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 main purpose of this study is to provide a comprehensive review and critical insights of the application of fuzzy methods in modeling, assessing and understanding the various aspects of green and sustainable supply chains (SSCs).

The present study conducts a systematic literature review (SLR) and bibliometric analysis of 252 research articles. This study employs various tools such as VOSviewer version 1.6.10, Publish or Perish, Mendeley and Excel that aid in descriptive analysis, bibliometric analysis and network visualization. These tools have been used for performing citation analysis, top authors' analysis, co-occurrence of keywords, cluster and content analysis.

The authors have divided the literature into seven application areas and discussed detailed insights. This study has observed that research in the social sustainability area, including various issues like health and safety, labor rights, discrimination, etc. is scarce. Integration of the Industry 4.0 technologies like blockchain, big data analytics, Internet of Things (IoT) with the sustainable and green supply chain (GSC) is a promising field for future research.

The authors' contribution primarily lies in providing the integrated framework which shows the changing trends in the use of fuzzy methods in the sustainability area classifying and consolidating green and sustainable supply chain management (SSCM) literature in seven major areas where fuzzy methods are predominantly applied. These areas have been obtained after the analysis of clusters and content analysis of the literature presenting key insights from the past and developing the conceptual framework for future research studies.

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.

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.

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.

This article explores whether six broad categories of activities undertaken by Canadian business scholars’ academics: publications record, citations record, teaching load, administrative load, consulting activities, and knowledge spillovers transfer, are complementary, substitute, or independent, as well as the conditions under which complementarities, substitution and independence among these activities are likely to occur.

A multivariate probit model is estimated to take into account that business scholars have to consider simultaneously whether or not to undertake many different academic activities. Metrics from Google Scholar of scholars from 35 Canadian business schools, augmented by a survey data on factors explaining the productivity and impact performances of these faculty members, are used to explain the heterogeneities between the determinants of these activities.

Overall, the results reveal that there are complementarities between publications and citations, publications and knowledge spillovers transfer, citations and consulting, and between consulting and knowledge spillovers transfer. The results also suggest that there are substitution effects between publications and teaching, publications and administrative load, citations and teaching load, and teaching load and administrative load. Moreover, results show that public and private funding, business schools’ reputation, scholar’s relational resources, and business school size are among the most influential variables on the scholar’s portfolio of activities.

This study considers simultaneously the scholar’s whole portfolio of activities. Moreover, the determinants considered in this study to explain scholars’ engagement in different activities reconcile two conflicting perspectives: (1) the traditional self-managed approach of academics, and (2) the outcomes-focused approach of university management.

The question of “why we are in disaster studies” can be essential to reflect on discourses and practices – as students, researchers and professors – in constituting an oppressive disaster science and finding ways to liberate from it.

This paper is based on autobiographical research and institutional ethnography to observe and analyze the discourses and practices about career trajectories as students, researchers and professors in disaster studies.

The paper provides some categories, concepts, theoretical approaches and lived experiences helpful for discussing ways of liberating disaster studies, such as public sociology of disaster.

Few papers have focused on professional trajectories in disaster studies, bringing insights from public sociology and questioning oppressive disaster science.

The purpose of this study is to examine characteristics of retracted publications from Indian authors and inspect a relationship between journal impact factor (JIF) and the number of authors (NoA).

The authors examined the general characteristics of retracted publications and investigated the correlation between JIF and NoA from Indian authors from January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2022. Data were mined from retraction watch http://retractiondatabase.org/ (n = 1,459) and determined the year of publication, year of retraction, authors, journals, publishers and causes of the retractions. A journal citation report was extracted to gather the JIFs.

About one-third of retracted papers were published in 2020; 2022 has the highest retraction rate (723); studies with two authors represent about one-third (476) of the published articles; Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing (354) has the highest number of retractions; Springer published the most retracted papers (674); and the majority of the journal (1,133) is indexed in journal citation reports, with impact factor extending from 0.504 to 43.474. Retraction due to legal reasons/legal threats was the most predominant reason for retraction.

This study reflects growth in author collaborations with a surge in the JIF. This study recommends that quick retraction is essential to reduce the adverse effects of faulty research.