Search results

Institutional and commercial web profiles that provide biobibliographic information about researchers are used for promotional purposes but also as information sources. In the latter case, the profiles' (re)presentations of researchers may be used to assess whether a researcher can be trusted. The article introduces a conceptual framework of how trust in researchers may be formed based on how the researchers' experiences and achievements are mobilized on the profiles to tell a multifaceted story of the “self.”

The framework is an analytical product which draws on theories of trust as well as on previous research focused on academic web profiles and on researchers' perceptions of trust and credibility. Two dimensions of trust are identified as central to the theoretical construction of trust, namely competence and trustworthiness.

The framework outlines features of profile content and narrative that may influence the assessment of the profile and of the researcher's competence and trustworthiness. The assessment is understood as shaped by the frames of interpretation available to a particular audience.

The framework addresses the lack of a trust perspective in previous research about academic web profiles. It provides an analysis of how potential trust in the researcher may be formed on the profiles. An innovative contribution is the acknowledgement of both qualitative and quantitative indicators of trustworthiness and competence, including the richness of the story told about the “self.”

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 work aims to present existing management system standards (MSSs) published by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) through a bibliometric analysis, thereby outlining their academic research status and highlighting their relation to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as well as to environmental, social and governance (ESG) themes.

The study firstly retrieves a preliminary set of MSSs standards from ISO and filters it in accordance with certain exclusion/inclusion criteria. Secondly, a bibliometric search is performed in the database Scopus. Thirdly, performance analysis is conducted to quantitatively measure the scientific output in academia, and science mapping of co-occurrences of keywords is applied to identify related topics. Thereby, the standards’ relationships to sustainability are outlined. Eventually, the work discusses future research opportunities.

The findings reveal that whereas research on MSSs focuses predominantly on only a few standards by now, there are actually numerous further standards that address sustainability-relevant topics, which are getting increasing attention among scholars as measured by the number of publications. Therefore, an action plan for future research is derived. Moreover, the findings support the argument of integrating MSSs to cover a broad range of corporate sustainability issues.

The paper connects the concepts of MSSs and sustainability, an upcoming research branch yet characterized by shortage of academic studies (given that research continues to focus on a few standards such as ISO 9001, ISO 14001 and ISO 45001). The work therefore opens up the line for more in-detail research on less known but nevertheless sustainability-relevant ISO MSSs.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the potential of altmetric and webometric indicators to aid with funding agencies’ evaluations of their funding schemes.

This paper analyses a range of altmetric and webometric indicators in terms of suitability for funding scheme evaluations, compares them to traditional indicators and reports some statistics derived from a pilot study with Wellcome Trust-associated publications.

Some alternative indicators have advantages to usefully complement scientometric data by reflecting a different type of impact or through being available before citation data.

The empirical part of the results is based on a single case study and does not give statistical evidence for the added value of any of the indicators.

A few selected alternative indicators can be used by funding agencies as part of their funding scheme evaluations if they are processed in ways that enable comparisons between data sets. Their evidence value is only weak, however.

This is the first analysis of altmetrics or webometrics from a funding scheme evaluation perspective.

The purpose of this study is to apply the concept of organizational ambidexterity as a conceptual lens to increase the understanding of tensions between exploitation (continuity) and exploration (change) in Agile software development (ASD) project teams, and particularly the balancing (ambidextrous) strategies utilized.

A conceptual framework was constructed from interdisciplinary sources on ambidexterity. A literature review of publications on ambidexterity in ASD was then performed, and the results from the selected publications were classified according to an extension of the conceptual framework.

Contextual ambidexterity in ASD is affected by the four basic coherent concepts: time, task, team and transition. The study found that most ambidextrous factors and strategies were task and team-related. In addition, a mixture of hard (performance) strategies and soft (social) strategies is needed in order for people/teams to (be able to) become ambidextrous.

To provide a better understanding of ASD, it is important to identify a broader set of ambidextrous factors and strategies that can impact ASD project teams. The expanded conceptual framework can serve as a basis for future empirical research and provide insights to practitioners on how to strengthen ambidexterity in ASD projects.

The contribution is of great importance for ASD research and practice, as ASD methods are a popular method for managing projects within ASD and in other nonsoftware organizations. In addition, as more and more organizations struggle to deal with rapidly changing environments, interest in the phenomena of paradoxical tensions and the strategy (ambidexterity) to deal with these tensions increase.

The Accounting Information Systems (AIS) research field emerged around 30 years ago as a subfield of accounting but is at risk to develop further as an isolated discipline. However, given the importance of digitalization and its relevance for accounting, an amalgamation of the parent research field of accounting and the subfield of accounting information systems is pivotal for continuing relevant research that is of high quality. This study empirically investigates the distance between AIS research that is included in accounting literature and AIS research that prevails in dedicated AIS research outlets.

To understand which topics define AIS research, all articles published in the two leading AIS journals since 2000 were analyzed. Based on this topical inventory, all AIS studies that were published in the top 16 accounting journals, also since 2000, are identified and categorized in terms of topic, subtopic and research methodology. Next, AIS studies published in the general accounting field and AIS studies published in the AIS field were compared in terms of topics and research methodology to gain insights into the distance between the two fields.

The coverage of AIS topics in accounting journals is, to no small extent, concentrated around the topics “information disclosure”, “network technologies” and “audit and control”. Other AIS topics remain underrepresented. A possible explanation might be the focus on archival studies in accounting outlets, but other elements might play a role. The findings suggest that there is only a partial overlap between the parent accounting research field and the AIS subfield, in terms of both topic and research methodology diversity. These findings suggest a considerable distance between both fields, which might hold detrimental consequences in the long run, if no corrective actions are taken.

This is the first in-depth investigation of the distance between the AIS research field and its parent field of accounting. This study helped develop an AIS classification scheme, which can be used in other research endeavors. This study creates awareness of the divergence between the general accounting research field and the AIS subfield. Given the latter's relevance to the accounting profession, isolation or deterioration of the AIS research must be avoided. Some actionable suggestions are provided in the paper.