Search results

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.

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.

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).

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

This paper aims to identify specific challenges and opportunities when crafting literature reviews of qualitative accounting research. In addition, it offers potential remedies to frequent challenges when conducting such reviews.

This piece is based on recent methodological advice on conducting literature reviews and my own experience when conducting and publishing reviews that primarily cover qualitative accounting research.

The author chart three typical advantages and three typical use cases of literature reviews of qualitative accounting research, as well as the typical process steps and outputs of such reviews. Along with these process steps, The author identifies three overarching specific challenges when conducting such reviews and discusses potential remedies. Overall, this paper suggests that literature reviews of qualitative accounting research feature idiosyncratic challenges but offer specific opportunities at the same time.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this paper is among the first to offer advice on the specific challenges and opportunities when conducting literature reviews of qualitative accounting research.

Social relationships play an important role in organizational entrepreneurship. They are crucial to entrepreneurs’ decisions because, despite the bleeding-edge technological advancements observed nowadays, entrepreneurs as human beings will always strive to be social. During the COVID-19 pandemic many companies moved activities into the virtual world and as a result offline Social relationships became rarer, but as it turns out, even more valuable, likewise, the inter-organizational cooperation enabling many companies to survive.

This chapter aims to develop knowledge about entrepreneurs’ SR and their links with inter-organizational cooperation. The results of an integrative systematic literature review show that the concept of Social relationships, although often investigated, lacks a clear definition, conceptualization, and operationalization. This chapter revealed a great diversity of definitions for Social relationships, including different scopes of meaning and levels of analysis. The authors identify 10 building blocks and nine sources of entrepreneurs’ Social relationships. The authors offer an original typology of Social relationships using 12 criteria. Interestingly, with regard to building blocks, besides those frequently considered such as trust, reciprocity and commitment, the authors also point to others more rarely and narrowly discussed, such as gratitude, satisfaction and affection. Similarly, the authors discuss the varied scope of sources, including workplace, family/friendship, past relationships, and ethnic or religious bonds. The findings of this study point to a variety of links between Social relationships and inter-organizational cooperation, including their positive and negative influences on one another. These links appear to be extremely dynamic, bi-directional and highly complex.

Healthcare policies around the globe are aimed at achieving patient-centeredness. The patient is understood as a prosumer of healthcare, wherein healthcare service co-production and value co-creation take center stage. The article endeavors to unpack the state of the literature on the innovations promoting the transition toward patient-centeredness, informing policy and management interventions fostering the reconceptualization of the patient as a prosumer of healthcare services.

A hybrid review methodology consisting of a bibliometric-interpretive review following the Scientific Procedures and Rationales for Systematic Literature Reviews (SPAR-4-SLR) protocol is used. The bibliometric component enabled us to objectively map the extant scientific knowledge into research streams, whereas the interpretive component facilitated the critical analysis of research streams.

Patient-centeredness relies on a bundle of innovations that are enacted through a cycle of patients' activation, empowerment, involvement and engagement, wherein the omission of any steps arrests the transition toward service co-production and value co-creation. Institutional, organizational and cognitive barriers should be overcome to boost the transition of patients from consumers to prosumers in a patient-centered model of healthcare.

The article delivers the state of the art of the scientific literature in the field of innovations aimed at sustaining the transition toward patient-centeredness and provides some food for thoughts to scholars and practitioners who wish to push forward service co-production and value co-creation in healthcare.

Global adoption of the internet and mobile usage results in a huge variation in the cultural backgrounds of consumers who generate and consume electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM). Unsurprisingly, a research trend on cross-cultural eWOM has emerged. However, there has not been an attempt to synthesize this research topic. This paper aims to bridge this gap.

This research paper conducts a systematic literature review of the current research findings on cross-cultural eWOM. Journal articles published from 2006 to 2021 are included. This study then presents the key issues in the extant literature and suggests potential future research.

The findings show that there has been an upward trend in the number of publications on cross-cultural eWOM since the early 2010s, with a relatively steeper increase toward 2020. The findings also synthesize cross-cultural eWOM research into four elements and suggest potential future research avenues.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, there is currently no exhaustive/integrated review of cross-cultural eWOM research. This research fills the need to summarize the current state of cross-cultural eWOM literature and identifies research questions to be addressed in the future.

El boca a boca electrónico cross-cultural: una revisión sistemática de la literatura

La adopción global de Internet y los móviles da lugar a una enorme diferencia en el origen cultural de los consumidores que generan y consumen el boca a boca electrónico (eWOM). No es de extrañar que haya surgido una tendencia de investigación sobre el eWOM transcultural. Sin embargo, no se ha intentado sintetizar este tema de investigación. El objetivo de este artículo es subsanar esta carencia.

Este trabajo de investigación realiza una revisión bibliográfica sistemática de las investigaciones realizadas sobre eWOM transcultural. Se incluyen artículos de revistas publicados desde 2006 hasta 2021. A continuación, el estudio presenta las cuestiones clave de la literatura existente y sugiere posibles investigaciones futuras.

Los resultados muestran que ha habido una tendencia al alza en el número de publicaciones sobre eWOM intercultural desde principios de la década de 2010, con un aumento relativamente creciente hacia 2020. Los resultados también sintetizan la investigación sobre eWOM intercultural en cuatro elementos y sugieren posibles vías de investigación futuras.

Actualmente no existe una revisión exhaustiva/integrada de la investigación sobre el eWOM cross-cultural. Esta investigación satisface la necesidad de resumir el estado actual de la literatura sobre eWOM cross-cultural e identifica las cuestiones de investigación que deben abordarse en el futuro.

跨文化电子口碑研究：系统性文献回顾

摘要

在互联网全球化以及移动手机的广泛使用的背景下, 不同文化背景的消费者都在贡献电子口碑（eWOM）。这使得电子口碑存在文化差异。然而, 还没有人试图对这个研究课题进行综合分析。本文的目的就是要弥补这一空白。

本研究论文对目前关于跨文化eWOM的研究成果进行了系统的文献回顾。包括2006年至2021年发表的期刊文章。然后, 本研究提出了现有文献中的关键问题, 并提出了潜在的未来研究。

研究结果显示, 自2010年初以来, 关于跨文化eWOM的出版物数量呈上升趋势, 到2020年时增幅相对较大。研究结果还总结了跨文化eWOM研究的四个要素, 并提出了潜在的未来研究途径。

目前还没有关于跨文化eWOM研究的详尽/综合的回顾。这项研究填补了总结跨文化电子WOM文献现状的需要, 并确定了未来要解决的研究问题。

The purpose of this paper is to examine how rural entrepreneurship is discussed by analyzing articles in the leading journals of the two main research fields, entrepreneurship studies, and rural studies, through the concept of rural proofing.

The systematic literature review centers on the two main fields where rural entrepreneurship is studied and covers papers in nine leading journals in entrepreneurship studies and two leading journals in rural studies, between the years 1989 and 2020. In total, 97 papers were reviewed and we utilize and operationalize the rural proofing concept based on Fahmy et al.'s (2004) 3 characteristics of rural: remoteness, accessibility, and rural locale and sense of place. The authors take stock of the dimensions of rural proofing addressed within each of the research fields to find similarities and differences; that is, if articles are rural proofed (or not) when discussing rural entrepreneurship.

The classification of articles across the three dimensions of rural proofing shows that the field of rural entrepreneurship is being addressed mainly in the dimensions of remoteness and accessibility, while few authors in rural studies journals give priority to the rural locale and sense of place dimension. The results of the authors' review reveal that out of a total of 97 articles on rural entrepreneurship, 56 articles address at least one dimension of rural proofing and 41 articles do not address any dimension. Among the 41 articles not rural proofed, rurality is not problematized when discussing rural entrepreneurship. Instead, the authors focus on specific topics such as social capital, community entrepreneurship/networks, entrepreneurs'/farmers' identity, illegality in rural areas, and institutional framework. The number of non-rural-proofed articles in entrepreneurship journals is almost double that in rural studies journals. This means that authors in entrepreneurship journals do not problematize rurality to the same extent as authors in rural studies journals when addressing rural entrepreneurship.

The authors emphasize the need for increased cross-fertilization between the fields of entrepreneurship and rural studies as an avenue to develop the entrepreneurship field in the direction towards rural proofing. A close collaboration with academia and policymakers is essential to promote interdisciplinary research in order to make a distinctive contribution to rural development. Scholars in either of the two fields will benefit from our review and identification of similarities and differences in the research. The review is one step towards promoting a closer dialog between the two fields.

Previous reviews have focused mainly on what rural entrepreneurship entails (e.g. what topics are discussed) rather than how rural entrepreneurship is discussed. This paper centers on the differences and similarities of the two main fields and provides an in-depth qualitative analysis of how rural entrepreneurship is discussed by utilizing the rural proofing concept.

Given the cryptocurrency market boom in recent years, this study aims to identify the factors influencing cryptocurrency pricing and the major gaps for future research.

A systematic literature review was undertaken. Three databases, Scopus, Web of Science and EBSCOhost, were used for this review. The final analysis comprised 88 articles that met the eligibility criteria.

The influential factors were identified and categorized as supply and demand, technology, economics, market volatility, investors’ attributes and social media. This review provides a comprehensive and consolidated view of cryptocurrency pricing and maps the significant influential factors.

This paper is the first to systematically and comprehensively review the relevant literature on cryptocurrency to identify the factors of pricing fluctuation. This research contributes to cryptocurrency research as well as to consumer behaviors and marketing discipline in broad.