Search results

Peer-reviewed indexable journals have expanded in recent decades as a result, in part, of the value given to research productivity (measured through citations). Latin American journals have grown prompted by the open access (OA) movement, the emergence of regional repositories/indexes, and policies linking institutional rankings and faculty salaries/promotions to indexed publications. This study’s aim was to map the ways Chilean, Colombian, and Venezuelan universities support journal publication. This qualitative study uses Margison and Rhoades’ (2002) Glonacal Agency Heuristic to describe factors that shape higher education (i.e., global, national, and local dimensions), adding university as unit of analysis. Semi-structured in-depth interviews from a previous study, current institutional documents, and websites of 12 major universities from Chile, Venezuela, and Colombia conformed the data of the study. Besides the most prestigious global indexes (Web of Science and Scopus) three regional repositories/indexes, Latindex, SciELO, and RedALyC, have played an important role as countries link faculty salaries/promotions and university ranking systems to publications included in one or more of these services. Latindex collaborates with national science and technology agencies, SciELO has country chapters based at universities (Colombia and Venezuela), and RedALyC works with individual institutions and journals. At the national level, Chile has mechanisms to provide funding for the publication and/or upgrade of journals and incentives to institutions for publications in indexed journals. Colombia’s journal evaluation system Publindex links articles in indexed journals to salary increases in public universities, standard that is also used by private institutions to grant monetary incentives to faculty for publications. Venezuela used to have a funding and publication incentive system that was discontinued in the last decade. Latin American journals are mainly published by universities. Institutions in this study have implemented strategies to support journals such as institutional repositories, discontinuation of print journals, technology support for OA publication, and funding mechanisms.

This study aims to review the current status of quality management (QM) research in Arab countries between 2001 and 2020.

The study adopted the content analysis methodology, searching through various databases and search engines for relevant publications using several keywords. The selected publications were classified according to several criteria and the obtained results were presented in the form of frequencies and percentages.

Most research publications regarding QM were journal articles. The number of publications has steadily increased between 2001 and 2020. Moreover, QM research largely uses the quantitative research design. Questionnaire surveys are widely used as a data collection method; basic statistical analysis techniques are commonly employed to analyze the data. There is a tendency toward empirical research versus conceptual research. A few journal articles were published in reputed peer-reviewed international journals with low citation. Overall, Arab scholars research on QM and related topics over the past two decades is not significant for the field considering the number of published papers, citations and the papers published in reputed peer-reviewed international journals.

This study has several limitations. First, it does not cover non-English information sources due to the overall lack of Arabic publication databases. Second, it uses a limited number of criteria to classify the selected publications. Third, it adopts the content analysis methodology to classify the selected publications. This method has several limitations, which may negatively affect the results. Nevertheless, the study offers several implications for research scholars, educators and practitioners.

This is the first study to attempt a comprehensive overview of the state of research on QM in Arab countries between 2001 and 2020 using the content analysis methodology.

The purpose of the study is to evaluate the relationship of Journal Publication Timeline (submission to first decision and submission to final decision) with various Journal Metrics (citing half-life, article influence score, the immediacy index, the acceptance rate, the impact factor (IF), five years IF, Eigenfactor and cited half-life) of top 600 journals retrieved from Journal Citation Report (JCR) 2020 under the tag, Elsevier Unified.

Top 600 journals in the decreasing order of the IFs under the tag, “Elsevier Unified” were retrieved from JCR 2020 of Clarivate Analytics. Information about “Journal Metrics” was ascertained using “Customized Service” of JCR, while information about the “Publication Timeline” of each journal was obtained using Elsevier's “Journal Insights Service.” It was found that only 177 journals provided the complete information regarding the “Publication Timeline” and hence considered for the study. Descriptive statistics and correlation analysis was conducted to test the different hypotheses.

It was found that submission to first decision has a significant relationship with the immediacy index, citing half-life and the acceptance rate. Submission to final decision has a significant relationship with Journal Impact Factor (JIF), the immediacy index, Eigenfactor, citing half-life and the acceptance rate.

The study will provide the authors with sound and valuable information to support their selection of journals. Inferences in light of fluctuations in the scholarly communication process in terms of Publication Timelines and Journal Metrics can be deeply understood with the aid of the current study's findings. What considerations authors have to take before submitting their papers is the main implication of the study. Journal administrators can also benefit from the findings of the current study as it can help recruit and manage reviewers, which will ensure a successful publication timeline.

The study correlates Publication Timeline Indicators with Journal Metrics Indicators using secondary cross-sectional data. Though most previous studies only examine the relationship of the Publication Timeline with the Journal Impact Factor (JIF), there is very scarce literature that deciphers the influence of Publication Timeline indicators on different Journal Metrics indicators (including JIF).

The peer review history for this article is available at: https://publons.com/publon/10.1108/OIR-02-2022-0108.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the body of literature on environmental management accounting (EMA) and provides a quantitative overview of the academic as well as the professional literature constituting the field. By doing so, the paper discusses whether EMA has developed as a discipline.

Based on a database containing 814 (396 of them published in academic journals) publications in English, German and French with a publication date prior to 2012 a bibliometric analysis is conducted. Data on the publications, journals, authors and citations were collected, double‐checked and examined by applying bibliometric measures.

The bibliometric analysis identifies trends in EMA research publications which show that EMA has developed as a young discipline, but is still faces challenges to get better established in mainstream accounting and management research. Although the publication number is growing, a substantial part of the publications have been published outside mainstream accounting journals in non‐accounting journals, books and reports. A recent trend towards establishing specialised environmental (and sustainability) accounting journals is also rendered apparent. The low number of highly cited publications of few authors, however, indicates that EMA is still to become a mainstream field of research.

The paper discusses with the help of bibliometric analysis and measures whether EMA has developed as a discipline and whether it has become part of mainstream accounting research.

The purpose of this study is to analyze the share of coronavirus publications and its citation-based indicators in various journal impact factor quartiles to discover their relationship and analyze the advantages of Q1 publications.

Bibliometric analyses of world coronavirus research publications (articles and reviews) indexed in Web of Science database over 20 years among four journal quartiles were performed.

The publication and citation shares in various journal quartiles were decreased in the following order: Q1 > Q2 > Q3 > Q4. World coronavirus publications/citations share in Q1 journals were on average 1.78/4.18, 2.75/7.90 and 5.07/27.79 times greater than Q2, Q3 and Q4 publications, respectively. Moreover, similar patterns were obtained for various research performance dimensions: impact, excellence, corporate interest and funding indicators. These indicators of Q1 publications were much better than the corresponding values for world overall and infectious disease literature. Thus, there was a clear research performance advantage of Q1 coronavirus publications.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study analyzing the journal impact factor quartiles and its impact on coronavirus research performance. The results/findings of this study are useful for many stakeholders to enhance the research influence by considering journal impact factor quartiles especially Q1 journals.

There is no particularly efficient way to measure research output, but effectual assessment of research output is necessary to motivate and encourage researchers to enhance their research performance and disseminate knowledge. The purpose of this paper is to highlight the exacerbating pressure on Indian academics to deliver incessantly in terms of research output and identify an agreeable way to increase research output. The metric explores trends in management publications by Indian academics and presents an overview of collaborative practices by Indian management researchers that could shine a light on the trends of collaborative publishing future.

The study focuses on publications in the area of Business and Management. Scopus was used with advanced filters to draw relevant research papers. Data were then sorted and filtered on the basis of quality determined through Australian Business Deans Council rankings and diverse bibliometric information to understand the pattern of research output of Indian academics.

The research found that the rate of collaboration with researchers from the home country is low for top rated publications. Majority of publications were listed in Scopus indexed journals, whereas a handful featured in A and A* journals. A and A* journals were predominantly co-authored with academics from universities outside the country. Tradeoff was achieved by majority of authors by getting published in B, followed by C category journals to achieve research outputs.

The study is limited to publications in the area of Business and Management and may be extended to other disciplines such as economics, engineering, law, medical sciences, etc., to understand publishing trends at universities in the country. The study can also be conducted in understanding a similar dilemma with academics at other countries that are evolving in research culture.

The study would help management researchers to dig deep into the root cause and understand why and how collaborations within and outside the country impact the quality of publications. The results would further encourage ranking agencies to award suitable grades to colleges that promote collaboration within the country as well as international collaboration. The study also conducts a benchmarking exercise of the institutions in the country that would be useful for researchers, journals and colleges.

While earlier studies have highlighted the importance of foreign collaborations in academic publishing, there are a handful of studies that have focused on the role of collaboration within the home country. The practice of Indian authors collaborating with Indian counterparts at other universities would help understand the expertise of researchers at different universities and encourage the collaboration process and quality of publications in the country.

This study examines the research productivity of three samples of tax scholars with accounting Ph.Ds. We compare publication activity in the pre-tenure period for each sample and in the first 25, 15, and 10 years for scholars whose careers began in 1977/1978, 1987/1988, and 1993/1994, respectively. The percentage of publications in “academic” journals in the pre-tenure period has increased from 38 to 42 to 47 percent for the 77/78, 87/88, and 93/94 tax scholars, respectively. The average number of academic and professional publications combined were 3.51 for 77/78 scholars, 5.87 for 87/88 scholars, and 4.00 for 93/94 scholars.

In many research areas, there are a variety of different types of academic publications, including journals, magazines and conferences, which provide outlets for researchers to present their findings. Generally speaking, although there are differences in the reviewing criteria and publication processes of different publication types, in the same research area, there is certainly overlap in terms of the problems addressed and the audience for different publication types. Therefore, the research impacts of different publication types in the same research area should be moderately or highly correlated. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

To prove this hypothesis, the authors examine the correlation coefficient of citation impacts for different types of publications, in seven research areas of computer science, from 2000 to 2013. In particular, four related citation statistics are examined for each publication type, which are average citations per paper, average citations per year, average annual increase in individual h-index, and h-index.

The analysis results show only a partial correlation in terms of several specific citation measures for different publication types in the same research area. Moreover, the level of correlation of the citation impact between different publication types is different, depending on the research area.

The contribution of this paper is to investigate whether the research impact of different types of publications in the same area is correlated. The findings can help guide researchers and academics choose the most appropriate publication outlets.

The purpose of the study is to analyze the impact of the Publication Timeline, i.e. Submission to First Decision and Submission to Acceptance on Journal Metrics, i.e. Impact Factor (IF) and 5-year IF.

Data related to the IF and 5-year IF were retrieved from Clarivate Analytics’ Journal Citation Report 2020. The Publication Timeline of each journal was ascertained through their respective websites. To attain the model fit summary, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) test was performed. Regression analysis was also performed on the models using SPSS 21 software to ascertain the nature and degree of impact the Publication Timeline (Submission to First Decision and Submission to Acceptance) has on Journal Metrics (IF and 5-year IF).

Submission to First Decision has a significant inverse relationship with both the IF and 5-year IF, whereas Submission to Acceptance has a significant direct relation with 5-year IF and an inverse but insignificant relationship with IF.

Journals published by Springer Nature and of multidisciplinary nature have been considered for the study. Only those journals were selected that provided the information regarding the Publication Timeline, whereas those which did not provide the same, were excluded. However, new insights can be revealed if the journals published by different publishers and belonging to one particular discipline are studied.

The study helps to ascertain the impact of the Publication Timeline on the Impact Metrics of the journals. It can help the authors select the journals as their publishing venues considering the Publication Timeline. Publishers can also be benefitted from the findings of this study since improvisations and modifications in their Publication Timelines can positively influence the impact metrics of their respective journals.

The study attempts to measure the impact of the Publication Timeline on Journal Metrics using cross-sectional secondary data, by performing regression analysis. Though various studies have examined the influence of the Publication Timeline on the IF using correlation analysis, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first of its kind to use regression analysis to check the relation, as well as the degree of impact the Publication Timeline, has on Journal Metrics.