Search results

The purpose of this paper is to explore the causes and impact of predatory online publishing on Islamic economics and finance.

The method adopted involves a library literature scan to identify the origin and expansion of predatory publishing, as references listed in the paper show. The personal experience and observation of the author over the decades of teaching at various universities endorses the evidence.

The focus on “publish or perish” has led to division of Islamic scholars into conservative and modern economists, and it led to the overuse of mathematical and parametric modeling to the disadvantage of the discipline essentially imbued with unquantifiable ethical norms and values.

The study seeks to induce fruitful and purposive change in the research designs and direction of Islamic economics and finance.

This research initiates discussion on predatory publishing, an issue so far untouched in Islamic economics. It explores its impact on the discipline and suggests ways to curb the malady.

The “academic revolution” that has taken place over the past 50-60 years has brought about many opportunities, but also challenges, in the lives of academics. The “publish or perish” phenomenon can be seen as one manifestation of the heated competition among universities for talent and resources. The resulting increase in publications, the decrease in the time academics have to read them, together with editors’ call for more originality, innovation, and meaning in submitted manuscripts lead to two questions. What techniques can help researchers and PhD students to effectively and efficiently navigate through large bodies of literature? What tools and techniques can be used to enhance the foundations for theorising? The purpose of this paper is to answer these two interrelated questions.

The abstracts of 410 peer-reviewed journal articles connected to ethics in (international) marketing research are explored with software tools. The freely available VOSviewer software is used to visualise the specified body of literature. NVivo is employed to go deeper and explore specific themes identified through VOSviewer.

A total of 17 clusters were identified, representing the major themes in the selected body of literature. Additionally, a number of research avenues and research questions are presented.

The analysis is based on the information provided in abstracts. Future research may wish to extend the analysis to full articles.

The paper contributes by demonstrating how software tools such as VOSviewer and NVivo can be used to explore large bodies of literature and to experiment with research ideas to enhance the foundations for theorising.

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 aims to address a paucity of research into career success by exploring the impact of organizational context (“in-group” culture and the competitiveness strategy) and individual variables (self-efficacy and goal orientation), on objective career success (academic position) and subjective career success (career satisfaction).

Survey data were obtained from 447 faculty members employed by Babeș-Bolyai University (BBU), the best-ranked Romanian higher education institution. For analysis, hierarchical multiple regressions analyzes were used.

The novel results of this quantitative analysis are that organizational context variables influence both subjective career success and objective career success. Academics who do not attain promotion have lower subjective career success and objective career success, as a result of the publish or perish university strategy. Self-efficacy has a positive impact on both success types, while goal orientation is for subjective career success a weak predictor.

Organizational efforts should be focused on improving academics career development especially for those teachers who are in the current position already for many years. The development of performance-driven career paths should be also considered for diminishing the impact of organizational variables.

This paper extends the knowledge concerning objective and subjective career success by revealing the important impact of contextual determinants, as it confirms the impact of individual self-efficacy in a university context and partially the one of goal orientation.

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 authors examine how performance measurement systems (PMSs) and academic agency influence the meaning of research quality in practice. The worries are that the notion of research quality is becoming too simplistically and narrowly determined by research quality's measurable proxies and that academics, especially manager-academics, do not sufficiently realise this risk. Whilst prior literature has covered the effects of performance measurement in the university sector broadly and how PMSs are mobilised locally, there is only little understanding of whether and how PMSs affect the meaning of research quality in practice.

The study is designed as a comparative case study of two university faculties in Finland. The role of conceptual analysis plays a notable role in the study, too.

The authors find that manager-academics of the two examined faculties have rather similar conceptual understandings of research quality. However, there were differences in the degree of slippage between the “espoused-meaning” of research quality and “meaning-in-practice” of research quality. The authors traced these differences to how the local PMS and manager-academics’ agency relate to one another within the context of increasing global and national performance pressures. The authors developed a tentative framework for the various “styles of agency”. This suggests how the relationship between the local PMS and manager-academics’ exerted agency shapes the “degrees of freedom” of the meaning of research quality in practice.

Given that research quality lies at the heart of academic work, the authors' paper indicates that exploring the three matters – performance measurement, the agency of manager-academics and the meaning of research quality in practice – in combination is crucial for the sustainability of the academe. The authors contribute to the literature by detailing the way in which local PMS and manager-academics' agency have material impacts on what research quality means in practice. The authors conclude by highlighting the pressing need for manager-academics to exercise the agency in efforts to safeguard a broad and pluralistic understanding of research quality in practice.

The purpose of this paper is to provide insights into publication practices from the perspective of academics working within four disciplinary communities: biosciences, astronomy/physics, education and history. The paper explores the ways in which these multiple overlapping communities intersect with the journal landscape and the implications for the adoption and use of new players in the scholarly communication system, particularly open-access mega-journals (OAMJs). OAMJs (e.g. PLOS ONE and Scientific Reports) are large, broad scope, open-access journals that base editorial decisions solely on the technical/scientific soundness of the article.

Focus groups with active researchers in these fields were held in five UK Higher Education Institutions across Great Britain, and were complemented by interviews with pro-vice-chancellors for research at each institution.

A strong finding to emerge from the data is the notion of researchers belonging to multiple overlapping communities, with some inherent tensions in meeting the requirements for these different audiences. Researcher perceptions of evaluation mechanisms were found to play a major role in attitudes towards OAMJs, and interviews with the pro-vice-chancellors for research indicate that there is a difference between researchers’ perceptions and the values embedded in institutional frameworks.

This is the first purely qualitative study relating to researcher perspectives on OAMJs. The findings of the paper will be of interest to publishers, policy-makers, research managers and academics.