Search results

The purpose of the study is to evaluate the relationship of Journal Publication Timeline (submission to first decision and submission to final decision) with various Journal Metrics (citing half-life, article influence score, the immediacy index, the acceptance rate, the impact factor (IF), five years IF, Eigenfactor and cited half-life) of top 600 journals retrieved from Journal Citation Report (JCR) 2020 under the tag, Elsevier Unified.

Top 600 journals in the decreasing order of the IFs under the tag, “Elsevier Unified” were retrieved from JCR 2020 of Clarivate Analytics. Information about “Journal Metrics” was ascertained using “Customized Service” of JCR, while information about the “Publication Timeline” of each journal was obtained using Elsevier's “Journal Insights Service.” It was found that only 177 journals provided the complete information regarding the “Publication Timeline” and hence considered for the study. Descriptive statistics and correlation analysis was conducted to test the different hypotheses.

It was found that submission to first decision has a significant relationship with the immediacy index, citing half-life and the acceptance rate. Submission to final decision has a significant relationship with Journal Impact Factor (JIF), the immediacy index, Eigenfactor, citing half-life and the acceptance rate.

The study will provide the authors with sound and valuable information to support their selection of journals. Inferences in light of fluctuations in the scholarly communication process in terms of Publication Timelines and Journal Metrics can be deeply understood with the aid of the current study's findings. What considerations authors have to take before submitting their papers is the main implication of the study. Journal administrators can also benefit from the findings of the current study as it can help recruit and manage reviewers, which will ensure a successful publication timeline.

The study correlates Publication Timeline Indicators with Journal Metrics Indicators using secondary cross-sectional data. Though most previous studies only examine the relationship of the Publication Timeline with the Journal Impact Factor (JIF), there is very scarce literature that deciphers the influence of Publication Timeline indicators on different Journal Metrics indicators (including JIF).

The peer review history for this article is available at: https://publons.com/publon/10.1108/OIR-02-2022-0108.

This study aims to investigate basic/core principles and practical tools behind successful manuscript writing for education journals. Drawing on the insights of journal editors and related literature, this paper seeks to clarify the craft of preparing quality manuscripts to meet the expectations of academic journals.

This paper uses an interpretivist framework by incorporating a qualitative analysis of the literature with the authors’ experiences to identify key principles and issues in academic publishing. These narratives provide an empirical basis for understanding the mechanics and essence of effective manuscript crafting. The study integrates theoretical knowledge with actionable strategies, focusing on identifying the objectives and processes of writing, determining common challenges and directing readers toward comprehensive resources for guidance in article writing.

This study reveals that manuscript rejections often transcend technical shortcomings. Issues that are central to nonacceptance include misalignment with a journal’s thematic focus, absence of a coherent and persuasive argument, methodological weaknesses and insufficient evidence underpinning the assertions. Successful publication depends not just on data presentation and adherence to submission norms but also on developing a narrative that enriches the prevailing scholarly discourse. Our findings advocate for manuscripts that strike an appropriate balance between lucidity and analytical rigor, avoid superfluous technical language and express a mix of assertiveness and scholarly modesty.

Although there is literature on academic writing, very few recent articles have been uncovered that probe the intricacies of crafting education manuscripts and point to resources.

The recent proliferation of preprints could be a way for researchers worldwide to increase the availability and visibility of their research findings. Against the background of rising publication costs caused by the increasing prevalence of article processing fees, the search for other ways to publish research results besides traditional journal publication may increase. This could be especially true for lower-income countries.

Therefore, the authors are interested in the experiences and attitudes towards posting and using preprints in the Global South as opposed to the Global North. To explore whether motivations and concerns about posting preprints differ, the authors adopted a mixed-methods approach, combining a quantitative survey of researchers with focus group interviews.

The authors found that respondents from the Global South were more likely to agree to adhere to policies and to emphasise that mandates could change publishing behaviour towards open access. They were also more likely to agree posting preprints has a positive impact. Respondents from the Global South and the Global North emphasised the importance of peer-reviewed research for career advancement.

The study has identified a wide range of experiences with and attitudes towards posting preprints among researchers in the Global South and the Global North. To the authors' knowledge, this has hardly been studied before, which is also because preprints only have emerged lately in many disciplines and countries.

The peer review history for this article is available at: https://publons.com/publon/10.1108/OIR-04-2023-0181

The overall goal of science is to build a valid and reliable body of knowledge about the functioning of the world and how applying that knowledge can change it. As personnel and human resources management researchers, we aim to contribute to the respective bodies of knowledge to provide both employers and employees with a workable foundation to help with those problems they are confronted with. However, what research on research has consistently demonstrated is that the scientific endeavor possesses existential issues including a substantial lack of (a) solid theory, (b) replicability, (c) reproducibility, (d) proper and generalizable samples, (e) sufficient quality control (i.e., peer review), (f) robust and trustworthy statistical results, (g) availability of research, and (h) sufficient practical implications. In this chapter, we first sing a song of sorrow regarding the current state of the social sciences in general and personnel and human resources management specifically. Then, we investigate potential grievances that might have led to it (i.e., questionable research practices, misplaced incentives), only to end with a verse of hope by outlining an avenue for betterment (i.e., open science and policy changes at multiple levels).

The purpose of this paper is to examine the trends in research published by the TQM Journal since its indexing in the Scopus database in 2008. The paper intends to offer a bibliometric analysis of the TQM Journal by highlighting the contributions made by the journal through citations, prominent authors, most frequent keywords and publications across geographical regions.

The study involved the use of descriptive and visual methods to examine the quantitative and qualitative features of the bibliometric data. The authors made use of Biblioshiny using R-Studio and VoS viewer user interfaces to perform various types of bibliometric analysis on the bibliomteric data of the journal extracted from Scopus database (the largest inter-disciplinary database in social sciences).

With 85% of cited documents having a total 12,079 citations, the TQM Journal is one of the most reputed and impactful journals in the field of performance, integrated management system total quality management and allied concepts. The publications in the TQM Journal have cited many top-rated journals relevant to the domain. Maximum contributions in TQM Journal are submitted by authors from Italy, India and UK. Major submissions made to TQM Journal have focused on the quality concepts relevant to production and manufacturing sector in particular. In this regard, the TQM Journal has a very bright scope in covering the diverse and latest trends across industries especially during pandemic and changes happening thereof. The contributions of the editorial team along with authors and reviewers are unmatchable in making the reputation of the TQM Journal.

To the best of knowledge of the authors, this is going to be first bibliometric study ever conducted on the TQM Journal on documents published in Scopus database. The work carried out is unique, as it is an attempt by authors to comprehend the legacy of the TQM Journal through bibliometric data and showcase the past trends and explore future directions for the TQM Journal.

Green Public Procurement (GPP) has recently gained attention in the academic and policy arenas since climate change has uncovered the need to be addressed by both private companies and public entities. Because of this growing interest this study aims to explore the most influential journals, publishers, categories, topics and therecent trends and future research lines in GPP.

Based on the Web of Science database, 1,008 articles from 1990 to November 2023 devoted to GPP are analysed by using Bibliometrix, an R-tool to perform bibliometric analysis.

This study introduces the following findings. The most influential journals by far are Journal of Cleaner Production and Sustainability, differing in that the latter is open access (OA) while the former publishes through traditional subscription (TS). This result also occurs regarding the main publishers (Elsevier and MDPI).

GPP is a political commitment that contributes to improving the efficiency of the economies and that has aroused the interest of the scientific community. The paper can provide important insights for GPPs formulation in the areas of procurements and literacy.

The paper leads a debate on the opportunities or threats that the OA journals present for the dissemination of scientific knowledge of GPP, compared to TS publications in the same field.

This paper aims to quantify the quality of peer reviews, evaluate them from different perspectives and develop a model to predict the review quality. In addition, this paper investigates effective features to distinguish the reviews' quality. 

First, a fine-grained data set including peer review data, citations and review conformity scores was constructed. Second, metrics were proposed to evaluate the quality of peer reviews from three aspects. Third, five categories of features were proposed in terms of reviews, submissions and responses using natural language processing (NLP) techniques. Finally, different machine learning models were applied to predict the review quality, and feature analysis was performed to understand effective features.

The analysis results revealed that reviewers become more conservative and the review quality becomes worse over time in terms of these indicators. Among the three models, random forest model achieves the best performance on all three tasks. Sentiment polarity, review length, response length and readability are important factors that distinguish peer reviews’ quality, which can help meta-reviewers value more worthy reviews when making final decisions.

This study provides a new perspective for assessing review quality. Another originality of the research lies in the proposal of a novelty task that predict review quality. To address this task, a novel model was proposed which incorporated various of feature sets, thereby deepening the understanding of peer reviews.

This essay takes issue with the incommensurability thesis, which assumes that meaningful research work across different paradigms cannot occur. Could it be that the thesis understates the case for meaningful relationships to develop across paradigms? Is it possible that researchers can authentically and rewardingly collaborate across paradigms and create joint studies published in established journals?

Based on the observation that interparadigmatic research exists, the authors investigate two questions. How is interparadigmatic research expressed in the accounting research literature? How can we comprehend the process that underlies the development and publication of interparadigmatic research, focusing on cohabitation involving the positivist and interpretive paradigms of research?

To deal with the first question, the authors focus on two interparadigmatic articles: Greenwood et al. (2002) and Paugam et al. (2021). The authors find each article showcases a dominant paradigm – whereas the role of the other paradigm is represented as secondary; that is, complementing and enriching the dominant paradigm. To address the second question, the authors rely especially on their involvement as coauthors of three interparadigmatic studies, published between 2019 and 2022 in FT50 journals. The authors’ analysis brings to the fore a range of facilitators that fit their experiences, such as the development of cross-paradigmatic agreement within the authorship to cope with the complexity surrounding the object of study, the crafting of methodological compromises (e.g. regarding the number of documents to analyze) and the strategizing that the authorship enacted in dealing with journal gatekeepers.

From the authors’ experiences, they develop a model, which provides a tentative template to make sense of the process by which interparadigmatic research takes place. The model highlights the role of what the authors call “epistemic mediation” in producing interparadigmatic studies.