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.

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 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.

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.

The concept of interestingness has been investigated in several management disciplines but studies mobilizing such concept in supply chain management (SCM) to develop strategies for the field's advancement are relatively scarce. This research paper aims to investigate how SCM scholars rank attributes of interestingness and the strategies to harness interestingness in the field of SCM.

The authors adopt a mixed methods research design in which a survey on SCM researchers' ranking of interestingness' attributes and qualitative interviews with selected academics are conducted.

The findings highlight the importance given by SCM scholars to attributes such as rigor, relevance, novelty and communication and how they are interrelated. Also, other interestingness attributes are underlined by scholars during the qualitative interviews including inquisitiveness, engaging the reader, imaginativeness and entertainment. Furthermore, a research agenda to synthesize the propositions to develop interesting research is also proposed.

Interestingness attributes such as rigor, relevance and novelty are discussed. Recommendations for interesting research are suggested which can be useful to scholars and journal editors. The findings of this research are also relevant for practitioners for a better understanding of academic/practice relationships to develop high impact collaboration.

This paper is among the few studies that focus on interestingness in SCM research from the perspective of scholars. In doing so, the authors seek to contribute to the classic debate in SCM field about “relevance-rigour” duality by providing a broader outlook based on interestingness and proposing a research agenda for prospective studies in the field.

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.

A nation's economic development is adversely affected by the rising population and the lack of employment opportunities, necessitating the promotion of entrepreneurial activities. This study aims to unfurl the critical factors shaping university students' entrepreneurial intentions (EI) in an emerging economy.

The study assessed the EI of 640 university students across India's top 5 central universities through structural equation modeling by extending the entrepreneurial event model (EEM) and dark triad theory. Mediation and moderation techniques were used to examine the model's direct and indirect linkages.

The results show that propensity to act (PTA), perceived resilience (PRS) and narcissism (NAR) magnify desirability, significantly increasing students' EI. The association between the underlying constructs is partially mediated by the PTA and perceived desirability (PD). In addition, the linkage between PD and students' EI is strengthened by the pursuit of excellence (PoE) and weakened by perceived risk (PR).

The study's findings could assist educators, universities, aspiring entrepreneurs, financial institutions, policymakers, investors, venture capitalists, incubators and accelerators in reinforcing entrepreneurial culture in India by establishing a link between crucial personality traits and intentions to start entrepreneurial ventures.

Personality traits such as NAR, resilience and the PoE have not received much attention in the entrepreneurship literature and call for a rigorous inquiry. The study tries to embrace these dominant personality traits by broadening the perspectives of EEM and dark triad theory via a comprehensive conceptual model. It also explores the role of the PoE and PR as moderators to examine the possible association between the identified constructs.

This study aims to examine the scholarly impact of funded and non-funded research published in ten core library and information science (LIS) journals published in 2016.

In total, ten high-impact LIS journals were selected using Google Scholar metrics. The source title of each selected journal was searched in the Scopus database to retrieve the articles published in 2016. The detailed information of all the retrieved articles for every journal was exported in a CSV Excel file, and after collecting all the journal articles’ information, all CSV Excel files were merged into a single MS Excel file for data analysis.

The study analyzed 1,064 publications and found that 14% of them were funded research articles. Funded articles received higher average citation counts (24.56) compared to non-funded articles (20.49). Funded open-access articles had a higher scholarly impact than funded closed-access articles. The research area with the most funded articles was “Bibliometrics,” which also received the highest number of citations (1,676) with an average citation count of 24.64. The National Natural Science Foundation of China funded the most papers (30), while the USA funded the highest number of research publications (36) in the field of LIS.

This study highlights the importance of securing funding, open access publishing, discipline-specific differences, diverse funding sources and aiming for higher citations. Researchers, practitioners and policymakers can use these findings to enhance research impact in LIS.

This study explores the impact of funding on research LIS and provides valuable insights into the intricate relationship between funding and research impact.

Genetics, a discipline of biology, is one of the most recent and rapidly advancing disciplines in science. This study aims to present a bibliometric analysis of the genetics research output of Iranian authors, map the intellectual structure of these studies and investigate the development path of this literature and the interrelationships among the main topics.

This study searched the Web of Science database for documentation of Iranian-published genetics research published up to 2020. Further, this study used HistCite software to profile and analyze the most cited articles and references and to draw their historiographies.

A database search revealed 21,329 documents that created the study population. The highest cited publications based on the Global Citation Score (GCS) and Local Citation Score (LCS) achieved scores of 602 and 47, respectively. The publication growth rate study demonstrated consistent expansion over time. The scientific maps based on LCS and GCS had five and four clusters, respectively. Furthermore, journal articles emerged as the predominant type of publication.

The significance of this study is in its contribution to understanding the genetics research position in Iran, informing policymakers and researchers, helping scientific collaboration and its impact on public attitudes and quality of life. The results of the present study, with benefits for various groups of communities, such as policymakers, academic groups and public society, can bridge the gap between theoretical research and practical implications.

The results of this study, by helping future advancement in health care, medical genetics and disease prevention, may have a direct and indirect positive influence on the quality of life. Furthermore, it may lead to more informed discussions on health care and biotechnology as well as influencing public attitudes and perceptions.

Ultimately, this study concludes that despite the proliferation of publications in terms of quantity and complexity, especially in areas such as disease diagnosis, prevention and treatment, there remains a need for more attention to other facets of genetics such as biology and biotechnology. Iranian publications are most related to population genetics, human genetics, molecular genetics, medical genetics, genomics, developmental genetics and evolutionary genetics out of 10 branches of genetics. This study reveals patterns in scientific outputs and authorship collaborations and plays an alternative and innovative role in revealing Iranian research trends in genetics.