Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userJournals Titles and Mission Statements: Lexical structure, diversity and readability
93
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Julian D. Cortes
Publication date
2021
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Authors
Julian D. Cortes
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
There is an established research agenda on dissecting an articles components, title and abstract readability and diversity, keywords, number references, and determining their association with bibliometrics performance. Yet, journals titles and their overview, aim and scope (i.e., journals mission statement, JMS(s) have not been investigated with the same diligence. This study aims to conduct a comprehensive outlook of titles and JMSs lexical structure and identify significant differences between journals prestige and type of access groups and their JMS content in the field of business, management and accounting (BMA). Lexical network analysis was used to explore journals title structure. JMS were examined through the Flesch-Kincaid grade level for readability and the Yules K for lexical diversity. Titles and JMS structural analysis reflected current and critical discussion in BMA: an obsession for counterintuitive findings and ICT tools. JMS expressed mostly target customers and markets. JMS from reputable journals showed a higher betweenness for key terms related to rigorous features, while JMS of lower reputable journals highlighted indexing attributes (i.e., Scopus). Wilcoxon rank sum and Kruskal Wallis tests showed significant differences in the JMS median diversity regarding the journals type of access and best quartiles.
rate research
Read More
The mission statement(s) (MS) is one of the most-used tools for planning and management. Universities worldwide have implemented MS in their knowledge planning and management processes since the 1980s. Research studies have extensively explored the content and readability of MS and its effect on performance in firms, but their effect on public or nonprofit institutions such as universities has not been scrutinized with the same intensity. This study used Gunnings Fog Index score to determine the readability of a sample of worldwide universities MS and two rankings, i.e., Quacquarelli Symonds World University Ranking and SCImago Institutions Rankings, to determine their effect on performance. No significant readability differences were identified in regions, size, focus, research type, age band, or status. Logistic regression (cumulative link model) results showed that variables, such as universities age, focus, and size, have more-significant explanatory power on performance than MS readability.
This study compares the lexical structure of articles titles and abstracts of two extremes in MB (management-business research): the AMJ (Academy of Management Journal), one of its most revered periodicals, and Espacios, the one that unveiled a structural problem in Latin-American MB. Results showed significant differences in the median of titles length and abstracts readability and diversity as AMJ titles length was longer and abstracts both more diverse and readability-demanding.
Current lexical simplification approaches rely heavily on heuristics and corpus level features that do not always align with human judgment. We create a human-rated word-complexity lexicon of 15,000 English words and propose a novel neural readability ranking model with a Gaussian-based feature vectorization layer that utilizes these human ratings to measure the complexity of any given word or phrase. Our model performs better than the state-of-the-art systems for different lexical simplification tasks and evaluation datasets. Additionally, we also produce SimplePPDB++, a lexical resource of over 10 million simplifying paraphrase rules, by applying our model to the Paraphrase Database (PPDB).
This study aims to analyze 343 retraction notices indexed in the Scopus database, published in 2001-2019, related to scientific articles (co-)written by at least one author affiliated with an Iranian institution. In order to determine reasons for retractions, we merged this database with the database from Retraction Watch. The data were analyzed using Excel 2016 and IBM-SPSS version 24.0, and visualized using VOSviewer software. Most of the retractions were due to fake peer review (95 retractions) and plagiarism (90). The average time between a publication and its retraction was 591 days. The maximum time-lag (about 3,000 days) occurred for papers retracted due to duplicate publications; the minimum time-lag (fewer than 100 days) was for papers retracted due to unspecified cause (most of these were conference papers). As many as 48 (14%) of the retracted papers were published in two medical journals: Tumor Biology (25 papers) and Diagnostic Pathology (23 papers). From the institutional point of view, Islamic Azad University was the inglorious leader, contributing to over one-half (53.1%) of retracted papers. Among the 343 retraction notices, 64 papers pertained to international collaborations with researchers from mainly Asian and European countries; Malaysia having the most retractions (22 papers). Since most retractions were due to fake peer review and plagiarism, the peer review system appears to be a weak point of the submission/publication process; if improved, the number of retractions would likely drop because of increased editorial control.
In the same way ecosystems tend to increase maturity by decreasing the flow of energy per unit biomass, we should move towards a more mature science by publishing less but high-quality papers and getting away from joining large teams in small roles. That is, we should decrease our scientific productivity for good.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
