Search results

The purposes of this study are to synthesize the current research findings reported in major hospitality and tourism journals and to discuss the knowledge gaps where additional research endeavors are needed.

A systematic review approach was adopted to analyze 67 research articles about online reviews that were published between January 2000 and July 2015 in seven major hospitality and tourism journals.

This study presents a thematic framework of online review research, which was advanced by integrating the interactions among quantitative evaluation features, verbal evaluation features, reputation features and social features of online reviews with important outcomes of consumer decision-making and business performance. The thematic framework helps researchers identify the areas in extant hospitality literature of online reviews and point out possible directions for future studies.

The systematic review approach has a qualitative nature, where relevant literature was interpreted based on the authors’ domain knowledge and expertise.

Practitioners can gain a comprehensive understanding of the dynamic relationships among the key influential factors in online reviews, as presented in the thematic framework of online review research. Accordingly, managers will be able to develop effective strategies to leverage the positive impacts of online reviews to the business outcomes.

This systematic review synthesizes the findings reported in most recent publications (January 2000-July 2015; also including “Online First” articles) in seven major hospitality and tourism journals and develops an integrated research framework, anchoring on four meta-research questions and showing the dynamic relationships among the key players/factors/themes in online review research. This framework provides a visual diagram to practitioners for a better understanding of the relevant literature and assists researchers in developing new research questions for future studies.

This article reviews all Game Theory (GT) articles published in the three leading US‐based OR/MS journals. The articles were first subdivided into Theory or Applications categories. The Applications papers were subclassified on a five‐point scale ranging from logico‐deductive to bona fide applications. Second, the articles were classified in terms of seven types of research processes used by authors. Next, statistical analyses were performed relating to data from the above two classifications. The findings show that the OR/MS literature on GT is dominated by articles classified as Theory with no direct real world underpinnings and is based on the Ripple process (incrementalism) as a basic research strategy. The accumulation of theory vs. applications papers has been growing exponentially over time and this is also true of the marginal contributions, e.g. those based on the Ripple process. Nevertheless, GT has been found to have a higher percentage of true applications than some other OR/MS subdisciplines. Yet, this percentage is lower for GT than for the total coverage in the above journals.

Scientific research provides a reliable means for developing and accumulating knowledge bases to guide policy and practice. However, evidence from meta-research and large-scale replication projects suggests that the published research base likely reflects bias, which threatens the validity and credibility of research-based recommendations. Moreover, there is limited accessibility to research reports, which limits the impact and application of scientific research. In this chapter, we propose that open-science reforms, which aim to make the research process as open and transparent as possible, can be applied to help address these issues. We describe and discuss four open-science practices – preregistration and Registered Reports, open data and materials, open peer review, and open access and preprints – and propose that they may become one of the next big things in special education research.

The paper aims to explore the approaches that may be used by library and information science (LIS) higher doctoral candidates when preparing their submissions, especially in terms of highlighting the quality of their publications and the impact they have made.

The methods discussed are those that were considered – and often actually used – by the author when assembling his own submission. Frequent references are made in the paper to pertinent literature on research and to British universities’ regulations on higher doctorates.

The author warns against the tendency of applicants to concentrate too heavily on citation data. Although such statistics are undoubtedly important, a more convincing case for being awarded a higher doctorate may be made by drawing on a variety of sources of evidence, by no means all of which will be quantitative.

The paper is based on the experiences of one individual, i.e. the author, and consequently the perspective is narrower than would have been the case had it been written by a team of academics, all of whom had prepared their own higher doctoral applications, with each bringing their own unique experience to bear.

The article is wholly practical in its focus; it covers a range of issues and offers realistic guidelines that should be considered by applicants.

Published advice for the higher doctoral candidate is currently extremely limited. It would appear that no significant books or journal articles offer any support to scholars seeking the qualification. This paper has been written to help plug that gap.

The analysis of periodicals can provide important insights into the changing nature and dynamics of academic disciplines and fields of study. The Journal of Educational Administration (JEA) has for the past 25 years grown up alongside the field which it seeks both to represent and develop, and it is thus of considerable interest to look at the contents of the JEA in light of this role. A study was made of all the articles published in the JEA during the period 1963‐87 with a view to establishing authorship patterns; the types of papers which have been published; the common themes and the range of topics addressed; the nature of empirical research; and changes in both substantive and methodological orientations over the past 25 years. The analysis and discussion looked at the JEA as offering a window into the “world” of educational administration, but noted that a journal can only ever mirror that which is held up to it and ultimately to its readership.

Although the benefits of clinician researchers for health services are now more clearly recognised, their career development is not well understood. Hence, the purpose of this paper, a scoping review, is to determine what has been discussed in the literature about career opportunities for allied health (AH) clinician researchers in health services.

A structured literature search was completed in December 2020 for literature published 2010–2020 in English. A total of 2,171 unique abstracts were found and screened by two reviewers and 206 articles progressed to full text screening.

Forty-six studies were ultimately included; however, only two of these had aims directly related to AH clinician researcher careers, with the remainder containing only incidental data on this topic. Over half (56.5%) of the included studies were conducted in Australia, with a variety of AH professions represented. In terms of research design, 52.2% used cross-sectional survey designs, while case studies and qualitative research designs were also common. Key observations were that varying terminology and definitions were used, and there was little information about the inclusion of research in clinical positions or opportunities for formal clinical researcher positions in health services. There was some evidence to support that there are limited career opportunities after PhD completion, and that current career pathways are insufficient. There was conflicting evidence on whether engagement in research is beneficial for clinical career progression.

This review highlights a lack of research on this topic and outlines future directions to better support career pathways for AH clinician researchers.

In recent years, the field of comparative and international education (CIE) has experienced an outburst of self-reflective papers wherein comparativists study the nature of the field and map its content. This study contributes to this trend by drawing attention to a previously unstudied aspect of CIE: its purpose. Using Arnove’s dimensions as a starting point to create five new purpose categories, four prominent CIE journals are surveyed to test whether the pragmatic history of CIE is evident in its current body of research. In this process, a complete and clear genetic mapping of the journals is created, which explores their similarities and differences, as well as the changes in their content over time. Findings indicate that the pragmatic purpose of CIE dominates, though it is primarily emancipatory and transformative in its prescription. Furthermore, articles rooted in specific situational contexts were more prominent than expected considering the comparative and international nature of the field.

The article discusses the current relevance of artificial intelligence (AI) in research and how AI improves various research methods. This article focuses on the practical case study of systematic literature reviews (SLRs) to provide a guideline for employing AI in the process.

Researchers no longer require technical skills to use AI in their research. The recent discussion about using Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer (GPT), a chatbot by OpenAI, has reached the academic world and fueled heated debates about the future of academic research. Nevertheless, as the saying goes, AI will not replace our job; a human being using AI will. This editorial aims to provide an overview of the current state of using AI in research, highlighting recent trends and developments in the field.

The main result is guidelines for the use of AI in the scientific research process. The guidelines were developed for the literature review case but the authors believe the instructions provided can be adjusted to many fields of research, including but not limited to quantitative research, data qualification, research on unstructured data, qualitative data and even on many support functions and repetitive tasks.

AI already has the potential to make researchers’ work faster, more reliable and more convenient. The authors highlight the advantages and limitations of AI in the current time, which should be present in any research utilizing AI. Advantages include objectivity and repeatability in research processes that currently are subject to human error. The most substantial disadvantages lie in the architecture of current general-purpose models, which understanding is essential for using them in research. The authors will describe the most critical shortcomings without going into technical detail and suggest how to work with the shortcomings daily.