Search

Journal editors serve as gatekeepers of knowledge, a role critical to preserving the quality and standards of good research. Some scholars have questioned whether editors have taken advantage of their position to publish their own work. To understand the extent to which editors of public administration journals self‐publish, we examined publishing patterns over a 20‐year period. We collected the names of editors from the mastheads of 13 generalist public administration journals from 1997 to 2016 and used data indexed from Web of Science to look at articles published in those journals during the same time. We found that while self‐publishing behaviour is not common across the entire field, it is a trend for certain journals and individuals. We also found the practice of self‐publishing is influenced by whether an individual served in a primary editorial role (e.g., editor‐in‐chief), length of editorial service, and overall scholarly productivity. We discuss appropriateness and ethical implications of the practice. We examine the extent to which editors of journals of public administration self‐publish in their own journals. We find that while there is not a discipline‐wide issues, some journals and individual editors are prone to this practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article, we investigate characteristics associated with highly cited journal articles in Public Administration, especially the extent to which high impact contributions are theoretical. Using citations as a measure of scholarly influence, we used a mixed qualitative and bibliometric approach to understand the factors associated with the most highly cited articles in Public Administration in the last 20 years. Specifically, we assessed the extent to which each article was theoretical or empirical in nature, the role of the journal in which each article was published, and the extent to which the article’s impact spanned disciplines. Results indicate that theoretical development, the journal in which an article is published, and strategic placement with regard to the intended audience matter for scholarly impact. We also identify that theoretical versus empirical approach of subdisciplines is aligned with the maturity of that subdiscipline, consistent with Kuhn’s ideas of scientific evolution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Doctoral recipients in the biomedical sciences and STEM fields are showing increased interest in career opportunities beyond academic positions. While recent research has addressed the interests and preferences of doctoral trainees for non-academic careers, the strategies and resources that trainees use to prepare for a broad job market (non-academic) are poorly understood. The recent adaptation of the Social Cognitive Career Theory to explicitly highlight the interplay of contextual support mechanisms, individual career search efficacy, and self-adaptation of job search processes underscores the value of attention to this explicit career phase. Our research addresses the factors that affect the career search confidence and job search strategies of doctoral trainees with non-academic career interests and is based on nearly 900 respondents from an NIH-funded survey of doctoral students and postdoctoral fellows in the biomedical sciences at two U.S. universities. Using structural equation modeling, we find that trainees pursuing non-academic careers, and/or with low perceived program support for career goals, have lower career development and search process efficacy (CDSE), and receive different levels of support from their advisors/supervisors. We also find evidence of trainee adaptation driven by their career search efficacy, and not by career interests. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]