Search results

This research provides accounting-ethics authors and administrators with a benchmark for accounting-ethics research. While Bernardi and Bean (2010) considered publications in business-ethics and accounting’s top-40 journals this study considers research in eight accounting-ethics and public-interest journals, as well as, 34 business-ethics journals. We analyzed the contents of our 42 journals for the 25-year period between 1991 through 2015. This research documents the continued growth (Bernardi & Bean, 2007) of accounting-ethics research in both accounting-ethics and business-ethics journals. We provide data on the top-10 ethics authors in each doctoral year group, the top-50 ethics authors over the most recent 10, 20, and 25 years, and a distribution among ethics scholars for these periods. For the 25-year timeframe, our data indicate that only 665 (274) of the 5,125 accounting PhDs/DBAs (13.0% and 5.4% respectively) in Canada and the United States had authored or co-authored one (more than one) ethics article.

This research is a 6-year extension of Bernardi's (2005) initial ranking of the top ethics authors in accounting; it also represents a broadening of the scope of the original data into accounting's top-40 journals. While Bernardi only considered publications in business-ethics journals in his initial ranking, we developed a methodology to identify ethics articles in accounting's top-40 journals. The purpose of this research is to provide a more complete list of accounting's ethics authors for use by authors, administrators, and other stakeholders. In this study, 26 business-ethics and accounting's top-40 journals were analyzed for a 23-year period between 1986 through 2008. Our data indicate that 16.8 percent of the 4,680 colleagues with either a PhD or DBA who teach accounting at North American institutions had authored/coauthored one ethics article and only 6.3 percent had authored/coauthored more than one ethics article in the 66 journals we examined. Consequently, 83.2 percent of the PhDs and DBAs in accounting had not authored/coauthored even one ethics article.

This study aims to identify causes of (un)ethical behaviour in research and how they influence adherence to research ethics.

The authors developed and tested a conceptual model that includes mediation and helps to understand the mechanism of adherence to ethical standards of research based on the “social judgment theory” (SJT). In Study 1, the authors conducted an exploratory study using the exploratory factor analysis technique to identify factors responsible for adherence to research ethics. In Study 2, the authors used SJT to provide support for establishing a relationship between key variables.

Two factors, “Proclivity to Egoism” and “Proclivity to Emotivism”, were identified based on the personal beliefs of researchers. These factors were found to play an important role in determining the tendency towards adherence to standards of research ethics (Belmont Report and COPE). SJT successfully explains the mechanism of adoption of ethical standards. Adherence to Belmont principles was seen to mediate relationship between factors identified and tendency to adhere to COPE.

Majorly, this study is unique as it establishes and guides to incorporate researchers’ point of view in formulating ethical standards and guidelines, apart, from various other important theoretical and societal implications.

Many companies invest in innovations because of the inherent benefits, and research on innovation has increased over the year. However, the vast majority of research papers deals with purely technical matters. There seem to be growing concerns over ethical issues in adopting innovations in the construction industry. This extant review of literature aims to analyse the interrelations between the concepts of ethics and innovations in construction research to understand the advances of current scientific production and future lines of research.

Thus, this work presents a bibliometric analysis covering articles obtained from the Web of Science Core Collection Database published between 1995 and May 2021. A sample size of 5,786 research papers relevant to the study was evaluated using VOSviewer software.

The results of the analysis shed light on the evolution of the connection between the two concepts. The study highlighted Heng Li as the most productive author. The country with the most publications and citations is China. The most productive institution is the Hong Kong Polytechnic University. The results revealed a limited intellectual exchange and lack of cohesion characterising the two concepts (ethics and innovation), resulting in a situation whereby innovation-related researchers tend to follow personal trajectories in isolation from ethics-related researchers in the construction field.

This is probably the most comprehensive scientometric analysis ever conducted to examine the theoretical relationship between ethics and innovation in construction. This study adds to the so far limited knowledge in the field and provides insights for future research. Overall, this review may spur future research on dyad investigation of ethics and innovative related themes in construction such as ethics and sustainability, ethics and sensor-based technology and ethics and innovative safety approach.

The purpose of this study is to examine Indian language journals published in Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences (AHSS) included in the UGC-CARE list, which is an initiative of the University Grants Commission (UGC) of India. This study argues that although these journals do not appear in international databases, they are valuable because they frequently publish and have published for years, opinions, memoirs and critical review articles, especially the local culture.

This study examines 298 journals categorised into two groups: monolingual (189) and multilingual (109). The first group included 189 journals published in 15 Indian languages. Monolingual journals were examined using five criteria: year of publication, subject area, frequency, language and geographical zone of the publisher. Multilingual journals analysed as per languages covered.

The analysis reveals that the UGC-CARE List includes journals published between 1899 and 2019. The most common languages are Hindi (67), Urdu (31), Sanskrit (9) and Marathi (26). The frequency of majority (114) of journals is quarterly. Associations, universities, individual publishers and learned societies as publishers are dominant. Analysis of multilingual journals indicated that the highest number of journals (34) are published in English and Hindi.

Journals that fulfil the stringer criteria of three UGC-CARE journal analysis protocols find a place in the CARE List. The list is dynamic and is updated quarterly to maintain its currency and therefore its credibility. The list is available at http://ugccare.unipune.ac.in and is the list preferred by Indian Higher Education Institutes.

UGC-CARE List includes journals published by Indian publishers especially in the fields of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences. It is the first initiative to battle against the predatory journals and effort to bring the Indian legacy of journals on the world map of journals and periodicals.

Whistle-blowing, which has become an integral part of the post-publication peer-review movement, is being fortified by social media. Anonymous commenting on blogs as well as Tweets about suspicions of academic misconduct can spread quickly on social media sites like Twitter. The purpose of this paper is to examine two cases to expand the discussion about how complex post-publication peer review is and to contextualize the use of social media within this movement.

This paper examines a Twitter-based exchange between an established pseudonymous blogger and science critic, Neuroskeptic, and Elizabeth Wager, the former COPE Chair, within a wider discussion of the use of social media in post-publication peer review. The paper also discusses false claims made on Twitter by another science watchdog, Leonid Schneider. The policies of 15 publishers related to anonymous or pseudonymous whistle-blowing are examined.

Four issues in the Neuroskeptic–Wager case were debated: the solicitation by Wager to publish in RIPR; the use of commercial software by Neuroskeptic to make anonymous reports to journals; the links between “publication ethics” leaders and whistle-blowers or pseudonymous identities; the issues of transparency and possible hidden conflicts of interest. Only one publisher (Wiley) out of 15 scientific publishers examined claimed in its official ethical guidelines that anonymous reports should be investigated in the same way as named reports, while three publishers (Inderscience, PLOS and Springer Nature) referred to the COPE guidelines.

No such Twitter-based case has yet been examined in detail in the publishing ethics literature.