Search results

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.

By distorting the peer review process, predatory journals lure researchers and collect article processing charges (APCs) to earn income, thereby threatening clinical decisions. This study aims to identifying the characteristics of predatory publishing in the dermatology literature.

The authors used Kscien's list to detect dermatology-related predatory journals. Bibliometric parameters were analyzed at the level of journals, publishers, documents and authors.

Sixty-one potential predatory dermatology publishers published 4,164 articles in 57 journals from 2000 to 2020, with most publishers claiming to be located in the United States. Most journals were 1–5 years old. Six journals were indexed in PubMed, two in Scopus and 43 in Google Scholar (GS). The average APC was 1,049 USD. Skin, patient, cutaneous, psoriasis, dermatitis and acne were the most frequently used keywords in the article's title. A total of 1,146 articles in GS received 4,725 citations. More than half of the journals had <10 citations. Also, 318 articles in Web of Science were contaminated by the most cited articles and 4.49% of the articles had reported their funding source. The average number of authors per article was 3.7. India, the United States and Japan had the most articles from 119 involved countries. Asia, Europe and North America had the most contributed authors; 5.2% of articles were written through international collaboration. A majority of authors were from high- and low-middle-income countries. Women contributed 43.57% and 39.66% as the first and corresponding authors, respectively.

The study had limitations, including heavy reliance on Kscien's list, potential for human error in manual data extraction and nonseparation of types of articles. Journals that only published dermatology articles were reviewed, so those occasionally publishing dermatology articles were missed. Predatory journals covering multiple subjects (Petrisor, 2016) may have resulted in overlooking some dermatology papers. This study did not claim to have covered all articles in predatory dermatology journals (PDJs) but evaluated many of them. The authors accept the claim that Kscien's list may have made a mistake in including journals.

The wide dispersion of authors involved in PDJs highlights the need to increase awareness among these authors.

Recently, interest in sustainability has grown globally in the heavy vehicle and equipment industry (HVEI). However, this industry's complexity poses a challenge to the implementation of generic sustainable supply chain management (SSCM) practices. This study aims to identify SSCM's barriers, practices and performance (BPP) indicators in the HVEI context.

The results are derived from case studies of four multinational manufacturers. Within-case and cross-case analyses were conducted to categorise the SSCM BPP indicators that are unique to HVEI supply chains.

This study's analysis revealed that supply chain cost implications and a deficient information flow between focal firms and supply chain partners are the key barriers to SSCM in the HVEI. This analysis also revealed a set of policies, programmes and procedures that manufacturers have adopted to address SSCM barriers. The most common SSCM performance indicators included eco-portfolio sales to assess economic performance, health and safety indicators for social sustainability and carbon- and energy-related measures for environmental sustainability.

The insights can help HVEI firms understand and overcome the typical SSCM barriers in their industry and develop, deploy and optimise their SSCM strategies and practices. Managers can use this knowledge to identify appropriate mechanisms with which to accelerate their transition into a sustainable business and effectively measure performance outcomes.

The extant SSCM literature has focused on the light vehicle industry, and it has lacked a concrete examination of HVEI supply chains' sustainability BPP. This study develops a framework that simultaneously analyses SSCM BPP in the HVEI.