Search results

Predicting highly cited papers can enable an evaluation of the potential of papers and the early detection and determination of academic achievement value. However, most highly cited paper prediction studies consider early citation information, so predicting highly cited papers by publication is challenging. Therefore, the authors propose a method for predicting early highly cited papers based on their own features.

This research analyzed academic papers published in the Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) from 2000 to 2013. Five types of features were extracted: paper features, journal features, author features, reference features and semantic features. Subsequently, the authors applied a deep neural network (DNN), support vector machine (SVM), decision tree (DT) and logistic regression (LGR), and they predicted highly cited papers 1–3 years after publication.

Experimental results showed that early highly cited academic papers are predictable when they are first published. The authors’ prediction models showed considerable performance. This study further confirmed that the features of references and authors play an important role in predicting early highly cited papers. In addition, the proportion of high-quality journal references has a more significant impact on prediction.

Based on the available information at the time of publication, this study proposed an effective early highly cited paper prediction model. This study facilitates the early discovery and realization of the value of scientific and technological achievements.

Given the magnitude of the literature, a researcher must be selective of research papers and publications in general. In other words, only papers that meet strict standards of academic integrity and adhere to reliable and credible sources should be referenced. The purpose of this paper is to approach this issue from the prism of scientometrics according to the following research questions: Is it necessary to judge the quality of scientific production? How do we evaluate scientific production? What are the tools to be used in evaluation?

This paper presents a comparative study of scientometric evaluation practices and tools. A systematic literature review is conducted based on articles published in the field of scientometrics between 1951 and 2022. To analyze data, the authors performed three different aspects of analysis: usage analysis based on classification and comparison between the different scientific evaluation practices, type and level analysis based on classifying different scientometric indicators according to their types and application levels and similarity analysis based on studying the correlation between different quantitative metrics to identify similarity between them.

This comparative study leads to classify different scientific evaluation practices into externalist and internalist approaches. The authors categorized the different quantitative metrics according to their types (impact, production and composite indicators), their levels of application (micro, meso and macro) and their use (internalist and externalist). Moreover, the similarity analysis has revealed a high correlation between several scientometric indicators such as author h-index, author publications, citations and journal citations.

The interest in this study lies deeply in identifying the strengths and weaknesses of research groups and guides their actions. This evaluation contributes to the advancement of scientific research and to the motivation of researchers. Moreover, this paper can be applied as a complete in-depth guide to help new researchers select appropriate measurements to evaluate scientific production. The selection of evaluation measures is made according to their types, usage and levels of application. Furthermore, our analysis shows the similarity between the different indicators which can limit the overuse of similar measures.

This study builds on previous discussion of an important area for both academics and academic journals – the issue of reviewers inappropriately asking for (or “coercing”) citation of their own work. That situation creates an opportunity for (hopefully a small number of) academics to engage in unethical behaviour, often with the goal of increasing their citation count. This study aims to draw attention to this often-overlooked issue, critically considering potential reviewer motivations and offering possible remedies.

This study reviews literature and critically discusses this issue, offering a typology for coercive citation suggestions and sharing previously unpublished commentary from Editors of leading journals.

This study provides a typology of reviewer motivations for coercing citations, suggests potential remedies and considers the positive and negative impacts of these suggestions.

This study identifies an area known from multiple discussions to be important to academics and Editors, where many want changes in journals’ practices. In response, this study provides recommendations for easy changes that would decrease the opportunity for unethical behaviour by reviewers and also, for some journals, improve the quality of reviews.

The purpose of this study is to systematically review the existing literature on the concept of consumer sovereignty.

By leveraging a systematic literature review using a data-driven approach and quantitative methodology, this study provides an overview of the intellectual structure of consumer sovereignty research.

We explored the main topics that researchers tackled in consumer sovereignty research. Furthermore, we identified the theoretical lenses used in these studies. Finally, we proposed a research agenda to advance the scholarly debate on consumer sovereignty.

Some limitations should be acknowledged. First, the study only studied and analyzed consumer sovereignty articles that were published in peer-reviewed academic journals. Second, our review comprised journals identified in Scopus. Third, in this study, we have taken into account only articles written in English.

The authors expect the current review to significantly impact the identification of theories for the main trends in the academic analysis of consumer sovereignty and consumer behavior.

This study is the first to provide an integrated view of the body of consumer sovereignty. This review provides a strong contribution to consumer sovereignty literature by recommending a new research agenda for the concept of consumer sovereignty.

The competition in the academe has always been tough, but today, the academe seems to be more like an industry than an academic community as academics are evaluated through quantified and economic means.

This article leans on Heidegger’s thoughts on the essence of technology and his ontological view on being to show the dangers that lie in this quantification of researchers and research.

Despite the benefits that information systems (ISs) offer to people and research, it seems that technology has made it possible to objectify researchers and research. This has a negative impact on the academe and should thus be looked into especially by the IS field, which should note the problems that exist in its core. This phenomenon of quantified academics is clearly visible at academic quantification sites, where academics are evaluated using metrics that count their output. It seems that the essence of technology has disturbed the way research is valued by emphasising its quantifiable aspects. The study claims that it is important to look for other ways to evaluate researchers rather than trying to maximise research production, which has led to the flooding of articles that few have the time or interest to read.

This paper offers new insights into the current phenomenon of quantification of academics and underlines the need for critical changes if in order to achieve the academic culture that is desirable for future academics.

This paper aims to investigate the evolution, roots and influence of the rural entrepreneurship literature.

Using a bibliometric exercise, the analysis starts with investigation of studies on entrepreneurship and gathering all (772) articles on rural entrepreneurship (from 1981 to 2020) found in both Scopus and Web of Science up to 15 August 2020. Citation analysis of the references/citations of 755 articles are listed in the abstract database, generating a citation database involving 46,432 references/citations. This paper considers 635 (out of the 772) articles on rural entrepreneurship (i.e. articles cited in one or more studies), generating a database of 10,767 studies influenced by the rural entrepreneurship literature.

This study discovers that the relative importance of rural entrepreneurship within the entrepreneurship literature has increased in the last few years, but rural entrepreneurship remains a European concern; the most frequently addressed topics include growth and development, institutional frameworks and governance and rurality, with theory building being rather understudied. Most of the studies on rural entrepreneurship are empirical, involving mainly qualitative analyses and targeting high income countries; rural entrepreneurship is rooted in the fields of economics and entrepreneurship and is relatively self-referential.

This study provides a comprehensive and updated investigation of evolution of the rural entrepreneurship literature. The assessment of the literature’s scientific roots of rural entrepreneurship had not yet been tackled before. To the best of the author’s knowledge this study can be considered as the first effort for identifying the scientific influence of the rural entrepreneurship literature.

This paper aims to extend some of the theoretical propositions of Michael Power’s (1997) audit society thesis by exploring the capacity of organisations to push back against external accountability pressures. The paper positions the literature on non-governmental organisation (NGO) accounting and accountability as a “case study” against which the notion of the audit society is put to the test.

A qualitative meta-synthesis of the accounting literature is used to analyse how NGOs have responded to audit society pressures – most notably funder pressures to adopt formalised accountability mechanisms. The different responses of NGOs to funder accountability demands are analysed using Christine Oliver’s (1991) typology of strategic responses to institutional processes.

This review of the accounting literature unveils that NGOs can adopt a range of strategic responses to funder accountability pressures that vary from passive conformity to proactive manipulation. The findings confirm that NGOs often perceive acquiescence to funder accountability demands as necessary to ensure organisational survival. Yet, the author also found that NGO resistance to funder accountability pressures is more common than previously assumed. Five dominant forms of “accountability resistances” emerged from the analysis: evading accountability, disguising accountability, shielding accountability, negotiating accountability and shaping accountability.

By conducting a qualitative meta-synthesis of the accounting literature, the author was able to integrate the findings of prior research on NGO resistance to funder accountability demands, guide future research and extend Michael Power’s (1997) work by developing a more nuanced understanding of how organisations respond to external accountability pressures.

The aim of this research is to examine gender differences in the context of research productivity, research collaboration and academic promotion.

This research analyzes data related to 863 academics in the accounting and finance departments in Turkish universities by using OLS, Binary Logistic, Ordered Probit and Multinomial Probit Regressions.

The findings show that female academics have in overall a representation ratio of 32%, and that there are no significant differences regarding the opportunities for female academics to be employed in public compared to private, and in high-rank compared to low-rank universities. The results also indicate that female academics have lower research impact compared to male academics, and that this difference is more pronounced for professors, and in universities with low ratio of female representation, and also in public universities. In addition, female academics engage more in research collaboration and are less likely to hold the academic title of full professor than male academics.

The findings of this study provide significant signals about the need for improving gender policies that mitigate the conditions adversely affecting research productivity and impact by considering the supporting circumstances for female academics and improving the representation ratio, which also can play vital role in reducing discrimination and bias and contribute to better research and scientific environment.

To the author’s knowledge, this article is the first to examine gender effect regarding research productivity, research collaboration and academic promotion in Turkish universities.

It is unclear whether regional rather than global or discipline-focussed preprint platforms as an innovation in the communication of science are removing any of the barriers faced by researchers in the scientific periphery or whether they are increasing access to and visibility of science from the periphery. In response, this paper focusses on the uptake, visibility and academic impact of regional preprint publishing platforms in two peripheral regions (Africa and Latin America) to gain insights into the use and possible impact of regional preprint servers.

Comparative quantitative analysis using bibliometric and altmetric data to compare six preprint servers (two regional, one global and three discipline-specific).

There is evidence of the uptake of regional preprint servers, but the uptake is comparatively modest compared with global and discipline-focussed preprint servers. The academic and social visibility of preprints available on regional preprint servers is comparatively lower when compared to other preprint servers. The preprint server SciELO preprint in comparison to AfricArxiv shows signs of increasing growth and visibility, but more time is required to reach any definitive conclusions.

The research is limited by the short timeframe that the regional preprint servers have existed compared to some of the other preprint servers. The absence of reliable data on the research populations by region or globally by discipline places limits on the comparability of the raw data.

The article provides for the first time a detailed empirical analysis of the contribution of preprint servers targeted at researchers from the scientific periphery to global science.

The peer review history for this article is available at: https://publons.com/publon/10.1108/OIR-04-2023-0153

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