Search results

Industry 4.0 is a promising concept that allows industries to meet customers’ demands with flexible and resilient processes, and highly personalised products. This concept is made up of different dimensions. For a long time, innovative digital technology has been thought of as the only dimension to succeed in digital transformation projects. Other dimensions have been identified such as organisation, strategy, and human resources as key while rolling out digital technology in factories. From these findings, researchers have designed industry 4.0 theoretical models and then built readiness models that allow for analysing the gap between the company initial situation and the theoretical model. Nevertheless, this purely deductive approach does not take into consideration a company’s background and context, and eventually favours one single digital transformation model. This article aims at analysing four actual digital transformation projects and demonstrating that the digital transformation’s success or failure depends on the combination of two variables related to a company’s background and context. This research is based on a double approach: deductive and inductive. First, a literature review has been carried out to define industry 4.0 concept and its main dimensions and digital transformation success factors, as well as barriers, have been investigated. Second, a qualitative survey has been designed to study in-depth four actual industry digital transformation projects, their genesis as well as their execution, to analyse the key variables in succeeding or failing. 46 semi-structured interviews were carried out with projects’ members; interviews have been analysed with thematic content analysis. Then, each digital transformation project has been modelled regarding the key variables and analysed with regards to succeeding or failing. Investigated projects have consolidated the models of digital transformation. Finally, nine digital transformation types have been identified.

This study aims to explore how the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted parents of autistic children and their families in Ireland.

A qualitative thematic analysis methodology was applied using semi-structured interviews. A total of 12 parents (ten mothers, one father and one grandfather speaking on behalf of a mother) of autistic children were asked how the COVID-19 pandemic impacted them and their autistic child with a particular focus on how it has impacted their access to respite care. Interviews were completed remotely from July 2021 to October 2021.

Data analysis identified four themes that reflect an adverse pandemic impact. These were: world gone; alone and isolated; constantly fighting for help; and negative and positive impact of COVID-19 on child and family. Two parents reported positive outcomes of the pandemic such as social distance requirements. Five parents (42%) reported an increase in the amount of respite received. Three parents (25%) reported a decrease and four (33%) parents reported no change in their access to respite.

COVID-19 has turned a spotlight on mental health for politicians, policymakers and the public and provides an opportunity to make mental health a higher public health priority for autistic children and their families.

This study highlights the need for access to respite for autistic children and for respite services to be responsive to the ongoing needs, in particular, the mental health needs of autistic children and their family, particularly in a crisis situation.

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.

Open-access mega-journals (OAMJs) represent an increasingly important part of the scholarly communication landscape. OAMJs, such as PLOS ONE, are large scale, broad scope journals that operate an open access business model (normally based on article-processing charges), and which employ a novel form of peer review, focussing on scientific “soundness” and eschewing judgement of novelty or importance. The purpose of this paper is to examine the discourses relating to OAMJs, and their place within scholarly publishing, and considers attitudes towards mega-journals within the academic community.

This paper presents a review of the literature of OAMJs structured around four defining characteristics: scale, disciplinary scope, peer review policy, and economic model. The existing scholarly literature was augmented by searches of more informal outputs, such as blogs and e-mail discussion lists, to capture the debate in its entirety.

While the academic literature relating specifically to OAMJs is relatively sparse, discussion in other fora is detailed and animated, with debates ranging from the sustainability and ethics of the mega-journal model, to the impact of soundness-only peer review on article quality and discoverability, and the potential for OAMJs to represent a paradigm-shifting development in scholarly publishing.

This paper represents the first comprehensive review of the mega-journal phenomenon, drawing not only on the published academic literature, but also grey, professional and informal sources. The paper advances a number of ways in which the role of OAMJs in the scholarly communication environment can be conceptualised.

The purpose of this paper is to better understand the theory and practice of peer review in open-access mega-journals (OAMJs). OAMJs typically operate a “soundness-only” review policy aiming to evaluate only the rigour of an article, not the novelty or significance of the research or its relevance to a particular community, with these elements being left for “the community to decide” post-publication.

The paper reports the results of interviews with 31 senior publishers and editors representing 16 different organisations, including 10 that publish an OAMJ. Thematic analysis was carried out on the data and an analytical model developed to explicate their significance.

Findings suggest that in reality criteria beyond technical or scientific soundness can and do influence editorial decisions. Deviations from the original OAMJ model are both publisher supported (in the form of requirements for an article to be “worthy” of publication) and practice driven (in the form of some reviewers and editors applying traditional peer review criteria to OAMJ submissions). Also publishers believe post-publication evaluation of novelty, significance and relevance remains problematic.

The study is based on unprecedented access to senior publishers and editors, allowing insight into their strategic and operational priorities. The paper is the first to report in-depth qualitative data relating specifically to soundness-only peer review for OAMJs, shedding new light on the OAMJ phenomenon and helping inform discussion on its future role in scholarly communication. The paper proposes a new model for understanding the OAMJ approach to quality assurance, and how it is different from traditional peer review.

This paper contributes to the social pillar of sustainable supply chain management. It does so by investigating how women managers in the maritime sector handle work-family conflict, thereby acting as institutional entrepreneurs to create a work-family balance logic. The maritime sector is a male-dominated supply chain management environment, which suffers from a talent gap of a lack of women executives. One reason for this problem is work-family balance issues that deter women from staying in the workforce.

The authors interviewed 35 women working as port managers in different developing countries. The authors analyzed their strategies in coping with the conflict between family and work to create a work-family balance logic.

The authors found four different types of strategies to handle work-family conflicts. Responses showed that women executives in this sector can be institutional entrepreneurs. Based on the findings, the authors were able to confirm and contribute to the existing model proposed by Silva and Nunes (2021) on sustainable supply chain logic. The authors also provided recommendations for these women as institutional entrepreneurs and for policymakers to retain women talent in the supply chain management.

The research focuses on a specific supply chain management sector, which is the maritime sector. It also relies exclusively on interview data.

The authors propose recommendations to develop a work-family balance logic and retain talented women in the supply chain industry based on monitoring equality and supporting their need for a work-family balance, both in the short and long terms.

The authors interviewed women executives in one of the most male dominated sectors. The authors studied their ability to cope with work-family conflicts and identified four ways to create a work-family balance logic. These findings enabled us to show the contribution and limits of women executives as institutional entrepreneurs for work family balance logics in male dominated sectors.

In the UK and countries following similar systems of doctoral assessment, there is little research-based evidence about what goes on in vivas. However, “doctoral assessment ‘horror stories’”, abound. The purpose of this paper is to report a study focussing on difficult doctoral examining experiences and argue that sharing such stories can provide a useful basis for examiner and supervisor education.

The study took a narrative auto/biographical approach.

The stories participants told show that doctoral examining is relational, emotional and ethical work and that viva outcomes are strongly influenced by subjectivities. There was felt to be a need to share stories of difficulties in order to bring them into the open with a view to prompting transformational change.

Participants were self-selecting and all worked at the same institution.

There are few accounts of examiners’ experiences of the viva.