Search results

1 – 10 of over 231000
To view the access options for this content please click here
Article
Publication date: 1 January 1997

Sonja Gallhofer, Jim Haslam and Steven Cahan

This paper reviews Pacific Accounting Review, 1988–96. Against the background of an historical overview of the journal's development, the paper includes analyses of…

Abstract

This paper reviews Pacific Accounting Review, 1988–96. Against the background of an historical overview of the journal's development, the paper includes analyses of publications and citations in the journal. The paper looks forward to the future progress of Pacific Accounting Review.

Details

Pacific Accounting Review, vol. 9 no. 1
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 0114-0582

To view the access options for this content please click here
Article
Publication date: 1 June 1998

Paula Wheeler Carlo, Douglas Duchin and Allen Natowitz

This study examines reviewing tendencies in CHOICE, Journal of American History, and American Historical Review in the early 1990s in order to compare their strengths and…

Abstract

This study examines reviewing tendencies in CHOICE, Journal of American History, and American Historical Review in the early 1990s in order to compare their strengths and weaknesses. Among the factors assessed were the number of titles reviewed by each, the degree of overlap for 1,017 different titles that were reviewed in these journals, subject coverage in the field of American history, and timeliness. The study found that JAH reviewed 50 percent more titles than the other two journals in 1991 and had the best coverage for most subject categories in American history. AHR reviewed the fewest books in most categories and contained the least number of unique titles. Although numbers of titles reviewed in each category differed, percentage of coverage was similar within most categories in all three journals. However, several categories revealed some divergence in coverage. Reviews in CHOICE preceded reviews of the same titles in JAH and AHR by 9.3 months and 10.9 months, respectively.

Details

Collection Building, vol. 17 no. 2
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 0160-4953

Keywords

To view the access options for this content please click here
Article
Publication date: 2 November 2015

Ralph W. Adler and Gregory Liyanarachchi

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…

Abstract

Purpose

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.

Design/methodology/approach

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.

Findings

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.

Originality/value

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.

Details

Pacific Accounting Review, vol. 27 no. 4
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 0114-0582

Keywords

To view the access options for this content please click here
Article
Publication date: 11 July 2016

Essam Mansour

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

Abstract

Purpose

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.

Design/methodology/approach

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.

Findings

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.

Research limitations/implications

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.

Practical implications

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.

Originality/value

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.

To view the access options for this content please click here
Article
Publication date: 1 February 1979

Judith Serebnick

The policies of the American Library Association (ALA) concerning the concept of intellectual freedom are embodied in the Library Bill of Rights, the association's…

Abstract

The policies of the American Library Association (ALA) concerning the concept of intellectual freedom are embodied in the Library Bill of Rights, the association's official statement on free access to libraries and library materials. The Library Bill of Rights is a brief, deceptively simple document that has provoked constant debate and reinterpretation since its adoption by ALA almost 40 years ago.

Details

Collection Building, vol. 1 no. 2
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 0160-4953

To view the access options for this content please click here
Article
Publication date: 12 March 2018

Barry J. Babin and Julie Guidry Moulard

The purpose of this paper is to consider various strengths and weaknesses of the academic review process with an emphasis on the effect the process has on the relevance of…

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to consider various strengths and weaknesses of the academic review process with an emphasis on the effect the process has on the relevance of business journals, particularly in the marketing literature.

Design/methodology/approach

The authors not only highlight some of the literature addressing the review process but also present insight and opinion largely based on decades of experience editing, reviewing, writing and publishing.

Findings

Reviewers can help develop research papers, but reviewers remain gatekeepers who, theoretically, protect journals from publishing research that would diminish the truthful body of knowledge within a field. However, many inefficiencies, some of which involve volition, allow one to question whether the review process as we know it best accomplishes that purpose.

Practical implications

Recognizing that reviewers affect journal prestige, the paper concludes with a number of ideas for improving the gate-keeping and developmental functions for academic articles.

Social implications

Society should extract value from what appears in publicly circulated, academic, refereed journals. However, to the extent that the publication process interferes with objective dissemination of knowledge, that value is diminished and perhaps even absent.

Originality/value

The paper intends to stimulate frank conversation about the Academy’s refereed publication process and factors that tend to interfere with its function.

Details

European Business Review, vol. 30 no. 2
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 0955-534X

Keywords

Content available
Article
Publication date: 6 August 2021

Salim Moussa

Predatory publishing is a growing and global issue infecting all scientific domains. Predatory publishers create counterfeit, not (properly) peer-reviewed journals to…

Abstract

Purpose

Predatory publishing is a growing and global issue infecting all scientific domains. Predatory publishers create counterfeit, not (properly) peer-reviewed journals to exploit the open access (OA) model in which the author pays. The plethora of predatory marketing journals along with the sophisticated deceptive practices of their publishers may create total confusion. One of the many highly likely risks of that bewilderment is when peer-reviewed, prestigious marketing journals cite these pseudo-marketing journals. This phenomenon is called citation contamination. This study aims to investigate the extent of citation contamination in the peer-reviewed marketing literature.

Design/methodology/approach

Using Google Scholar as a citation gathering tool, this study investigates references to four predatory marketing journals in 68 peer-reviewed marketing journals listed in the 2018 version of the Academic Journal Guide by the Chartered Association of Business Schools (CABSs).

Findings

Results indicate that 59 of the 68 CABS-ranked peer-reviewed marketing journals were, up to late January 2021, contaminated by at least one of the four sampled predatory journals. Together, these four pseudo-journals received (at least) 605 citations. Findings from nonparametric statistical procedures show that citation contamination occurred irrespective of the age of a journal or its 2019 Journal Impact Factor (JIF). They also point out that citation contamination happened independently from the fact that a journal is recognized by Clarivate Analytics or not.

Research limitations/implications

This study investigated citations to only four predatory marketing journals in only 68 CABS-listed peer-reviewed marketing journals.

Practical implications

These findings should sound an alarm to the entire marketing community (including academics and practitioners). To counteract citation contamination, recommendations are provided for researchers, practitioners, journal editors and academic and professional associations.

Originality/value

This study is the first to offer a systematic assessment of references to predatory journals in the peer-reviewed marketing literature.

Details

South Asian Journal of Marketing, vol. ahead-of-print no. ahead-of-print
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 2719-2377

Keywords

To view the access options for this content please click here
Article
Publication date: 1 March 1977

Ken Button and David Pearce

Richard Quandt has recently noted an increasing tendency on the part of professional economists to introspect their work and activities. Whether this trend derives from…

Abstract

Richard Quandt has recently noted an increasing tendency on the part of professional economists to introspect their work and activities. Whether this trend derives from some existential angst brought on by a feeling that the marginal social return from the nth journal article does not differ significantly from zero, or whether it results from a desire to formalise sheer bloody‐mindedness (“my two page article in the American Economic Review is better than your 50 page survey in the Journal of Cerebral Economics”) is not our concern. We simply wish to move with the tide by producing our own survey of how British economists rank the “prestige” of the professional journals. Our survey results are reported below and it will be seen that they have been produced in a manner which makes them directly comparable to those produced for America by Hawkins, Ritter and Walter. We also offer some comparisons with the findings of Moore.

Details

International Journal of Social Economics, vol. 4 no. 3
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 0306-8293

To view the access options for this content please click here
Book part
Publication date: 12 June 2015

Samir Hachani

Peer review has been with humans for a long time. Its effective inception dates back to World War II resulting information overload, which imposed a quantitative and…

Abstract

Peer review has been with humans for a long time. Its effective inception dates back to World War II resulting information overload, which imposed a quantitative and qualitative screening of publications. Peer review was beset by a number of accusations and critics largely from the biases and subjective aspects of the process including the secrecy in which the processes became standard. Advent of the Internet in the early 1990s provided a manner to open peer review up to make it more transparent, less iniquitous, and more objective. This chapter investigates whether this openness led to a more objective manner of judging scientific publications. Three sites are examined: Electronic Transactions on Artificial Intelligence (ETAI), Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (ACP), and Faculty of 1000 (F1000). These sites practice open peer review wherein reviewers and authors and their reviews and rebuttals are available for all to see. The chapter examines the different steps taken to allow reviewers and authors to interact and how this allows for the entire community to participate. This new prepublication reviewing of papers has to some extent, alleviated the biases that were previously preponderant and, furthermore, seems to give positive results and feedback. Although recent, experiences seem to have elicited scientists’ acceptance because openness allows for a more objective and fair judgment of research and scholarship. Yet, it will undoubtedly lead to new questions which are examined in this chapter.

Details

Current Issues in Libraries, Information Science and Related Fields
Type: Book
ISBN: 978-1-78441-637-9

Keywords

Content available
Article
Publication date: 13 March 2017

Valerie Spezi, Simon Wakeling, Stephen Pinfield, Claire Creaser, Jenny Fry and Peter Willett

Open-access mega-journals (OAMJs) represent an increasingly important part of the scholarly communication landscape. OAMJs, such as PLOS ONE, are large scale, broad scope…

Abstract

Purpose

Open-access mega-journals (OAMJs) represent an increasingly important part of the scholarly communication landscape. OAMJs, such as PLOS ONE, are large scale, broad scope journals that operate an open access business model (normally based on article-processing charges), and which employ a novel form of peer review, focussing on scientific “soundness” and eschewing judgement of novelty or importance. The purpose of this paper is to examine the discourses relating to OAMJs, and their place within scholarly publishing, and considers attitudes towards mega-journals within the academic community.

Design/methodology/approach

This paper presents a review of the literature of OAMJs structured around four defining characteristics: scale, disciplinary scope, peer review policy, and economic model. The existing scholarly literature was augmented by searches of more informal outputs, such as blogs and e-mail discussion lists, to capture the debate in its entirety.

Findings

While the academic literature relating specifically to OAMJs is relatively sparse, discussion in other fora is detailed and animated, with debates ranging from the sustainability and ethics of the mega-journal model, to the impact of soundness-only peer review on article quality and discoverability, and the potential for OAMJs to represent a paradigm-shifting development in scholarly publishing.

Originality/value

This paper represents the first comprehensive review of the mega-journal phenomenon, drawing not only on the published academic literature, but also grey, professional and informal sources. The paper advances a number of ways in which the role of OAMJs in the scholarly communication environment can be conceptualised.

Details

Journal of Documentation, vol. 73 no. 2
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 0022-0418

Keywords

1 – 10 of over 231000