opaqueness and institutional pressure for a group of organisations within the context of neo-institutional theory has not yet been verified empirically. This study’s results show how institutional pressure and organisational opaqueness are related in an organisational field. This theoretical contribution has practical implications because of decoupling’s potentially negative effects.

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.

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.

This study aims to sketch a bibliometric portrait of the International Journal of Innovation Science (IJIS) and attempts to evaluate its publication patterns from 2011 to 2020 by unfolding the key aspects of its publication trends for the audience of the journal and scholars of bibliometric studies as well.

This study analyzes papers published in the IJIS from 2011 to 2020 by using the required bibliometric measures to analyze the key aspects of the publishing trends of IJIS.

This study finds that a total of 487 authors published 271 articles in IJIS during 2011–2020. The USA leads the table with 89 papers followed by India (29 papers) and China (26 papers). The degree of collaboration in IJIS ranged from 0.36 to 0.94. Moreover, this study finds that the keyword “design/methodology/approach” is the central theme of research in IJIS around which all other keywords revolve.

This study focuses on the publication patterns of the IJIS over a period of ten years. Patterns of research output in 271 publications are comprehended and analyzed. For making a ten-year bibliometric study, the papers published before 2011 were excluded from the purview of research.

Readers of the IJIS, teachers and research scholars interested in bibliometric studies can benefit from insights into the scholarly papers published in IJIS from 2011 to 2020.

This study would provide the readers of IJIS to ascertain significant contributions, top cited papers, the most prolific authors, geographical distribution of papers, keyword co-occurrence and bibliographic coupling.

This paper aims to analyze open access (OA) scholarly publishing patterns as well as OA policies and mandates across European countries.

The study is based on a descriptive research approach using data from Web resources, directories and bibliographic and citation databases, namely, DOAJ, OpenDOAR, SCImago journal and Country Ranking portal, ROARMAP and Web of Science.

The findings indicate that the initiatives and measures in Europe that promote OA are adequate. OA journals and digital repositories have progressively increased over the past two decades. Of the total journals (n = 25,231) published worldwide and indexed in Scopus, 53% are published in European countries, with 23.7% being OA journals. In total, 34% of the OA repositories (n = 5,714) are in European countries. The proportion of OA journal papers has grown significantly in all European countries, with a 14.3% annual growth rate. The average proportion of OA publications in European countries is significantly higher (39.07%) than the world average (30.16%), with a clear inclination for making research literature openly accessible via the green OA route (79.41%) compared to the gold OA route (52.30%). Most European research funders and institutions have required researchers to make OA available for their research findings, either by publishing them in OA journals or depositing accepted manuscripts in repositories.

The study analyzed OA trends in Europe; other continents and countries were not included in the analysis. The study only described OA policies and mandates; the extent to which the OA policies and mandates were implemented was not studied. However, the results of the study may be helpful to policymakers, funders, research institutions and universities in other countries in adopting and implementing OA policies and mandates.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, the study is the first that used multiple data sources for investigating different facets of OA publishing in European countries, including OA journals, digital repositories, research output, mandates and policies for publicly funded research. The findings will be helpful for researchers and policymakers interested in promoting OA adoption among researchers worldwide.

This paper aims to examine and compare extant literature on the application of multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) techniques in humanitarian operations (HOs) and humanitarian supply chains (HSCs). It identifies the status of existing research in the field and suggests a roadmap for academicians to undertake further research in HOs and HSCs using MCDM techniques.

The paper systematically reviews the research on MCDM applications in HO and HSC domains from 2011 to 2022, as the field gained traction post-2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami phenomena. In the first step, an exhaustive search for journal articles is conducted using 48 keyword searches. To ensure quality, only those articles published in journals featuring in the first quartile of the Scimago Journal Ranking were selected. A total of 103 peer-reviewed articles were selected for the review and then segregated into different categories for analysis.

The paper highlights insufficient high-quality research in HOs that utilizes MCDM methods. It proposes a roadmap for scholars to enhance the research outcomes by advocating adopting mixed methods. The analysis of various studies revealed a notable absence of contextual reference. A contextual mind map specific to HOs has been developed to assist future research endeavors. This resource can guide researchers in determining the appropriate contextual framework for their studies.

This paper will help practitioners understand the research carried out in the field. The aspiring researchers will identify the gap in the extant research and work on future research directions.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first literature review on applying MCDM in HOs and HSCs. It summarises the current status and proposes future research directions.

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.

This study aims to assess the scholarly communication competence of Zambian library and information science (LIS) professionals by evaluating their awareness, knowledge and practices regarding scholarly publication.

Applying a quantitative research approach, the study used a specially designed questionnaire. Responses from 57 professionals across universities and colleges in Zambia were gathered using convenience sampling. Data analysis involved descriptive statistics, mean and standard deviation calculations and t-values and p-values to understand respondents’ perceptions and knowledge of scholarly communication and publication.

The findings revealed significant gaps in respondents’ knowledge and awareness, particularly regarding predatory journals, journal selection factors, open-access models, publication challenges, reference management software (RMS) usage and research obstacles. The study underscored the necessity for increased training and capacity-building initiatives among Zambian LIS professionals to enhance their scholarly communication competence.

This research contributed to the field by highlighting deficiencies in scholarly communication awareness among Zambian LIS professionals. It emphasised the need for targeted interventions, awareness programs and educational support to improve academic literacy and scholarly publication practices. Additionally, the study suggested future research avenues, such as longitudinal studies and strategies for enhancing RMS adoption, to advance scholarly practices among Zambian professionals further.

This paper aims to define a hierarchical and multi-criteria framework based on pillars of the Modernization of Higher Education to evaluate European Accounting Doctoral Programmes (EADE-Model).

The authors applied a quali-quantitative methodology based on the analytic hierarchy process and the survey approach. The authors conducted an extensive literature and regulation review to identify the dimensions affecting the quality of Doctoral Programmes, choosing accounting as the relevant and pivotal field. The authors also used the survey to select the most critical quality dimensions and derive their weight to build EADE Model. The validity of the proposed model has been tested through the application to the Italian scenario.

The findings provide a critical extension of accounting ranking studies constructing a multi-criteria, hierarchical and updated evaluation model recognizing the role of doctoral training in the knowledge-based society. The results shed new light on weak areas apt to be improved and propose potential amendments to enhance the quality standard of ADE.

Theoretical and practical implications of this paper are directed to academics, policymakers and PhD programmes administrators.

The research is original in drafting a hierarchical multi-criteria framework for evaluating ADE in the Higher Education System. This model may be extended to other fields.