Search results

Th study evaluates the apparent quality of the 10 Beall's List accounting journals with the highest citation rates by investigating whether the works that cite those journals are comparable to those that cite 11 Scopus journals of similar citation impact.

The study investigates the characteristics of the works that cited the Beall's List and Scopus journals, 2015–2020, comparing the two groups of citing works by publication type (article, book, etc.), extent of self-citation, inclusion in Beall's List and Scopus, Open Access (OA) status, publisher type, citation impact, and country/region of interest.

The Beall's List accounting journals tend to be cited in less reputable outlets; they are especially likely to be cited in Beall's List journals and especially unlikely to be cited in Scopus journals. However, other evidence suggests that these journals occupy a distinctive niche. The works that cite Beall's List journals are especially likely to be OA, to be published by universities and other nonprofits, and to focus on lower-income countries. They also have relatively low journal and publisher self-citation rates.

Beall's List accounting journals may be especially useful to scholars who rely on OA journals, who see their local universities as natural publishing partners, and who investigate topics of concern to developing countries. An increase in the number of non-predatory journals that cater to these authors' needs might help resolve the apparent problem of unmet demand for journal space.

Within teacher education, many experienced in-service teachers routinely mentor pre-service teachers during teaching practicums. Notwithstanding the benefits pre-service teachers are meant to experience from these mentor–protégé relationships and experiences, recent research has demonstrated that mentors, too, may experience some (oftentimes unintended) potential benefits. The purpose of this paper is to further investigate such potential benefits within a Canadian secondary school physical education (PE) context.

The researchers employed a qualitative case study methodology. The three primary data sources included field observations/notes, journals and interviews. More specifically, over a ten-week period, the researchers made 26 field visits, observing two mentors’ interactions with five protégés before, during, and after PE class instruction; collected the two mentors’ ten journal entries, all made in response to researcher-provided writing prompts; and interviewed the two mentors, both individually and together.

The mentor teachers viewed the mentor–protégé relationship/experience as meaningful professional development, recognizing that it approximated a professional learning community. Relatedly, the mentor teachers experienced professional growth with respect to their own teaching identity and teaching practice.

This research could inform those who structure and/or coordinate mentoring research within teacher education programs so that they might place a more purposeful focus upon the potential and/or idealized outcomes for mentors (as well as for protégés). Given the single case study methodology, this research may lack generalizability to other educational contexts.

This research adds to the emerging body of research that investigates how mentoring may provide benefits to mentors. More specifically, this research suggests benefits to mentors relate, especially, to their own teaching identity and practice.

The assessment of library service quality requires both expertise and objectivity. Undergraduate students are neither expert nor objective, and assessment methods that rely heavily on students’ perceptions are likely to be inadequate in several respects. Students’ needs are not necessarily consistent with their preferences, for example, and the limited experiences of most undergraduates give them only a partial understanding of library collections and services. Although user surveys provide valuable information about patrons’ perceptions, that information is no substitute for objective standards based on professional knowledge.

IT is fitting that a new series of this magazine should be introduced by some reflections on the whole question of book selection, both for the general public and libraries.

That ice‐creams prepared with dirty materials and under dirty conditions will themselves be dirty is a proposition which, to the merely ordinary mind, appears to be sufficiently obvious without the institution of a series of elaborate and highly “scientific” experiments to attempt to prove it. But, to the mind of the bacteriological medicine‐man, it is by microbic culture alone that anything that is dirty can be scientifically proved to be so. Not long ago, it having been observed that the itinerant vendor of ice‐creams was in the habit of rinsing his glasses, and, some say, of washing himself—although this is doubtful—in a pail of water attached to his barrow, samples of the liquor contained by such pails were duly obtained, and were solemnly submitted to a well‐known bacteriologist for bacteriological examination. After the interval necessary for the carrying out of the bacterial rites required, the eminent expert's report was published, and it may be admitted that after a cautious study of the same the conclusion seems justifiable that the pail waters were dirty, although it may well be doubted that an allegation to this effect, based on the report, would have stood the test of cross‐examination. It is true that our old and valued friend the Bacillus coli communis was reported as present, but his reputation as an awful example and as a producer of evil has been so much damaged that no one but a dangerous bacteriologist would think of hanging a dog—or even an ice‐cream vendor—on the evidence afforded by his presence. A further illustration of bacteriological trop de zèle is afforded by the recent prosecutions of some vendors of ice‐cream, whose commodities were reported to contain “millions of microbes,” including, of course, the in‐evitable and ubiquitous Bacillus coli very “communis.” To institute a prosecution under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act upon the evidence yielded by a bacteriological examination of ice‐cream is a proceeding which is foredoomed, and rightly foredoomed, to failure. The only conceivable ground upon which such a prosecution could be undertaken is the allegation that the “millions of microbes ” make the ice‐cream injurious to health. Inas‐much as not one of these millions can be proved beyond the possibility of doubt to be injurious, in the present state of knowledge; and as millions of microbes exist in everything everywhere, the breakdown of such a case must be a foregone conclusion. Moreover, a glance at the Act will show that, under existing circumstances at any rate, samples cannot be submitted to public analysts for bacteriological examination—with which, in fact, the Act has nothing to do—even if such examinations yielded results upon which it would be possible to found action. In order to prevent the sale of foul and unwholesome or actual disease‐creating ice‐cream, the proper course is to control the premises where such articles are prepared; while, at the same time, the sale of such materials should also be checked by the methods employed under the Public Health Act in dealing with decomposed and polluted articles of food. In this, no doubt, the aid of the public analyst may sometimes be sought as one of the scientific advisers of the authority taking action, but not officially in his capacity as public analyst under the Adulteration Act. And in those cases in which such advice is sought it may be hoped that it will be based, as indeed it can be based, upon something more practical, tangible and certain than the nebulous results of a bacteriological test.

Alvin Hansen and John Williams’ Fiscal Policy Seminar at Harvard University is widely regarded as a key mechanism for the spread of Keynesianism in the United States. An original and regular participant, Richard A. Musgrave was invited to prepare remarks for the fiftieth anniversary of the seminar in 1988. These were never published, though a copy was filed with Musgrave’s papers at Princeton University. Their reproduction here is important for several reasons. First, it is one of the last reminiscences of the original participants. Second, the remarks make an important contribution to our understanding of the Harvard School of macro-fiscal policy. Third, the remarks provide interesting insights into Musgrave’s views on national economic policymaking as well as the intersection between theory and practice. The reminiscence demonstrates the importance of the seminar in shifting Musgrave’s research focus and moving him to a more pragmatic approach to public finance.

This volume of Advances in Austrian Economics brings together a number of studies, but split along two fields of concentrations. The primary, which makes up the vast majority of the pages of the volume, is dedicated to an examination and re-appreciation of the insight of the Austrian School of Economics usually referred to as the theory of interventionism and closely associated with the research of the Austrian School giants Ludwig von Mises and F.A. Hayek (e.g. Mises [1929] 1996 [1940] 1998; Hayek, [1944] 1976). Together they formulated and applied an innovative theory of how government intervention may come to have a dynamic character, where intervention in one area will tend to generate still more and still farther-reaching interventions. The second is a small section with a debate between on one hand, Walter Block and William Barnett and on the other, Gordon Tullock, which is part of a long on-going debate on Austrian business cycle theory, which initially began elsewhere (Tullock, 1987, 1989; Salerno, 1989; Wagner, 2001; Block, 2001).

In order to answer this question, it will first be necessary to distinguish between political and economic correctness on the one hand, and then between Austrian and mainstream economics on the other.

Economic studies that attempt to explain or describe the process of economic development in Latin America often overlook the participation of youth. Such studies generally address themselves to such problems as capital formation, investments in natural and human resources, foreign trade, population, and agriculture. Problems faced by the youth within the development process are usually oversimplified or treated as insignificant. For example, the works of Higgins, Kindleberger, Lewis, and Myrdal cover a vast number of economic development topics. But Myrdal's work is the only one that even lightly dwells on the problems faced by youth in the development process. Yet it is today's youth who will be tomorrow's participants in the development process and it is today's youth who must be counted on to solve the existing problems experienced in the development process—shortage of savings, shortage of educational and social services, housing shortages, and all the other problems inherent in a developing country.

One of the most significant lessons of the development effort in the last decade is the discovery that social progress and rising levels of employment do not automatically emerge from economic progress. While growth in gross national product, increases in exports and investments and rising industrial output have occurred they have little meaning for the millions who continue to live at or near starvation in the developing countries of Latin America.