Search

The Academy of Management Journal (AMJ) provides a broad platform for empirical management research that encompasses diverse topics, methodologies, and data types. Despite the wide array of studies published, successful research projects share key elements, such as an intriguing research question, a structured theoretical foundation, and a suitable research setting. This From the Editors piece introduces the AMJ Management Research Canvas, a guide for scholars to systematically address these core elements. By helping researchers align their studies with essential design and theoretical criteria, the canvas aims to improve the quality and coherence of submissions, benefiting both novice and experienced scholars in management and organizational research.

An editorial is presented in which the authors consider the effects of artificial intelligence (AI) on scholarly publishing, with particular focus given to consumer research. Topics of discussion include digitization of consumer research practice, questions surrounding the use of GenAI during the research process, the use of GenAI as a support tool in editorship, and human adoption of AI.

While library professionals working in academic contexts are likely to have knowledge of 'predatory' journals and related implications for guiding student information seeking, school and public library professionals may be less familiar with this phenomenon. This article draws on a broad body of research to explore the factors that enable predatory journals to thrive, some of which arise from inequities in current 'legitimate' academic publishing practices. While this article highlights the complexities involved when guiding students and clients to make robust information seeking choices in relation to predatory journals, some key implications for professional practice emerge from the research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the competitive arena of academic publishing, facing rejection can be disheartening for scholars striving for recognition and impact. In this editorial, we delve into the process of article writing in sales and marketing journals, with a particular focus on personal selling and sales management. We offer insights to help authors navigate the path to publication success. From articulating abstracts that attract readers to framing findings with finesse, each section of this editorial is designed to provide scholars with the tools and techniques necessary to enhance the quality and acceptance rate of their submissions. Drawing on our combined experiences as managing and senior editors, we provide actionable advice and practical strategies to address the challenges encountered in the peer-review process. By illuminating the nuances of manuscript preparation and submission, this editorial provides a step-by-step guide for academics seeking to elevate their scholarly contributions and minimize the sting of rejection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article analyzes the nature and temporal change of conceptual contributions in marketing scholarship with two complementary studies. First, based on a computer-aided text analysis of 5,922 articles published in the four major marketing journals between 1990 and 2021, the authors analyze how conceptual contributions have changed over time using the MacInnis (2011) framework. Results indicate that over the past three decades, theorizing efforts have strongly favored "envisioning" and "explicating" at the expense of "relating" and "debating," with this imbalance increasing over time. Second, the authors draw on 48 in-depth interviews with editors, department heads, and authors to validate these patterns and uncover the underlying mechanisms. The findings indicate that a prevalent thought style has developed in the field—defined by the research ideals of novelty, clarity, and quantification—that shapes the collective view of how marketing scholars, in their roles as authors, reviewers, and mentors, can make a valuable contribution to marketing scholarship. This thought style favors envisioning and explicating contributions and disfavors relating and debating contributions. Jointly, the two studies point to several rebalancing options that can reinvigorate relating and debating contributions while preserving the current strengths of the marketing field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Medical professionals who assume multiple roles as clinicians and researchers are commonly found in hospitals worldwide. Likewise, in many Chinese hospitals, particularly among early-career medical professionals with M.D. and Ph.D. degrees, active engagement in both clinical practice and scientific research is expected. In the current ethnographic study, the cultural-historical activity theory is used to explore how three early-career neurosurgeons at a tier-one northern-Chinese hospital conduct and write research for publishing in SCI-indexed journals in addition to handling their heavy clinical workload. Drawing on multiple sources of qualitative data, including semi-structured interviews, two-week naturalistic observations, field notes, photographs, and daily activity logs with three neurosurgeons, the study findings highlight Chinese neurosurgeons conduct and write up their research using patient data and collaborating with laboratories while seeking academic language editing and peer feedback. Ethical considerations of clinician-researchers’ scholarly publishing process, implications for researching medical professionals’ boundary crossings, and future research directions are also discussed.

The International Journal of Market Research (IJMR) is celebrating its sixty-fifth anniversary. Over the past decade, the journal has experienced significant growth in readership, impact factor, citations, and submissions. While the majority of accepted papers come from the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, and Germany, the journal aims to bridge the gap between academia and practice in the field of market research. In order to enhance its relevance and accessibility, IJMR will transition to an online-only format, adopt an interdisciplinary focus, provide guidelines for more user-friendly article formats, and publish a list of research priorities based on the perspectives of leading practitioners. [Extracted from the article]

An editorial is presented which discusses the journal's decision to broaden its publication scope to incorporate methodological articles, as approved by the Academy of Management (AOM) board of governors. Four new editors with specialized proficiency centered on methodological articles will be joining the journal's editorial team.

Healthy lifestyle technologies (HLT) have gained popularity in young people's daily lives, but the long-term effect of these technologies on their physical activity (PA) participation and health learning is unclear. This systematic review (a) explores the effect of HLT use on the PA participation and health learning of young people (aged 13–18), and (b) determines whether the effects were long-term and/or sustainable. Literature searches were conducted in five databases to identify studies published in academic journals in English between 2011 to 2022 which explored young people's use of HLT to support their PA participation and health learning. Twenty-six studies were identified. The reported impact of these technologies focused on three dimensions: behavior change, psychological responses, and facilitators and barriers to HLT use. This review concluded that HLT can have positive short-term effects on young people's PA participation and health learning, but the long term or sustainable influence remains inconclusive. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An editorial is presented by the editors of the Academy of Management Journal to aid authors intending to publish research on novel phenomena to expand management knowledge. Topics include core-periphery knowledge structures for positioning research which includes determining the level of novelty as well as methods alignment and theory elaboration.

The academic publishing process is fraught with challenges, inconsistencies, and the absence of clearly articulated guidelines and recommendations, particularly for doctoral students and other newcomers. Our goal is to overview key information that authors may consider and decisions they will need to make when determining authorship and preparing manuscripts for submission. Specifically, we discuss how authors can consider (a) the ongoing discussion of authorship, (b) identifying a target journal, and (c) submitting a manuscript for review. We draw influence from how processes are conducted relative to the Journal of Teaching in Physical Education in approaching our commentary as a point of reference. Nevertheless, while acknowledging differences in journal style and submission formats, many of the considerations discussed are relevant across publication outlets. Common threads across the discussion impress the importance of being intentional, proactive, and adaptive when engaging in authorship conversations and identifying target journals for submission. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Journal editors have a large amount of power to advance open science in their respective fields by incentivising and mandating open policies and practices at their journals. The Data PASS Journal Editors Discussion Interface (JEDI, an online community for social science journal editors: www.dpjedi.org ) has collated several resources on embedding open science in journal editing ( www.dpjedi.org/resources ). However, it can be overwhelming as an editor new to open science practices to know where to start. For this reason, we created a guide for journal editors on how to get started with open science. The guide outlines steps that editors can take to implement open policies and practices within their journal, and goes through the what, why, how, and worries of each policy and practice. This manuscript introduces and summarizes the guide (full guide: https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/hstcx ).

A self-study of International Journal of Exercise Science(IJES) publications from 2008 through 2021 revealed a sex-data gap in participant and corresponding author representation. This finding prompted the creation of the IJES Working Group for Opportunity, Representation, and Diverse Perspectives. We are a collaborative team of authors, reviewers, and editors, spanning both rural and urban teaching- and research-focused institutions, who assembled regularly starting in September 2023. The goal was to contemplate potential challenges and opportunities around diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), elicit discourse, and broaden inclusion and representation in exercise science research. Our group identified six main challenges/opportunities: 1) Mixed Definitions and Applications of DEI Principles; 2) Competing Lifeviews and Worldviews; 3) Oversight and Enforcement of DEI Principles in IJES; 4) Oversight and Enforcement of DEI Principles in the Broader Field; 5) IJES is a Home for Developing Scholars; and 6) Lag Time for Creating Change in IJES. As a growing international journal, we depend on a diverse group of authors, reviewers, editors, and readers to achieve our mission. Accordingly, the Working Group encourages impactful, inclusive research that broadens representation within exercise science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many academics often have to face the pressure to constantly publish or quietly perish. The Publish or Perish Game™, a new tabletop game created by Max Bai, flips the script and offers a satirical reflection on the academic publishing process, turning the often‐stressful endeavor into an entertainment experience. In this interview, Max Bai discusses the inspiration behind the game, the creative processes, and the broader impact he hopes the game will have on the academic community. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The document titled "Thanks to Reviewers: 1 July 2019 – 31 August 2024" from the journal Cartography & Geographic Information Science expresses gratitude to 422 reviewers who provided 1410 reviews for papers in the journal over the last 5 years. The reviewers come from diverse countries such as the United States, China, Poland, and many others, highlighting the global reach and collaboration in academic publishing. The document acknowledges the invaluable contributions of these reviewers to the scholarly community. [Extracted from the article]

Scholarly publishing has been shaped by the pressure of a liquid economy to become an exercise in branding more than a vehicle for the advancement of science. The current revolution in artificial intelligence (AI) is poised to make matters worse. The new generation of large language models (LLMs) have shown impressive capabilities in text generation and are already being used to write papers, grants, peer review reports, code for analyses, and even perform literature reviews. Although these models can be used in positive ways, the metrics and pressures of academia, along with our dysfunctional publishing system, stimulate their indiscriminate and uncritical use to speed up research outputs. Thus, LLMs are likely to amplify the worst incentives of academia, greatly increasing the volume of scientific literature while diluting its quality. At present, no effective solutions are evident to overcome this grim scenario, and nothing short of a cultural revolution within academia will be needed to realign the practice of science with its traditional ideal of a rigorous search for truth. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The academic publishing market is characterized by its oligopolistic market structure. Two aspects are particularly striking: Few large commercial publishers have high market shares in almost all research disciplines. This is reflected in high subscription and publication costs. At the same time, the majority of work for the journals is provided free of charge by researchers. The paradox can be explained by the tremendous importance of leading journals for researchers. Publishers turn this into market power. While key stakeholders in the market are primarily focusing on open access and open science, I argue in this article that competition plays a key role in increasing not only economic efficiency but also diversity and the participation of researchers. One exceptional option would be to shift the now-established "pay per article" system back to subscription models. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study examines how we, who self-identify as nonnative English speakers (NNESs), construct our NNES positionings in academia. It further investigates how these constructions have affected how we position ourselves and are positioned by others in the context of U.S. higher education. Utilizing methodological procedures of duoethnographies, we explore our constructions of NNES positionings through an analysis and synthesis of our three-interview series in which we interviewed each other. Findings demonstrate how our NNES position has been historically and socially constructed through our academic trajectories and professional experiences, and how we have been repetitively positioned by students and other scholars, including manuscript reviewers and editors. The study suggests that NES/NNES positionings exist in academia. To advance NES/NNES conversations, we argue that understanding how the concept of positioning works enables both NESs and NNESs to assess and develop pedagogical and professional practices based on expertise, knowledge, and experience. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents this journal's editorial policy and provides information on topics including the submission of manuscripts, the review process, and human subject research disclosure.

This systematic literature review synthesizes and maps existing research on auditing in family firms across multiple areas of study. The review includes 71 systematically selected academic articles published through to 2023. Our findings suggest that many audit-related issues, such as audit fees, audit quality, and auditor choice, differ significantly among family and nonfamily firms. Our review suggests that the positioning of the issues across different disciplines adds complexity and, to some extent, hinders the development of the field. This complexity, resulting from the intermixing of multiple concepts from different disciplines, pushes the majority of the reviewed articles toward theoretical singularity rather than a leap forward in terms of empirical relevance or theoretical plurality. By developing a field map that identifies gaps in current knowledge, our review not only suggests improvements to the status quo, but provides future research directions inspired by recent developments in family business and auditing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The sudden spread of the monkeypox virus has been accompanied by an increase in the scientific interest in the virus. More than 1,400 PubMed-indexed documents have been authored by about 5,800 unique authors, averaging around 120 publications per month. This sheer rise in the number led us to explore the content published in the literature. We discovered more than 30% of the documents are Quantitative Productivity (QP) i.e., papers that illustrate the emerging trends of parachute concerns, modified salami tactics, cyclic recycling, and excellence in redundancy. In addition, we found few common hyper-prolific authors previously identified in the COVID-19 literature. Further, we share our experience in publishing monkeypox literature and highlight the growing readership and citation interest in editorials, commentaries, and correspondences that were thought to be uncitable in the medical literature. As long as the scientific community and public demand, the supply of such papers will continue, with no responsibility on the authors, journals, or the reader. Since overhauling the current system is an arduous task, we propose the optimization of existing retrieval services that would selectively filter documents based on article type (requires standardization of definitions) to dilute the crowding out effects of quantitative productivity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The American Geophysical Union (AGU), a scholarly society serving the Earth and space sciences, has a conventional books portfolio with their publisher, Wiley, and a new partnership with the Geological Society of London for an open access (OA) book series. The latter serves authors who need (because of funding mandates) or want to publish OA and comes with added benefits, including a production workflow to facilitate faster times to online publication. Flexibility in how the costs of individual volumes can be covered aims to encourage uptake, but challenges lie ahead in ensuring that all authors can equitably choose OA for their book project. This commentary contributes to the collection in Area about the evolving OA books landscape, addressing many of the challenges described by Gandy, and describing the start of AGU's journey towards OA books. It brings a perspective from the sciences, where books are mostly large, edited volumes with many international contributors, many of them physical geographers. Their experiences of funding, motivation and recognition for contributing to books may be quite different to human geographers more familiar with the sole‐authored monograph format. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

AbstractWho influenced whom during the 2008 crisis? Did academic economists shape central bankers’ attitudes towards fiscal policy, or did central bankers impose their agenda? In an attempt to answer these questions, we analyse established attitudes and yearly topics found in speeches by bankers from six central banks and in working papers published by academic economists. Methodologically, both attitudes and topics are reconstructed through textual analysis. The results show that context matters. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article "Gandy & 'Books under threat: A response" discusses the impact of Open Access requirements on academic publishing, particularly in the UK. It highlights the inequitable opportunities in knowledge dissemination and production, focusing on factors like time, gender, race, language, and disciplinary background. The article also critiques the traditional academic publishing industry's dominance by a profitable oligopoly and advocates for Open Access publishing to address inequalities and improve access to academic materials globally. [Extracted from the article]

This study inquires into the experiences of 15 doctoral students from universities in the United Kingdom and Hong Kong to examine the factors that contribute to publishing first-authored academic papers and explores their self-perceptions of their scholarly identities. Using Leadership for Learning as a theoretical framework, the research findings show that successful academic publishing is underpinned by powerful learning experiences, the sharing of leadership and a shared sense of accountability. The study demonstrates that student agency, which links leadership and learning, is manifested through purposeful action, relational engagement and self-transformation. The research results acknowledge the unequal power dynamics in different research collaborations and reveal that doctoral students’ identity development is interlinked with a passion for research, strong learning experiences, the way that others position themselves and autonomy. The study highlights the need for robust learning experiences, tailored support for academic publishing and leadership development opportunities that facilitate academic collaborations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract\nPLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARYThis article proposes practical steps for those new to collaborative research or those seeking to improve the nature of collaborative research partnerships. Questioning academia’s exaltation of publications and authorship as coveted assets, the authors critically analyze the often complex, contentious, and ambiguous environment of collaborative research and negotiating authorship. With respect to academic publishing and ethics of authorship, this article grapples with two critical questions: (1) What factors create ethical dilemmas in authorship in academia? (2) How can academics and researchers better navigate the complexities of collaborative research to sustain ethical authorship practices? A seven-phase process model is proposed to guide the collaborative research process to mitigate ambiguities that reside in the black box. The seven phases encompass problem settings and pre-negotiations, direction setting: action planning, social capital, re-negotiations, equity and inclusivity, implementation- the submission-revision cycle, and reflexivity. This theoretical analysis aims to offer a useful resource to promote enhanced collaborative practices, and the authors take an explicit advocacy and visionary perspective to promote transparency, accountability, and reciprocal trust, to shatter overarching issues such as oppressive, deceitful, and exploitative norms in academic authorship practices.Our main aim in this article is to translate the collaborative process into practical steps, whether this is a new experience or you are seeking to improve the nature of collaborative research partnerships. It combines research on authorship ethics and academic collaboration to examine how authors are credited in academic work. It questions the emphasis on publishing and authorship while also analyzing the complexities and challenges of collaborative research. The authors offer guidance for improving collaboration and ensuring fair recognition of author contributions. The authors present a seven-step model to guide more equitable authorship practices, emphasizing the importance of transparency, accountability, and trust in academic collaborations. This approach aims to challenge and rectify unfair practices in authorship attribution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper reports on the Dotcoms to Watch session at Academic Publishing in Europe (APE) 2024. Five out of the seven selected startups that gave a brief presentation in the session expand upon their talks and reflect on their participation. They are Clear Skies, Global Campus, Ludenso, Signals and Visual Abstract. The startups address challenges faced by the scholarly publishing industry and deal with research integrity, identifying and combating papermills, peer reviewer identification and matchmaking, and graphical abstracts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While the discourse about work-family balance in academia (and elsewhere) is generally framed as a woman's issue, this study focuses on the association between childbirth and the scholarly productivity of both academic women and men. In particular, the authors examine whether the association between parenthood and scholarly productivity is contingent on gender and partner's employment status. Using German longitudinal data and addressing self-selection, results indicate the existence of a ‘parenthood premium’: scholarly productivity is higher for both fathers and mothers compared to their childless counterparts. Yet, academic fathers publish more than childless men and more than academic mothers, giving rise to a ‘fatherhood super-premium’. Additionally, the study reveals that the fatherhood super-premium is influenced by the employment status of the female partner, while this is not the case for academic mothers. Overall, the research highlights the importance of considering the division of labour within couples in understanding the gender gap in scholarly productivity and, ultimately, gender disparities in academia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ABSTRACT Aim Design Data Sources Method Results Conclusion Implications Patient or Public Contribution Transitions are broadly defined as movements from one place, stage, or subject to another. However, transitions which are broken and incomplete are referred to fragmented transitions. The aims of this concept analysis were to analyze the navigation of fragmented occupational transitions among long‐term care nurses and to develop a working conceptual definition of fragmented occupational transitions to inform diverse stakeholders.Concept analysis.Google Scholar, PubMed, and the Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature databases were accessed. Identified sources were interprofessional scholarly literature published between January 1, 2018, and January 1, 2024, and seminal references.Walker and Avant's eight‐stage concept analysis method.Occupational transitions in long‐term care are fragmented leading to grievous challenges across multiple aspects of nurses' lives. An analysis of the literature using a Transitions Theory lens reveals that their thoughts, feelings and ethical decisions are influenced over time by these transitions. Cardinal attributes include: (1) Fragmentation, (2) Ill‐timing, (3) Disruption, (4) Liminality, (5) Ambiguity, (6) Ambivalence and (7) Facilitators/Inhibitors. Antecedents stem from external sources and facility‐led initiatives. Consequences encompass product and process outcomes. Product outcomes include physical and psychological conditions, and process outcomes encompass resilience, flexibility, connection, coping, creativity, and communication.This concept analysis advances the science for understanding nurses' occupational transitional experiences in long‐term care. It will assist in risk assessment and instrument development ultimately improving the quality of long‐term care.Fragmented occupational transitions in long‐term care are multifaceted and complex phenomena that require distinct responses from government, healthcare leaders, and scholars to improve the plight of long‐term care nurses and stakeholders.Dr. A. I. Meleis contributed to this article by sharing her vast insight into transitions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper provides insights into the paper submission and review processes and the possible reasons behind paper acceptance or rejection. The main target of this paper is emerging researchers who are writing their first scientific papers in peer-reviewed journals. This manuscript gives clues on how to select a journal and what a preprint is, introduces authorship and the roles of editors, reviewers, and publishers, sheds light on the editorial process, and briefly introduces some ethical issues arising in scholarly publishing. The content is based on a course offered annually to doctoral students at the University of Milan and keeps into account frequently asked questions. The authors of this paper are an editor-in-chief and an associated editor of scientific journals, respectively. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ABSTRACT This article examines how motivation affects peer review acceptance of journal manuscripts among German professors of biology, business administration, mechanical engineering, and sociology. Data collected via an online survey (March–May 2022) tested hypotheses based on self‐determination theory. The results show significant discipline‐specific differences. In the soft disciplines, intrinsic motivation, own manuscript submissions (reciprocity), and external motivation positively influenced peer review acceptance, while the motive to discover something new had a negative effect. In the hard disciplines, only sense of obligation to the scientific community was significant. Staff support positively influenced peer review acceptance in soft disciplines. The control variables revealed that the total number of peer review requests was positively related to acceptance. However, age, gender, departmental budget linked to publications, and academic discipline were not significant factors. These findings deepen our understanding of motivational factors in peer review and highlight important disciplinary differences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Scientific integrity stands as a fundamental principle and benchmark for the conduct of research and the dissemination of scholarly content. The objective of this research aims to explore the impact of research, new and emerging areas of research, and to identify potential research collaborators and journals of scientific integrity for scholarly publishing over the last 20 years. Utilizing data sourced from the Scopus database, this research gathers publications linked to scientific integrity in scholarly publishing spanning from 2004 to 2023. These records were subjected to bibliometric analysis through Bibliometrix and VOSviewer. The findings indicate that research articles are the predominant mode of publication, constituting a substantial 67.27% of the total. Moreover, this content has been contributed by a diverse group of 2,596 authors. The Journal of Science and Engineering Ethics distinguishes itself with an outstanding record of publishing 62 articles and an impressive H-index of 19. The USA possesses the most extensive collaborative network, followed by Australia and the United Kingdom. Another significant discovery from this research underscores that over 20 years, dominant research trends have revolved around topics concerning scientific integrity, such as academic integrity, research integrity, and research misconduct. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The sport of boxing has existed since ancient times, with fights sometimes ending in death. In the modern world, with our greater medical knowledge, the risks of brain and other life-changing injuries have called into question whether boxing has a place in contemporary society. In fact, professional boxing has been banned in some European countries. There are also questions about whether it is appropriate to encourage spectators to watch two individuals attempting to punch each other into oblivion and about the effect this can have on those watching. The fact that, in recent years, we have seen the development of women's boxing both in the Olympics and at the professional level raises further questions. The particular emphasis of this paper is to note the number of committed Christians involved in boxing from grassroots to the elite level and to consider whether involvement in such a violent sport can be reconciled with the teaching of Jesus Christ. The main source of data is published biographies and autobiographies of Christian boxers and some interviews. There is very little published material at an academic level on the topic that we are considering. The conclusion is that despite the sincerity of the Christian boxers involved in the sport, it is difficult to justify boxing as a sport in relation to Christian teaching. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the role of rejection in scholarly knowledge production, emphasizing its importance in filtering out less credible scientific works. It explores how rejection helps reduce entropy and increase the dissemination of valuable knowledge, despite the subjectivity involved in the process. The text also highlights the necessity of intellectual humility among editors and reviewers to enhance the efficiency of knowledge production and ensure that valuable scientific contributions are not overlooked. [Extracted from the article]

This mixed‐methods study evaluates the efficacy of artificial intelligence (AI)‐assisted reviewer selection in academic publishing across diverse disciplines. Twenty journal editors assessed AI‐generated reviewer recommendations for a manuscript. The AI system achieved a 42% overlap with editors' selections and demonstrated a significant improvement in time efficiency, reducing selection time by 73%. Editors found that 37% of AI‐suggested reviewers who were not part of their initial selection were indeed suitable. The system's performance varied across disciplines, with higher accuracy in STEM fields (Cohen's d = 0.68). Qualitative feedback revealed an appreciation for the AI's ability to identify lesser‐known experts but concerns about its grasp of interdisciplinary work. Ethical considerations, including potential algorithmic bias and privacy issues, were highlighted. The study concludes that while AI shows promise in enhancing reviewer selection efficiency and broadening the reviewer pool, it requires human oversight to address limitations in understanding nuanced disciplinary contexts. Future research should focus on larger‐scale longitudinal studies and developing ethical frameworks for AI integration in peer‐review processes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Gold Open Access (OA) journals are crucial for scholarly communication, highlighting the need for a thorough evaluation of their academic influence on different research fields. This study leverages the InCites platform to examine article‐level characteristics relating to 22 Essential Science Indicators (ESI) research fields, with a focus on the dynamics of gold OA articles, including gold OA uptake in the Chinese mainland and gold OA adoption in the domestic English‐language academic journal publishing of the Chinese mainland. The findings reveal that disparities in gold OA adoption across 22 ESI fields are more pronounced in the Chinese mainland compared with the world scenario. In the Chinese mainland, there is a significant polarization in gold OA publishing volumes across different ESI fields, particularly in Chemistry, Clinical Medicine, and Engineering. This study builds on the understanding of OA citation advantage (OACA) by incorporating gold OA publishing volume into a two‐dimensional framework, resulting in the development of a "distance" metric. It further categorizes gold OA citation effects into four quadrants: positive citation effects (quadrants A and B) and negative citation effects (quadrants C and D), based on category normalized citation impact (CNCI) and journal normalized citation impact (JNCI) indicators from the InCites database. The findings underscore the importance of developing tailored strategies to address field‐specific challenges and promote gold OA dynamics in the Chinese mainland; while prioritizing high‐quality gold OA journals is essential for fostering gold OA development in the rest of the world. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Facing the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic, medical publishers rose to the occasion, moving to make their full portfolio of COVID‐19–related research available to read for free and expediting peer review and production processes. With such a rapid transition from paper submission to publication, however, concerns also arose regarding whether the quality of the research publication process was being affected. This article seeks to document the transformation of medical publishers' practices in response to the COVID‐19 pandemic and briefly discuss where they may go from here. For this goal, a literature search was performed in PubMed at several points to identify papers that reported early trends in how medical publishers handled COVID‐19 research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper comes from the third stage (H‐3) of the long‐running Harbingers of Change project (2015), which has investigated the scholarly communication beliefs and practices of early career researchers (ECRs) for a decade. The first stage (H‐1) focussed on generational (Millennial) change; the second (H‐2) on the impact of COVID; and, currently, the third stage (H‐3) on AI and its impact. While each stage has a particular focus all stages also asked questions about wider scholarly communications. This paper re‐examines an important finding found in H‐1 and backed by H‐2, which was that ECRs thought article processing charges were a major barrier to publishing open access (OA). Since then, OA has become more complex with more models available and a huge body of OA journals to navigate, so it is time to return to the topic. Data were obtained from China, France, Malaysia, Poland, Portugal and Spain about national guidelines and practices with 62 ECRs interviewed in‐depth. The findings indicate that ECRs are encountering challenges, or dilemmas in OA publishing. More precisely, they struggle with issues surrounding cost perceptions and understanding within the intricate academic publishing environment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article critically examines biases in the peer review process, essential for maintaining academic scholarship's integrity. Despite its pivotal role, the peer review system is susceptible to various biases, including gender, institutional, confirmation, publication, and reviewer biases. These biases can undermine the objectivity and fairness of the academic publishing process, skewing the representation of research and the dissemination of scientific knowledge. Through a comprehensive literature review, the study explores these biases' implications on the credibility of individual studies and the broader scientific discourse. The article proposes several solutions to address these issues, including adopting double-blind reviews, diversifying reviewer pools, enhancing transparency in editorial decisions, and promoting ethical standards in peer review. While recognizing the difficulty of completely eliminating biases, the paper emphasizes the importance of continued efforts to minimize their impact, striving for a more equitable, transparent, and rigorous scholarly ecosystem. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

More than a decade has passed since researchers began discussing predatory publishing, one of the most unethical practices in academia. Nevertheless, few attempts have been made to provide a comprehensive overview of the research on predatory publishing. Therefore, this study conducted bibliometric and topic analysis on 812 papers collected from the Web of Science database. The results showed that, although the annual publication volume decreased slightly in the last two years, the annual citations continued to rise. The United States and its institutions are global leaders in predatory publishing research. The most active journal was Learned Publishing, whereas the most influential was Nature. Furthermore, eleven research topics regarding predatory publishing, academic publishing, or the research community were identified and interpreted. Based on these results, this study discusses agendas such as highlighting the global interest in the issue, the need for large-scale collaboration and a sustainable research environment, promoting the issue of predatory publishing, and the importance of education for stakeholders. The findings are expected to help researchers and policymakers understand global research trends in predatory publishing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article, we model and study a cooperative peer-review scenario in scholarly publishing. In this scenario, the peer-reviewed journals cooperate in the necessary investment for the peer-review system. However, the final decision on what to publish in each journal would rest with the journal's editor, and the journals still compete in their quality standards for accepting papers. This simultaneously cooperative and competitive relationship between peer-reviewed journals is co-opetition in scholarly publishing. From the comparison between a benchmark scenario of competition between journals and a cooperative peer-review setting, we find that by sharing the cost of providing a common peer-review system, the peer-reviewed journals could offer a higher review quality in the manuscript evaluation process than they would otherwise be able to achieve individually. Furthermore, we find the conditions under which the competing academic journals using cooperative peer review could increase their expected quality levels, their standards for accepting articles, and their peer-review quality, which establishes the benefit from co-opetition between peer-reviewed journals. Nevertheless, a threshold cost-sharing factor exists above which the benefit from cooperative peer review disappears. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the trend of increasing scientific publications in the fields of life sciences and medicine and its potential impact on the quality of research. The authors analyze data from 2018 to 2023 and find a strong negative correlation between the total number of publications and the Scimago Journal Rank (SJR), suggesting that as the number of documents increases, the mean SJR tends to decrease. They also examine the top publishers in these fields and identify Elsevier, MDPI, Springer Nature, and Wiley-Blackwell as leading entities with significant academic influence. The authors conclude that while the increase in publications may dilute the average quality of a journal, the consistent publication strategies of top publishers highlight the importance of a balanced approach. [Extracted from the article]

The choice of language for publishing is a topic of particular significance for scholars of languages other than English (LOTE) due to the importance of publishing in the professional language for maintaining expertise in the written academic register of the respective language. While the multilingual ability of such scholars means they can potentially publish in multiple languages (i.e. their first language, the professional language and English), the limited market for publications in LOTE greatly diminishes such opportunities and restricts career development. Informed by Bourdieu's theory of practice and Brofenbrenner's ecological systems theory, we explore factors that influence the choice of language for publishing among 53 Chinese academics (scholars of Russian, Japanese or Korean), and how these academics navigate the challenges of publishing in their professional language. With fieldwork conducted at 10 universities across five regions, we identify regional specificities that contribute to greater inclusiveness with regard to the status of LOTEs in academic careers. Further, we identify the productive disruptive role of returned graduates (with doctorates completed abroad) in improving the institutional ranking of journals which publish in LOTEs. Finally, we underscore the importance of protecting the investment in sophisticated linguistic proficiency attained by scholars of foreign languages. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ChatGPT and other LLMs are at the forefront of pedagogical considerations in classrooms across the academy. Many studies have spoken to the technology's capacity to generate one-off texts in a variety of genres. This study complements those by inquiring into its capacity to generate compelling texts at scale. In this study, we quantitatively and qualitatively analyze a small corpus of generated texts in two genres and gauge it against novice and published academic writers along known dimensions of linguistic variation. Theoretically, we position and historicize ChatGPT as a writing technology and consider the ways in which generated text may not be congruent with established trajectories of writing development in higher education. Our study found that generated texts are more informationally dense than authored texts and often read as dialogically closed, "empty," and "fluffy." We close with a discussion of potentially explanatory linguistic features, as well as relevant pedagogical implications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Public Administration & Development is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

In this paper we investigate the issue of representation within the Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education (JMTE) and the broader academic publishing landscape, particularly focusing on the underrepresentation of authors from various world regions. A questionnaire, distributed globally, aimed to amplify the voices of the underrepresented, exploring the constraints and affordances of publishing in English-medium mathematics education research journals. The question that guided our investigation was: What do voices from the mathematics education community raise in their responses to questions about publishing in English-medium research journals like JMTE? We used qualitative methods to review the responses and identify common themes. The findings revealed significant barriers and challenges related to language, research location, and institutional support, highlighting the complexities of navigating the global academic community and the academic publishing culture. We propose actionable suggestions to foster a more equitable, diverse, and inclusive publishing environment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Ido Movement for Culture. Journal of Martial Arts Anthropology is the property of Idokan Poland Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

AbstractThis column reports on five conference sessions from following conferences: American Library Association Annual Conference 2023, International Group of Ex Libris Users (IGeLU) 2023 Conference, and the 2023 Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA) Conference. Topics included are browser changes that will impact access to resources via federated authentication, utilizing OpenURL to increase resource discovery in Primo through an implementation of Article Galaxy Scholar, and discussion on challenges and opportunities in scholarly publishing with the proliferation of generative artificial intelligence (AI) platforms. Additional topics recounted cover open science practices and the impact on research integrity and why the principles of sustainability, justice, resilience need to be considered in open access efforts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]