Search results

The purpose of this essay is to explore the opportunities and challenges that early-career researchers (ECRs) face when they seek to contribute to academic knowledge production through research activities “other than” those directly focused on making progress with their own, to-be-published, research papers in a context associated with the “publish or perish” (PoP) mentality.

Drawing broadly on the notion of technologies of humility (Jasanoff, 2003), this reflective essay develops upon the experiences of the authors in organizing and participating in a series of nine workshops undertaken between June 2013 and April 2021, as well as the arduous process of writing this paper itself. Retrospective accounts, workshop materials, email exchanges and surveys of workshop participants provide the key data sources for the analysis presented in the paper.

The paper shows how the organization of the workshops is intertwined with the building of a small community of ECRs and exploration of how to address the perceived limitations of a “gap-spotting” approach to developing research ideas and questions. The analysis foregrounds how the workshops provide a seemingly valuable research experience that is not without contradictions. Workshop participation reveals tensions between engagement in activities “other than” working on papers for publication and institutionalized pressures to produce publication outputs, between the (weak) perceived status of ECRs in the field and the aspiration to make a scholarly contribution, and between the desire to develop a personally satisfying intellectual journey and the pressure to respond to requirements that allow access to a wider community of scholars.

Our analysis contributes to debates about the ways in which seemingly valuable outputs are produced in academia despite a pervasive “publish or perish” mentality. The analysis also shows how reflexive writing can help to better understand the opportunities and challenges of pursuing activities that might be considered “unproductive” because they are not directly related to to-be-published papers.

The key aim of this study is to highlight current financial technology (FinTech) trends by conducting a bibliometric review of literature derived from the Scopus database.

A bibliometric analysis was conducted on articles gathered from the Scopus database. Microsoft Excel was used to perform the frequency analysis, VOSviewer for visualising the data, and Harzing’s Publish or Perish for the metrics citation.

According to this investigation, research into FinTech has been consistently increasing since 2008. The results indicate that the most active publisher of FinTech literature is Bina Nusantara University in Indonesia. In terms of country of publication, China is identified as the most active. The most cited author is Buckley, R.P., with Rabbani, M.R., having the most publications. It was also identified that FinTech researches come under three primary domains namely business management, computer science and economics.

The primary limitation of this current study is that it only relied on one data source, i.e. Scopus. Implications wise, researchers and practitioners can gain a deeper understanding of FinTech from this study, which also describes the trend in related publications on the concept. Future studies could significantly benefit from the findings of the present paper.

The outcomes of this study can assist researchers in better comprehending and summarising the key drivers of FinTech. In addition, the findings can help new researchers identify the starting point for their research on FinTech.

As far as the authors are aware, this is the first study that reviews FinTech publications derived from Scopus from 2008 to 2022. Hence, it is a pioneering study into FinTech bibliometric analysis, providing an understanding of the structural knowledge by reviewing the timeline of academic progression in FinTech.

Risk reporting in financial reports has a positive impact on the company and its stakeholders. The purpose of this research is to present a literature review using the bibliometric method with the title we used is Risk Reporting, and the keywords are risk disclosure, risk reporting, stakeholders, and stakeholder theory. Data processing in this chapter uses Publish or Perish (PoP) software and Vos Viewers. This study uses the Google Scholar database. The researcher scanned the journal by using Scimagojr.com to view the journal quartile. Before the search was revised, there were 230 papers from 1991 to 2021 (30 years). Researchers will see the development of risk reporting from several sides, such as the country of origin of the researcher, the type of industry that reports risk, the research methods that have been used so far, and the analysis used for reporting risk.

This study aims to present the current state of published literature concerning halal tourism and hospitality studies.

This research discovered 314 Scopus documents from 2003 until 2023 regarding existing studies related to this field. The present study then used a bibliometric analysis of this data set. The present research analysed the documents' bibliographical data based on year, source title, country of origin, institution, authors, keywords and citations. Microsoft Excel, bibliometrix, Harzing's Publish or Perish and VOSviewer software applications were used to conduct a frequency analysis, evaluate the impact and map bibliometric networks regarding halal hospitality. This study has presented the evolution of publications in the research field by year, the top players in source titles, countries, institutions and authors. This paper also evaluated the intellectual structure of existing research concerning halal tourism and hospitality and presented the most influential documents in this field. There were 112.21 citations per year, 7.21 per paper and 3.14 authors per paper.

The findings revealed that the study trend concerning halal tourism and hospitality had attracted the attention of academics and developed into a significant field in 2016. Malaysia and Indonesia have been the major contributors to halal hospitality research, with the highest proportion of authors.

In general, this study also has limitations similar to other studies. The research data were derived solely from the Scopus database, which has the advantage of being the most comprehensive database indexing all scientific works, even though it does not easily cover all available sources.

The present research has differed from previous research in that it examined literature published in Scopus concerning research on halal hospitality from 2003 to 2022. It analysed bibliographic data by year, source title, country, institution, author, keywords and citations.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss how retracted scientific papers become zombie papers and why they are problematic and to encourage librarians to become active in addressing these problems.

This paper explains what zombie papers are, how they are created and the potential impact they can have on the body of scientific literature. It explains how and why they are different than other common types of misleading scientific publications. It also explores recent developments such as the growth of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies and changes to organizations that make data about paper retractions available.

While journal retractions are as old as scientific publishing itself, the seriousness of retractions persisting and being used in the body of scientific literature has recently been recognized as a serious concern. The rise of new AI technologies such as ChatGPT has made the presence of zombie papers in the data used to train large language models (LLMs) extremely concerning.

While librarians are well-aware of journal retractions and most include information about them in their information literacy training, concerns around zombie papers and their potential presence in the data used to train LLMs will likely be a new consideration for most.

This study investigates the current trends in CEO compensation by applying a bibliometric technique from the Scopus database.

The bibliometric analysis examines CEO compensation trends through the Scopus database. Frequency analysis is conducted using Microsoft Excel, while data visualisation is performed using VOSviewer. Finally, citation metrics are carried out using Harzing's Publish or Perish.

The results reveal that research into CEO compensation has been consistently increasing since 1976. This study identifies the most popular publication trends, the most active institutions, the top funding institutions, annual publication growth, document and source type, publishers, subject area, author co-citations, highly cited articles, top publishing countries, and keyword co-occurrences. Notably, Arizona State University in the United States (US) is the leading institution with the most prominent publications on CEO compensation. The US is the most active country involved in CEO compensation research.

The current research only derived articles from the Scopus database. Nonetheless, the findings provide an in-depth comprehension of the meaning of “CEO compensation” and present the outline of the research trends on the concept, thus significantly facilitating further studies.

The findings can assist researchers in comprehending and classifying the drivers of CEO compensation previously identified and proven in past studies. Additionally, the findings also create opportunities for new researchers to study CEO compensation.

This study is among the pioneering research investigating CEO compensation-related publications and utilising the Scopus database from an international perspective. This study also offers a historical view of CEO remuneration, a summary of the most significant nations, journals, and writers on the topic, and an outline of how CEO remuneration studies have changed over time. These contributions will enable other researchers to focus on this subject.

This study aims to identify the causes of the academia-industry divide in hospitality marketing research in the form of the “Research Devaluation Map” and offers ideas for discussion points and suggestions for change.

The conceptualization of the Research Devaluation Map was developed at an invitational thought-leadership conference. The authors were asked to produce a forward looking, critical reflection of hospitality marketing scholarship. The authors generated a preliminary idea and developed a methodology for its implementation. They then proposed a framework that explicated the divide between hospitality marketing research and industry practice and a list of discussion points regarding possible solutions.

The issues currently challenging the hospitality research field are found to include the choice of research topics (the “what”), the methods used in research (the “how”) and the systemic factors that shape the academic culture (the “systemic”). These three factors lead to a mutual devaluation of the academic–industry relationship in hospitality marketing, causing a schism between research and industry practice.

The Research Devaluation Map serves as a springboard for future research studies, providing a framework for naming and operationalizing the antecedents and results of the divide between hospitality marketing research and practice.

This paper takes a holistic look at the gaps in current hospitality marketing research and puts forth a framework to explain the roots of these issues. While certain of these issues are known to both researchers and practitioners, the originality of this paper lies in the creation of the Research Devaluation Map that identifies the causes and results of the disconnect between research and practice.

Given the importance of interdisciplinary research in addressing wicked problems, this paper aims to explore the development of and prospects for interdisciplinary research through evidence gained from academic accountants in Australia.

Extant literature is complemented with interviews of accounting academics in Australia to reveal the challenges and opportunities facing interdisciplinary researchers and reimagine prospects for the future.

Evidence indicates that accounting academics hold diverse views toward interdisciplinarity. There is also confusion between multidisciplinarity and interdisciplinarity in the journals in which academic accountants publish. Further, there is mixed messaging among Deans, disciplinary leaders and emerging scholars about the importance of interdisciplinary research to, on the one hand, publish track records and, on the other, secure grants from government and industry. Finally, there are differing perceptions about the disciplines to be encouraged or accepted in the cross-fertilisation of ideas.

This paper is novel in gathering first-hand data about the opportunities, challenges and tensions accounting academics face in collaborating with others in interdisciplinary research. It confirms a discouraging pressure for emerging scholars between the academic research outputs required to publish in journals, prepare reports for industry and secure research funding, with little guidance for how these tensions might be managed.

It's hard to envision a system more global and more integrated than research. Many stakeholders affect and are affected by changes in the research ecosystem; the ecosystem differs in significant ways across the globe and between researchers, institutions and fields of study; and there are many questions that exclusive action can't address. There are also broad ecosystem-level questions that need answering. For these reasons alone, global approaches to reform are needed.

The first step in this exploration isn't to start looking for “solutions”, but to develop a better understanding of how our needs and interests overlap. By identifying the broad contours of common ground in this conversation, we can build the guardrails and mileposts for our collaborative efforts and then allow the finer-grained details of community-developed plans more flexibility and guidance to evolve over time.

What are these overlapping interests? First, the people in this community share a common motive – idealism – to make research better able to serve the public good. We also share a common desire to unleash the power of open to improve research and accelerate discovery; we are all willing to fix issues now instead of waiting for market forces or government intervention to do this for us; and we want to ensure that everyone everywhere has equitable access to knowledge.

There is also very broad agreement in this community about which specific problems in scholarly communication need to be fixed and why, and well as many overlapping beliefs in this community. OSI participants have concluded that four such beliefs best define our common ground: (1) research and society will benefit from open done right; (2) successful solutions will require broad collaboration; (3) connected issues need to be addressed, and (4) open isn't a single outcome, but a spectrum.

OSI has been observing and debating the activity in scholarly communication since late 2014 with regard to understanding possible global approaches and solutions for improving the future of open research. While the COVID-19 pandemic has made the importance of open science abundantly clear, the struggle to achieve this goal (not just for science but for all research) has been mired in a lack of clarity and urgency for over 20 years now, mostly stalling on the tension between wanting more openness but lacking realistic solutions for making this happen on a large scale with so many different stakeholders, needs and perspectives involved.

Underlying this tension is a fundamental difference in philosophy: whether the entire scholarly communication marketplace, driven by the needs and desires of researchers, should determine what kind of open it wants and needs; or whether this marketplace should be compelled to adopt open reform measures developed primarily by the scholarly communication system's main billpayers-funders and libraries. There is no widespread difference of opinion in the community whether open is worth pursuing. The debate is mostly over what specific open solutions are best, and at what pace open reforms should occur.

OSI has proposed a plan of action for working together to rebuild the future of scholarly communication on strong, common ground foundation. This plan – which we're referring to as Plan A – calls for joint action on studies, scholarly communication infrastructure improvement, and open outreach/education. Plan A also calls for working together with UNESCO to develop a unified global roadmap for the future of open, and for striving to ensure the community's work in this space is researcher-focused, collaborative, connected (addressing connected issues like peer review), diverse and flexible (no one-size-fits-all solutions), and beneficial to research. UNESCO's goal is to finish its roadmap proposal by early 2022.

For a full discussion of OSI's common ground recommendations, please see the Plan A website at http://plan-a.world.

The proliferation of bibliometric review articles is a true reflection of how bibliometrics is gaining popularity and has been widely adopted in various disciplines. The growing interest of scholars has encouraged us to dwell upon the what, why, when, how, and where of bibliometric literature reviews. The study explained the bibliometric review with the standpoint that it can be considered a strong review method for analyzing a large volume of data and scholars can supplement their traditional reviews with bibliometric reviews to strengthen their knowledge. This will help researchers to justify the (a) need for a study on the particular topic; (b) type or method of review chosen; (c) number of articles selected; (d) inclusion and exclusion criterion; (e) method of analysis; and (f) presentation of the findings.