Search

Purpose: Foresight J's journey started in 1999, and in 2022, it marked the conclusion of its 24 years of publication. This paper aims to provide an overall overview of important research trends published in Foresight J between 1999 and 2022 by conducting a quantitative analysis of the journal's literature. The overarching goal is to provide valuable insights into the dynamics of scholarly communication, aiding researchers, institutions and policymakers in assessing the significance and influence of academic work, guiding future research directions and academic evaluation. Design/methodology/approach: The two bibliometrics methodologies that make up the methodology of this article are scientific mapping and performance analysis. Authors have explained the development and composition of the Foresight J using these methods. The SCOPUS database is being used in current research to analyse several dimensions, such as the evolution of publications by year, the most cited papers, core authors and researchers, leading countries and prolific institutions. Moreover, the conceptual structure, scope, burst detection and co-occurrence analysis of the journal are mapped using network visualization software such as VOSviewer, CiteSpace and RStudio. Findings: With a strong track record of output over the years, Foresight J has continued to develop in terms of publications. It is determined that "Saritas" is the author with the greatest overall impact. However, according to SCOPUS bibliometric data, "Blackman" and "Richardson" are the authors with the greatest relevance in terms of the quantity of articles. In addition, it becomes apparent that the USA, Australia and the UK are very productive nations in terms of publications. The most popular fields of the journal have always been forecasting, foresight, scenario planning, strategic planning, decision-making, technology and sustainable development. These are also the author keywords that appear the most frequently. In contrast, new study themes in the Foresight J include digital technologies, innovation, sustainability, blockchain, artificial intelligence and sustainability. Research limitations/implications: Several noteworthy research implications are provided by the bibliometric study of Foresight J. "Saritas" is the author with the most overall impact, indicating that the precise contributions and influence of this researcher in the fields of forecasting, foresight and related fields. Given that "Blackman" and "Richardson" are well-known writers, it is also critical to examine the scope and complexity of their contributions to potentially identify recurring themes or patterns in their writing. The geographic productivity results, which show that the USA, Australia and the UK are the top three countries for Foresight J publications, may encourage more research into regional differences, patterns of collaboration and the worldwide distribution of research endeavours in the context of forecasting and foresight. Popular fields including scenario planning, forecasting, foresight and sustainable development are consistent, indicating persistent research interests. Examining the causes of these subjects' ongoing relevance can reveal information about the consistency and development of scholarly interests over time. Practical implications: Foresight J's bibliometric analysis has real-world applications for many stakeholders. It helps editors and publishers make strategic decisions about outreach and content by providing insights regarding the journal's influence. Assessing organizational and author productivity helps institutions allocate resources more effectively. Policymakers acquire an instrument to evaluate research patterns and distribute funds efficiently. In general, bibliometric study of a journal helps decisionmakers in academic publishing make well-informed choices that maximize the potential of options for authors, editors, institutions and policymakers. Social implications: The societal ramifications of bibliometrically analysing Foresight J from 1999 and 2022 are substantial. This analysis highlights, over the past 24 years, research trends, technological developments and societal priorities have changed by methodically looking through the journal's articles. Gaining knowledge about the academic environment covered by the journal can help raise public awareness of important topics and promote critical thinking. In addition, the analysis can support evidence-based decision-making by alerting decision makers to the influential research that was published in Foresight J. This could have an impact on the course of policies pertaining to innovation, technology and societal development. Originality/value: This study presents a first comprehensive article that provides a general overview of the main trends and patterns of the research over the Foresight J's history since its inception. Also, the paper will help the scientific community to know the value and impact of Foresight J. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Previous research has indicated that healthcare support for sexuality after spinal cord injury appears to be neglected or inadequately provided. The perspectives of people living with spinal cord injuries regarding what is lacking and what support they would like to be provided, and why, has yet to be explored. This paper uses critical theory to explore how societal constructs of sexuality and disability shape how sexuality is supported after a spinal cord injury. To do this, we conducted in-depth semi-structured interviews with 11 people with a spinal cord injury from Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. We drew from the works of various critical disability theorists to analyze what discourses underpinned the experiences people with spinal cord injuries had when receiving sexuality support. Analysis suggested that the following discourses were apparent: (1) broken bodies require repair, (2) sex is penetration, ejaculation then reproduction, and (3) sexual autonomy is required. Findings indicated healthcare professionals need to recognize people with spinal cord injuries as sexual beings with a diverse range of desires, lives, relations, and bodies. Provision of individualized comprehensive high-quality sexuality support is therefore warranted. To achieve this, healthcare professionals should aim to be aware of, and mitigate, ableist and normative assumptions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]