Search results

Analyze patterns of co-authorship in hospitality and tourism (H&T) research using bibliometric methods. The purpose of this paper is to answer three questions related to collaborative practices, the number of authors, the order of signatures and the role of the corresponding author.

The methodology is based on the bibliometric techniques of authorship analyzes published in leading H&T journals. Evaluative techniques provide longitudinal evidence of the evolution of some indicators of authors’ collaboration: the percentage of alphabetized authorships; the percentage of articles were the most relevant author signs in the first, middle or last position; and the position of the corresponding author in the by-line.

First, the collaborative nature of H&T research is confirmed; almost 80% of articles in the sample are co-authored. Second, over the past 30 years, the alphabetized signature model has been in decline in this field. Today, about 20% of articles indexed in JCR journals are signed alphabetically. Third, the first author’s placement is less consistent than that of the corresponding author.

This work provides relevant information on researchers’ authorship habits that may help evaluators assign credit and accountability and avoid malpractice in the authorial assignment.

This study explores the habits of researchers who collaborate to improve their productivity, impact and reputation. This is often linked to facilitating access to research funding and obtaining recognition from incentive systems. Yet, no research specifically examines trends in signature order or the corresponding author’s role in the H&T field.

Increasing pressure to enhance research coupled with a desire for a broadening of academic input, are prompting greater levels of collaboration. Research collaboration can generate notable benefits but can also pose a variety of challenges. The purpose of this paper is to explore the reasons, facilitators, benefits and challenges of academic collaboration. It also provides suggestions to manage identifiable risks and enhance team dynamics.

This is a conceptual paper exploring prior literature in relation to the contentious points of research collaboration, particularly in regard to authorship attribution.

The authors present two checklists that researchers can utilise to ensure the successful completion of collaborative projects. The checklists incorporate the main factors required for effective collaborative work and research, and form a foundation for discussion among team members.

The paper draws upon experiences, observations, academic literature and protocols, and provides strategies and recommendations to enhance collaboration and authorship attribution. The two checklists presented in the paper are value‐adding for team members.

A working art machine would embody an effective theory of art. What capacities would it need? It is suggested that authorship entails transmitting order and creative authorship finding new order. The works of authorship are “objective” and, where they represent experience, satisfy the least condition for classification as art.

The purpose of this study is to identify antecedent factors in addition to merit that contribute to the designation of first author on a publication. A second purpose is to provide knowledge of the significance and implications of being designated first author on a research article in the management discipline. A third purpose is to propose directions for further research.

The study consists of an empirical analysis of archival data gathered from 780 authors of 260 coauthored articles from top-tier journals and uses logit regression to analyze the data.

The empirical analysis shows that under certain conditions author need and author power are factors that combine with merit as antecedents to the designation of being the first author of an article.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first empirical study that identified antecedent factors that contribute to first authorship beyond the prescribed factor of merit which professional norms in management assume is the one and only factor that contributes to being designated as first author.

El propósito de este estudio es identificar los factores que anteceden, además del mérito, a la designación del primer autor en una publicación. Un segundo objetivo es proporcionar conocimiento sobre la importancia y las implicaciones de ser designado primer autor en un artículo de investigación en la disciplina de gestión. El tercer propósito es proponer direcciones para futuras investigaciones.

El estudio consiste en un análisis empírico de los datos de archivo recopilados de 780 autores de 260 artículos de revistas de primer nivel y utiliza la regresión logit para analizar los datos.

El análisis empírico muestra que, bajo ciertas condiciones, la necesidad y el poder del autor son factores que se combinan con el mérito como antecedentes de la designación como primer autor de un artículo.

Hasta donde alcanza nuestro conocimiento, este es el primer estudio empírico que identifica los factores que anteceden a la primera autoría más allá del factor de mérito, el cual es según las normas profesionales el único factor que contribuye a ser designado como primer autor.

O objetivo deste estudo é identificar fatores antecedentes, além do mérito, que contribuem para a designação do primeiro autor em uma publicação. Um segundo objetivo é fornecer conhecimento da importância e das implicações de ser designado primeiro autor em um artigo de pesquisa na disciplina de gerenciamento. Um terceiro objetivo é propor orientações para futuras pesquisas.

O estudo consiste em uma análise empírica dos dados de arquivo coletados de 780 autores de 260 artigos em coautoria de periódicos de primeira linha e usa a regressão logit para analisar os dados.

A análise empírica mostra que, sob certas condições, a necessidade e o poder do autor são fatores que se combinam com o mérito como antecedentes à designação de ser o primeiro autor de um artigo.

Até onde sabemos, este é o primeiro estudo empírico que identifica os fatores que precedem a primeira autoria além do fator de mérito, que, segundo as normas profissionais, é o único fator que contribui para ser designado como primeiro autor.

This paper explores the contribution of the AAA Symposium on Ethics Research in Accounting to fostering accounting ethics research. For a 17-year period, the contributors, their schools of affiliation, and their research topics were analyzed to determine the extent of and trends in accounting ethics research. The research rankings of the contributing authors were examined in business ethics journals, top-40 accounting journals, and accounting education journals. Institutional rankings identify supportive places to do accounting ethics research. The impact of significant accounting scandals such as Enron and Madoff was examined and a financial scandal “bump” in paper presentations was found. Authors affiliated with Texas schools had papers following the state requirement of an ethics accounting course. A large amount of ethics education-related research was also presented at the Ethics Symposia. Overall the study results indicate that the Symposium with its AAA affiliation is a high-quality venue for paper presentation.

The purpose of this study is to determine the potential for research collaboration amongst Egyptian library and information science (LIS) faculty members.

An online survey was used, which ran from the beginning of June to the middle of July 2021.

Male respondents made up slightly more than half of the total, with ages ranging from 30s to 40s and the majority holding PhDs. According to all respondents, the most important reasons for collaborating on research authorship were “to gain more experience”, followed by “to gain more knowledge”. More than half of respondents rated the collaborative research as “Good”, with “Very Good” coming in second. Almost all respondents stated the most common types of collaboration amongst the respondents were “a research paper”, “a case study”, “a review” and “a book chapter”. All faculty members stated that challenges such as “The research collaborator does not contribute equally to the same motivation” and “The research collaborator does not do what is expected of him/her to complete the research” were at the very least significant to the respondents.

The findings of this study have significant implications for higher education research and publishing in Egypt, particularly in terms of encouraging collaborative research amongst Egyptian researchers, particularly in the field of LIS.

This is nearly the first study of the kind in the Arab and Egyptian contexts. This study is described as a pioneer amongst the studies concerned with this topic that were conducted in the field of joint authorship, especially at the local and regional levels, because this study is one of the few studies on partnership and research cooperation amongst Egyptian faculty members in the field of LIS.

The publication oeuvre of a researcher carries great value when academic careers are assessed, and being recognised as a successful candidate is usually equated with being a productive author. Yet, how publications are valued in the context of evaluating careers is so far an understudied topic. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

Through a content analysis of assessment reports in three disciplines – biomedicine, economics and history – this paper analyses how externalities are used to evaluate publication oeuvres. Externalities are defined as features such as reviews and bibliometric indicators, which can be assessed without evaluating the epistemological claims made in the actual text.

All three fields emphasise similar aspects when assessing: authorship, publication prestige, temporality of research, reputation within the field and boundary keeping. Yet, how these facets of quality are evaluated, and the means through which they are assessed differs between disciplines. Moreover, research fields orient themselves according to different temporal horizons, i.e. history looks to the past and economics to the future when research is evaluated.

The complexities involved in the process of evaluating candidates are also reflected in the findings, and while the comparative approach taken effectively highlights domain specific differences it may also hide counter-narratives, and subtle intradisciplinary discussion on quality.

This study offers a novel perspective on how publications are valued when assessing academic careers. Especially striking is how research across different fields is evaluated through different time horizons. This finding is significant in the debate on more overarching and formal systems of research evaluation.

This study aims to examine the current state of the research activities of scholars in the hospitality and tourism field by analyzing the first 20 years of the new millennium.

Longitudinal analyses using 14,229 journal articles as data source were realized by adopting BibExcel, Gephi and VOSviewer network analysis software packages.

This study provides a comprehensive overview of the hospitality and tourism research based on authorship and social network analysis, with patterns of prolific authors compared over four distinct periods.

The hospitality and tourism academic society is clearly illustrated by tracing academic publication activities across 20 years in the new millennium. In addition, this study provides a guide for scholars to search for multidisciplinary collaboration opportunities. Government agencies and non-governmental organisations can also benefit from this study by identifying appropriate review panel members when making decisions about hospitality- and tourism-related proposals.

To the best of authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to use bibliometric analysis in assessing research published in leading hospitality and tourism journals across the four breakout periods in the new millennium.

New technologies allow for efficient dissemination of scientific knowledge objects (SKOs). Yet they are likely to transform SKOs as well. The aim of this paper is to propose a way to structure SKOs that allows for both a clear individuation of the main scientific contributions and a fine‐grained structure of credits and evaluation.

The authors review and analyze existing practices of structuring SKOs in different disciplines.

Provisionally considering the published paper as an atomic SKO, possible subatomic structures of SKOs are investigated. It is hypothesized that SKOs are meant to satisfy two separated but interdependent sets of constraints, one related to the contribution the SKO makes to the body of knowledge, and another related to the contribution the SKO makes to the reputation of its authors. It is hypothesized that existing SKO structures are not optimal for satisfying both sets of constraints at once.

A broader analysis may be needed that covers the totality of existing practices.

Guidelines are offered. This paper, including the present abstract, is an example of what the scientific paper of tomorrow could be like.

The paper proposes better apportioning of scientific credits and evaluation; substantive evolution of the academic publishing and credit attribution models.

The idea that the communication and evaluation function of a SKO are differently reflected in their structure is novel. The proposed fine‐grained credit attribution system is novel. The molecular/atomic/sub‐atomic distinction is a new way to fix the terminology.