Search

Although leisure constraints that individuals have to cope with can negatively affect their social inclusion and satisfaction with life, little research has addressed the link between these variables. Therefore, the current paper examined the moderator role of leisure constraints on the relationship between satisfaction with life and leisure constraints among adults living in five different European countries. The respondents were 1,382 women and 877 men adults. The findings of analysis revealed that all factors used in the study accounted for 15% of the variance in satisfaction with life and social inclusion had a significant and positive impact on satisfaction with life. As a result, it can be said that leisure constraints had a moderating effect on the relationship between satisfaction with life and social inclusion. The present research study recommends that social inclusion should be encouraged through decreasing to leisure constraints to increase the life satisfaction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper investigates different uses of the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) in national journal rankings and discusses the merits of supplementing metrics with expert assessment. Our focus is national journal rankings used as evidence to support decisions about the distribution of institutional funding or career advancement. The seven countries under comparison are China, Denmark, Finland, Italy, Norway, Poland, and Turkey—and the region of Flanders in Belgium. With the exception of Italy, top‐tier journals used in national rankings include those classified at the highest level, or according to tier, or points implemented. A total of 3,565 (75.8%) out of 4,701 unique top‐tier journals were identified as having a JIF, with 55.7% belonging to the first Journal Impact Factor quartile. Journal rankings in China, Flanders, Poland, and Turkey classify journals with a JIF as being top‐tier, but only when they are in the first quartile of the Average Journal Impact Factor Percentile. Journal rankings that result from expert assessment in Denmark, Finland, and Norway regularly classify journals as top‐tier outside the first quartile, particularly in the social sciences and humanities. We conclude that experts, when tasked with metric‐informed journal rankings, take into account quality dimensions that are not covered by JIFs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]