Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userTop-tier and predatory alike? A lexical structure perspective from the Academy of Management Journal and Espacios
96
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
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.
rate research
Read More
Digital advancement in scholarly repositories has led to the emergence of a large number of open access predatory publishers that charge high article processing fees from authors but fail to provide necessary editorial and publishing services. Identifying and blacklisting such publishers has remained a research challenge due to the highly volatile scholarly publishing ecosystem. This paper presents a data-driven approach to study how potential predatory publishers are evolving and bypassing several regularity constraints. We empirically show the close resemblance of predatory publishers against reputed publishing groups. In addition to verifying standard constraints, we also propose distinctive signals gathered from network-centric properties to understand this evolving ecosystem better.
We analyzed the longitudinal activity of nearly 7,000 editors at the mega-journal PLOS ONE over the 10-year period 2006-2015. Using the article-editor associations, we develop editor-specific measures of power, activity, article acceptance time, citation impact, and editorial renumeration (an analogue to self-citation). We observe remarkably high levels of power inequality among the PLOS ONE editors, with the top-10 editors responsible for 3,366 articles -- corresponding to 2.4% of the 141,986 articles we analyzed. Such high inequality levels suggest the presence of unintended incentives, which may reinforce unethical behavior in the form of decision-level biases at the editorial level. Our results indicate that editors may become apathetic in judging the quality of articles and susceptible to modes of power-driven misconduct. We used the longitudinal dimension of editor activity to develop two panel regression models which test and verify the presence of editor-level bias. In the first model we analyzed the citation impact of articles, and in the second model we modeled the decision time between an article being submitted and ultimately accepted by the editor. We focused on two variables that represent social factors that capture potential conflicts-of-interest: (i) we accounted for the social ties between editors and authors by developing a measure of repeat authorship among an editors article set, and (ii) we accounted for the rate of citations directed towards the editors own publications in the reference list of each article he/she oversaw. Our results indicate that these two factors play a significant role in the editorial decision process. Moreover, these two effects appear to increase with editor age, which is consistent with behavioral studies concerning the evolution of misbehavior and response to temptation in power-driven environments.
This study presents longitudinal evidence on the dissension of Management and Business Research (MBR) in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC). It looks after intellectual bridges linking clusters among such dissension. It was implemented a coword network analysis to a sample of 12,000+ articles published by authors from LAC during 1998-2017. Structural network scores showed an increasing number of keywords and mean degree but decreasing modularity and density. The intellectual bridges were those of the cluster formed by disciplines/fields that tend toward consensus (e.g., mathematical models) and not by core MBR subjects (e.g., strategic planning).
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.
Todays scientific research is an expensive enterprise funded largely by taxpayers and corporate groups monies. It is a critical part in the competition between nations, and all nations want to discover fields of research that promise to create future industries, and dominate these by building up scientific and technological expertise early. However, our understanding of the value chain going from science to technology is still in a relatively infant stage, and the conversion of scientific leadership into market dominance remains very much an alchemy rather than a science. In this paper, we analyze bibliometric records of scientific journal publications and patents related to graphene, at the aggregate level as well as on the temporal and spatial dimensions. We find the present leaders of graphene science and technology emerged rather late in the race, after the initial scientific leaders lost their footings. More importantly, notwithstanding the amount of funding already committed, we find evidences that suggest the Golden Eras of graphene science and technology were in 2010 and 2012 respectively, in spite of the continued growth of journal and patent publications in this area.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
