Search results

This paper introduces the other papers in this issue, describing and arguing for the context in which they were written – a conference that was, unusually, based in conversation rather than reporting through the presentation of papers: and a refereeing process that continued after the initial presentation (at the conference) of the work reported, thus allowing responses to critical comments. Many of our authors do not come from scientific backgrounds, and writing papers such as we are used to is a novel experience to, and discipline for, them.

The organisation and structure of the conference and the processes of refereeing involved are described; and the argument is made that the particularities of each are more cybernetic than the more familiar arrangements.

The conference processes were greatly valued by the authors. This is evident in the papers presented in this volume, although the convention of presenting only the final form of the paper may mean it is only evident to those who have been involved in the process of writing and refereeing.

The limitations of the approach presented here are a combination of what we can imagine (supported by hard work) and the cultural willingness of funding sources to accept the unfamiliar.

The contents of this volume, that form an outcome of the conference, show it is possible and interesting to create a “non‐standard” conference based in conversation, which searches for new questions rather than reporting answers to old ones: and that papers produced within a conversational process of refereeing and discussion allow both development of research‐in‐writing, and a good quality outcome. We can and should meet in “better” ways.

The conference and papers associated with it show that meetings in which a conversational approach is taken can be viable, not only as academic occasions but in their ability to generate papers of quality. This opens the academic world to different types of meeting and different ways of associating.

The value of this paper lies in the arguments made concerning conferences and refereeing processes. The originality is in the way these are presented as the embodiment of cybernetic understandings and processes (thus realising a cybernetics of cybernetics). The quality of the introduction is enriched by frequent references to material of generation and of record that exists as the legacy of the conference “Cybernetics: Art, Design, Mathematics – A Meta‐Disciplinary Conversation” at frequently cited urls on the conference web site. The evidence is there, as well as in this volume.

This paper describes the progress after 2 years of a 3½ year experimental programme organised jointly by two Universities as the Birmingham and Loughborough Electronic Network Development (BLEND). The aims of the programme are to explore and evaluate alternative forms of user communication through an ‘electronic journal’ and information network, and to assess the cost, efficiency and subjective impact of such a system. After summarising the background leading to this research, the project is described which involves the development of various types of ‘electronic journal’ with a community of initially about 50 scientists (the Loughborough Information Network Community—LINC). In this project, the journal procedures involving authors, editors and referees are being studied, up to the point at which editors accept pages for publication. The scientific subject area of this experimental programme is ‘Computer Human Factors’. Each member is expected to contribute at least one research article and one shorter note in each year of the project, and may also use other forms of communication such as messages, newsletters, annotated abstracts, workshop conferences, co‐operative authorship, etc. Considerable problems have been experienced with the hardware available to LINC members, with communications equipment, with modifying and developing software to obtain an acceptable operating system, and with various unexpected bureaucratic and organisational difficulties. These problems and the results to date will be reviewed. Nevertheless, more than 20 papers are in the system and the first number of the ‘Computer Human Factors’ experimental electronic journal was open to LINC members on 1st October 1982.

The purpose of this paper is to offer strategies that can enhance the likelihood of successfully developing an idea through to publication in a high-quality journal. The paper also seeks to demystify what lies behind the editorial and review processes that form part of that journey.

This paper is based on the author’s 20+ years’ experience as a journal editor, editorial board member, ad hoc reviewer and author.

Successfully publishing in high-quality journals is a combination of a well-developed idea, meticulous planning and execution of the research, a thorough review of the target journal’s scope and expectations, attention to detail in drafting the paper and reasoned and reflective responses to guidance and recommendations from editors and referees, supplemented by some good fortune and natural talent.

This paper is intended primarily to be a resource that demystifies what lies behind the process for researchers seeking to develop their profile as an author of high-quality papers in high-quality peer-reviewed journals with a focus on the discipline of taxation. In this regard its primary intended audience is thesis students and those relatively new to academia.

Existing contributions to the literature concerning the publication process are numerous, but few studies offer a succinct summary for new and emerging researchers in mind, especially those undertaking taxation research.

The aim is to review developments on the internet, especially those of general cybernetic interest.

A recent episode involving a hoax paper is reviewed, along with discussions of the implications for paper refereeing and information dissemination generally. Some sources of information on nanotechnology, with applications in medicine, are reviewed.

That a hoax paper was accepted casts doubt on the review process, but the situation is not clear‐cut and the usefulness of mammoth conferences is also questioned. Nanotechnology is shown to be poised for major advances.

The generation of a convincing hoax paper is an interesting technical achievement in itself. Implications for the review process are explored. Sources of information on nanotechnology are indicated.

It is hoped this is a valuable periodic review.

To provide a broad overview of the history of the journal Program: electronic library and information systems and its contents over its first 40 years.

Analysis of content from the original published material, as well as from abstracting and indexing publications and from minutes of Editorial Board meetings.

The publication has grown from modest beginnings as a newsletter for UK university librarians to a respected refereed journal with a wide international readership.

An analysis of the content of articles published on computer systems in libraries and information units over the last 40 years.

With the Journal of Property Investment and Finance (JPIF) being 40 years old, this paper reflects on the changes in real estate research over the last 40 years, the drivers behind these changes and how JPIF has evolved over these 40 years to retain its position as a leading real estate research journal. Challenges and opportunities are also identified for the next generation of real estate researchers to continue to develop the real estate research agenda.

This paper is presented as a reflective article, drawing on a deep personal understanding of real estate research, how it has evolved over the last 40 years, key drivers of these changes and the challenges going forward.

Fundamental changes in real estate research over the last 40 years and drivers behind these changes are articulated. A pathway forward for real estate research is identified, as well as how JPIF fits into the mix.

With real estate research being increasingly important in real estate academics' careers, this article provides a practical roadmap for how real estate research has changed, why it has changed and future opportunities for the next generation of real estate researchers.

This is the first paper to reflect on these key changes and drivers behind these changes in real estate research, as well as the opportunities for the next generation of real estate researchers.

The purpose of this paper is to empirically ascertain whether an ideological barrier to entry exists, preventing heterodox economists from publishing in mainstream journals.

The empirical results were obtained from a questionnaire asked of heterodox economists. The ten questions include where respondents submitted their research; their treatment by editors and referees; and whether an ideological barrier to publication exists.

The evidence overwhelmingly supports the existence of an ideological entry barrier. This barrier goes beyond the normal competitive nature of journal publishing, that is limited journal pages constricting the number of “good papers” that can be published, suggesting that there is an insidious ideological entry barrier preventing heterodox ideas from being published.

Based on this evidence, the last section proffers several research suggestions, including more sophisticated models predicting the likelihood of a heterodox economist submitting to a mainstream journal and the likelihood of acceptance. And, finally, several reforms are suggested including the adoption of a universal code of conduct for referees.

This paper presents the findings of an investigation designed to reveal the destination of the refereed journal research output of accounting and finance faculty members across their entire academic careers. A geographic approach was adopted with the intention of providing a historical data‐set to inform the development of a region‐centric model of academic research productivity. The study focuses on publication careers of accounting and finance academics from one particular geographic region, New Zealand. The data were collected through a detailed examination of electronic databases of journal holdings and research reports of tertiary institutions. The results of this study provide evidence that, across their careers, New Zealand's academics have published a significant number of papers in journals located in two regions, Australia‐New Zealand and the United Kingdom, and that this academic community has attained publication success in international journals generally regarded as high quality.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the potential of Wikipedia as a venue for academic publishing.

By looking at other sources and studying Wikipedia structures, the paper compares the processes of publishing a peer‐reviewed article in Wikipedia and the open access journal model, discusses the advantages and challenges of adopting Wikipedia in academic publishing, and provides suggestions on how to address the challenges.

Compared to an open access journal model, Wikipedia has several advantages for academic publishing: it is less expensive, quicker, more widely read, and offers a wider variety of articles. There are also several major challenges in adopting Wikipedia in the academic community: the web site structure is not well suited to academic publications; the site is not integrated with common academic search engines such as Google Scholar or with university libraries; and there are concerns among some members of the academic community about the site's credibility and impact in academia.

This paper promotes a fundamental idea for adjusting methods of creating and disseminating academic knowledge. It is a valuable resource for those interested in academic innovation, for research librarians, and for the academic community in general. This topic has not been sufficiently addressed in the literature.