Search results

This study aims to investigate the factors affecting the motivation of graduate students of information science in scientific and research activities and science production. This research is applied in terms of purpose and descriptive in terms of type and method.

The study's statistical population includes all postgraduate information science students studying in public universities. The random sampling method was simple. The data collection tool was a questionnaire. Descriptive statistics and one-sample t-test, independent t-test, and ANOVA were used to analyze the collected data by SPSS software.

Findings showed that all the main variables (internal motivations, external motivations, self-empowerment, and intellectual and specialized interactions) affect the participation of postgraduate students in research and scientific activities. Among the identified components, the creation of opportunities, research facilities, innovation, and formal relations between students and professors, has the most significant impact on students' motivation to participate in scientific and research activities and science production. There was no significant difference between education and age. From the results obtained from the present study, it can be said that the above variables, which were divided into four categories, with the intensity of the participation of graduate students of universities that in the present study examined the field of librarianship and information, with power and Or weakness are influential. This means that the students at the beginning of the research path, in other words, will be future researchers, should be constantly monitored as a source in the production of science.

This research is one of the few types of research that examines the influential variables in increasing the motivation to participate in the study, considering the population of postgraduate students of universities and scientific institutions as drivers of science production.

Study on knowledge-based systems for scientific publications is growing very broadly. However, most of these studies do not explicitly discuss the knowledge management (KM) component as knowledge management system (KMS) implementation. This background causes academic institutions to face challenges in developing KMS to support scholarly publication cycle (SPC). Therefore, this study aims to develop a new KMS conceptual model, Identify critical components and provide research gap opportunities for future KM studies on SPC.

This study used a systematic literature review (SLR) method with the procedure from Kitchenham et al. Then, the SLR results are compiled into a conceptual model design based on a framework on KM foundations and KM solutions. Finally, the model design was validated through interviews with related field experts.

The KMS for SPC focuses on the discovery, sharing and application of knowledge. The majority of KMS use recommendation systems technology with content-based filtering and collaborative filtering personalization approaches. The characteristics data used in KMS for SPC are structured and unstructured. Metadata and article abstracts are considered sufficiently representative of the entire article content to be used as a search tool and can provide recommendations. The KMS model for SPC has layers of KM infrastructure, processes, systems, strategies, outputs and outcomes.

This study has limitations in discussing tacit knowledge. In contrast, tacit knowledge for SPC is essential for scientific publication performance. The tacit knowledge includes experience in searching, writing, submitting, publishing and disseminating scientific publications. Tacit knowledge plays a vital role in the development of knowledge sharing system (KSS) and KCS. Therefore, KSS and KCS for SPC are still very challenging to be researched in the future. KMS opportunities that might be developed further are lessons learned databases and interactive forums that capture tacit knowledge about SPC. Future work potential could identify other types of KMS in academia and focus more on SPC.

This study proposes a novel comprehensive KMS model to support scientific publication performance. This model has a critical path as a KMS implementation solution for SPC. This model proposes and recommends appropriate components for SPC requirements (KM processes, technology, methods/techniques and data). This study also proposes novel research gaps as KMS research opportunities for SPC in the future.

Given the magnitude of the literature, a researcher must be selective of research papers and publications in general. In other words, only papers that meet strict standards of academic integrity and adhere to reliable and credible sources should be referenced. The purpose of this paper is to approach this issue from the prism of scientometrics according to the following research questions: Is it necessary to judge the quality of scientific production? How do we evaluate scientific production? What are the tools to be used in evaluation?

This paper presents a comparative study of scientometric evaluation practices and tools. A systematic literature review is conducted based on articles published in the field of scientometrics between 1951 and 2022. To analyze data, the authors performed three different aspects of analysis: usage analysis based on classification and comparison between the different scientific evaluation practices, type and level analysis based on classifying different scientometric indicators according to their types and application levels and similarity analysis based on studying the correlation between different quantitative metrics to identify similarity between them.

This comparative study leads to classify different scientific evaluation practices into externalist and internalist approaches. The authors categorized the different quantitative metrics according to their types (impact, production and composite indicators), their levels of application (micro, meso and macro) and their use (internalist and externalist). Moreover, the similarity analysis has revealed a high correlation between several scientometric indicators such as author h-index, author publications, citations and journal citations.

The interest in this study lies deeply in identifying the strengths and weaknesses of research groups and guides their actions. This evaluation contributes to the advancement of scientific research and to the motivation of researchers. Moreover, this paper can be applied as a complete in-depth guide to help new researchers select appropriate measurements to evaluate scientific production. The selection of evaluation measures is made according to their types, usage and levels of application. Furthermore, our analysis shows the similarity between the different indicators which can limit the overuse of similar measures.

The study aims to access, monitor and visualize the scientific progress of Twitter-based research through a bibliometric analysis of scientific publications.

The data was retrieved from 2006 to February 23, 2022 using the Web of Science, a leading indexing and abstracting database. In response to the authors’ query, 6,193 items with 101,037 citations, an average citation of 16.31 and an h index of 126 were received. The “Biblioshiny” extension of the “Bibliometrics” package (www.bibliometrix.org) of R software was used to evaluate and visualize the data.

The present study highlighted the scientific progress of the field evolved over a period of time. The obtained results uncovered the publication trends, productive countries and their collaboration pattern, active authors who nurture the field by making their contribution, prolific source titles adopted by authors to publish the literature on the topic, most productive language in which literature was written, productive institutions, funding agencies that sponsor the research, influential articles, prominent keywords used in publications were also identified which will aid scientists in identifying research gaps in a particular area.

This study comprehensively illustrates the research status of Twitter-related research by conducting a bibliometric analysis. The study’s findings can assist relevant researchers in understanding the research trend, seeking scientific collaborators and funding for their research. Further, the study will act as a ready reference tool for the scientific community to identify research gaps, select research topics and appropriate platforms for submitting their scholarly endeavors.

This study aims to establish a reliable index to identify interdisciplinary breakthrough innovation effectively. We constructed a new index, the D_Div index, for this purpose.

The D_Div index incorporates the degree of interdisciplinarity in the breakthrough index. To validate the index, a data set combining the publication records and citations of Nobel Prize laureates was divided into experimental and control groups. The validation methods included sensitivity analysis, correlation analysis and effectiveness analysis.

The sensitivity analysis demonstrated the D_Div index’s ability to differentiate interdisciplinary breakthrough papers from various categories of papers. This index not only retains the strengths of the existing index in identifying breakthrough innovation but also captures interdisciplinary characteristics. The correlation analysis revealed a significant correlation (correlation coefficient = 0.555) between the interdisciplinary attributes of scientific research and the occurrence of breakthrough innovation. The effectiveness analysis showed that the D_Div index reached the highest prediction accuracy of 0.8. Furthermore, the D_Div index outperforms the traditional DI index in terms of accuracy when it comes to identifying interdisciplinary breakthrough innovation.

This study proposed a practical and effective index that combines interdisciplinary and disruptive dimensions for detecting interdisciplinary breakthrough innovation. The identification and measurement of interdisciplinary breakthrough innovation play a crucial role in facilitating the integration of multidisciplinary knowledge, thereby accelerating the scientific breakthrough process.

This paper aims to contribute to the ongoing methodological discussions surrounding the adoption of ethnographic approaches in accounting by undertaking a comparative analysis of ethnography in anthropology and ethnography in qualitative accounting research. By doing so, it abductively speculates on the factors influencing the distinct characteristics of ethnography in accounting and explores their implications.

This paper uses a comparative approach, organizing the comparison using Van Maanen’s (2011a, 2011b) framework of field-, head- and text-work phases in ethnography. Furthermore, it draws on the author’s experience as a qualitative researcher who has conducted ethnographic research for more than a decade across the disciplines of anthropology and accounting, as well as for non-academic organizations, to provide illustrative examples for the comparison.

This paper finds that ethnography in accounting, when compared to its counterpart in anthropology, demonstrates a stronger inclination towards scientific aspirations. This is evidenced by its prevalence of realist tales, a high emphasis on “methodological rigour”, a focus on high-level theorization and other similar characteristics. Furthermore, the scientific aspiration and hegemony of the positivist paradigm in accounting research, when leading to a change of the evaluation criteria of non-positivist research, generate an impoverishment of interpretive and ethnographic research in accounting.

This paper provides critical insights from a comparative perspective, highlighting the marginalized position of ethnography in accounting research. By understanding the mechanisms of marginalization, the paper commits to reflexivity and advocates for meaningful changes within the field.

This study aims to explore the research internationalization process in Georgia, one of the post-Soviet countries. Specifically, it examines the individual-level reasons that motivate faculty at Georgian universities to engage in the process of research internationalization. It also unpacks scholars’ perspectives on the driving factors for selecting the key partners in international research.

Sixteen faculty members for this exploratory qualitative study were selected through stratified purposeful sampling from five higher educational institutions in Georgia. Participants were asked to discuss their participation in international research projects and underline the activities and events that motivated them to participate in international collaborative projects. The critical incident method was used to analyze our qualitative data collected through semi-structured interviews.

The research revealed that faculty at Georgian universities are more oriented toward collaboration with their peers from European countries and the USA. This preference is influenced by such factors as higher quality of science, higher level of freedom and autonomy, personal contacts and networks, as well as language competencies. The data also helped to unpack Georgian scholars’ individual-level rationales that were conceptualized into three domains: human capital, financial capital and physical capital.

This study is an original work conducted in Georgia. It contributes to the development of the field of internationalization of research. The three-domain conceptual framework on the individual-level rationale for internationalization can be used in future research on post-Soviet countries and beyond.

The purpose of this study is to determine the funding ratio of BRICS nations in various research areas. The leading funding institutions that support research in the developing world have also been researched.

This study involves the funding acknowledgment analysis of the data retrieved from the “Clarivate Analytics' InCites database” under “22 specific research areas” to determine whether the publication was funded.

This study shows that China achieves the highest funding ratio of 88.6%, followed by Brazil (73.74%), Russia (72.93%) and South Africa (70.94%). However, India has the lowest funding ratio of 58.2%. For the subject areas, the highest funding ratio is by microbiology in Russia (86.6%), India (84.3%) and China (96.9%) and space science in Brazil (93.7%) and South Africa (94.82%). However, economics and business achieves the lowest funding ratio in Brazil (38.6%), India (20.1%) and South Africa (30.24%). Moreover, the regional funding agencies are the leading research sponsors in the BRICS nations.

This study implies increasing the funding ratio across various research areas, including arts, humanities and social sciences. The nations, particularly India, also need to gear up sponsoring the research to improve the funding ratio for scientific development, bringing overall good.

This study efforts to show the status of countries and research subjects in terms of funding ratio and reveals the prominent funders working toward scientific growth.

This paper explores the different open science policy effects on the knowledge generation process of researchers in basic sciences: biology, chemistry and physics.

This paper uses a qualitative methodology with a content analysis approach. It uses seventeen semi-directed interviews.

The main perceived effect of open science is access to research inputs, with open access, open research data and code reuse as primary sources. Another issue is the increase of collaboration with other colleagues in terms of the ability to collaborate faster and encouraging the exchange of ideas. However, this benefit does not translate to the division of labor in large transnational teams. Time spent on tasks like cleaning up data and code, scooping and other ethical issues are unfavorable aspects noted.

Policymakers could use this study to enhance current open science policies in the countries.

This study analyzes the perspectives of basic sciences researchers from two countries about open science policies. The main conclusion is the fact that open science policies should focus on the research process itself – rather than research outputs – in order to effectively tackle inequalities in science.

The peer review history for this article is available at: https://publons.com/publon/10.1108/OIR-03-2023-0135

The focus of this study was to evaluate the relationship between research publications in the pesticide field, a country’s gross domestic product (GDP) and GDP per capita. The study aims to analyze pesticide use in association with a country’s population and research publications. The purpose of this study is to uncover the country’s contribution to pesticide research and assess the financial resources allocated to it as a percentage of their GDP by exploring these factors.

The Web of Science database was used to retrieve data for the period of 2001–2020. The use of scientometric indicators allowed for the analysis of the collaborative patterns and active performance of countries in pesticide research. Socio-economic analysis was used to determine the contribution of countries toward pesticide research.

This study demonstrated a strong association (0.952%) between a country’s GDP and its research publications in the field of pesticide research. Countries, such as Denmark, Belgium and Australia, have benefited from global collaboration, which has enhanced their research efforts. Despite ranking lower in pesticide utilization, India focused on pesticide research, as indicated by its high publication/GDP per capita ratio (0.26).

Research on pesticides directly impacts agricultural practices, which, in turn, influence the economic production of the agricultural sector. Changes in pesticide usage can have inference for crop yields, food price and, eventually, the GDP. Comparative analysis can assist in evaluating the efficiency of regulatory policies in balancing ecological concerns with economic interests. Changes in regulations may impact both pesticide usage and economic outcomes.