Previous Issue

Table of Contents

Publications, Volume 6, Issue 1 (March 2018)

  • Issues are regarded as officially published after their release is announced to the table of contents alert mailing list.
  • You may sign up for e-mail alerts to receive table of contents of newly released issues.
  • PDF is the official format for papers published in both, html and pdf forms. To view the papers in pdf format, click on the "PDF Full-text" link, and use the free Adobe Readerexternal link to open them.
View options order results:
result details:
Displaying articles 1-5
Export citation of selected articles as:

Editorial

Jump to: Research

Open AccessEditorial Acknowledgement to Reviewers of Publications in 2017
Publications 2018, 6(1), 4; doi:10.3390/publications6010004
Received: 10 January 2018 / Revised: 10 January 2018 / Accepted: 10 January 2018 / Published: 12 January 2018
PDF Full-text (152 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text
Abstract
Peer review is an essential part in the publication process, ensuring that Publications maintains high quality standards for its published papers[...] Full article

Research

Jump to: Editorial

Open AccessArticle Advancing Scientific Knowledge: Ethical Issues in the Journal Publication Process
Publications 2018, 6(1), 1; doi:10.3390/publications6010001
Received: 7 December 2017 / Revised: 22 December 2017 / Accepted: 26 December 2017 / Published: 31 December 2017
PDF Full-text (158 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text
Abstract
The goal of this paper is to assess the journal publication process from value and ethical perspectives. The specific objectives are: (1) To define fundamental values relevant to scientific journal publication; (2) To identify stakeholders involved in professional journals and their value rights
[...] Read more.
The goal of this paper is to assess the journal publication process from value and ethical perspectives. The specific objectives are: (1) To define fundamental values relevant to scientific journal publication; (2) To identify stakeholders involved in professional journals and their value rights and responsibilities; (3) To discuss the steps of the journal publication process where ethical dilemmas arise and the potential influences of such dilemmas on the advancement of knowledge; and (4) To summarize actions that can minimize unethical practices throughout the steps of the publication process. Values such as honesty, efficiency, accountability, and fairness will be discussed. Issues related to the various stakeholders such as self-citation, plagiarism, dual publication, a lack of timeliness, and issues related to authorship will be a primary focus. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Scientific Ethics)
Open AccessArticle Retraction Notices: Who Authored Them?
Publications 2018, 6(1), 2; doi:10.3390/publications6010002
Received: 29 November 2017 / Revised: 23 December 2017 / Accepted: 2 January 2018 / Published: 3 January 2018
PDF Full-text (886 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text
Abstract
Unlike other academic publications whose authorship is eagerly claimed, the provenance of retraction notices (RNs) is often obscured presumably because the retraction of published research is associated with undesirable behavior and consequently carries negative consequences for the individuals involved. The ambiguity of authorship,
[...] Read more.
Unlike other academic publications whose authorship is eagerly claimed, the provenance of retraction notices (RNs) is often obscured presumably because the retraction of published research is associated with undesirable behavior and consequently carries negative consequences for the individuals involved. The ambiguity of authorship, however, has serious ethical ramifications and creates methodological problems for research on RNs that requires clear authorship attribution. This article reports a study conducted to identify RN textual features that can be used to disambiguate obscured authorship, ascertain the extent of authorship evasion in RNs from two disciplinary clusters, and determine if the disciplines varied in the distributions of different types of RN authorship. Drawing on a corpus of 370 RNs archived in the Web of Science for the hard discipline of Cell Biology and the soft disciplines of Business, Finance, and Management, this study has identified 25 types of textual markers that can be used to disambiguate authorship, and revealed that only 25.68% of the RNs could be unambiguously attributed to authors of the retracted articles alone or jointly and that authorship could not be determined for 28.92% of the RNs. Furthermore, the study has found marked disciplinary differences in the different categories of RN authorship. These results point to the need for more explicit editorial requirements about RN authorship and their strict enforcement. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Scientific Ethics)
Figures

Figure 1

Open AccessArticle A Study of Social Information Seeking (SIS) among LIS Research Scholars in Pakistan
Publications 2018, 6(1), 3; doi:10.3390/publications6010003
Received: 18 September 2017 / Revised: 3 January 2018 / Accepted: 4 January 2018 / Published: 8 January 2018
PDF Full-text (847 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text
Abstract
Purpose: There is ample evidence that students and teachers often seek academic information using participatory online social sites (POSS). The purpose of this study is to explore the intent of social information seeking (SIS) among library & information science research students in Pakistan.
[...] Read more.
Purpose: There is ample evidence that students and teachers often seek academic information using participatory online social sites (POSS). The purpose of this study is to explore the intent of social information seeking (SIS) among library & information science research students in Pakistan. The study also attempts to examine the relationship between change in information behaviour and information retrieval strategies while seeking information from online social spaces. The influence of online collaboration in the use of social media was also examined. Methodology: Quantitative research method was used to conduct this study. Data was collected from 123 research (MPhil & PhD) students currently enrolled in seven postgraduate library schools in Pakistan. The data was gathered using survey questionnaire (using 5-point Likert scale items), administered both in print format and online through Google Form. SPSS version 19 was used to analyse the data. Findings: Major findings of this study were that there is a strong positive correlation between SIS and change in the overall information behaviour of research students. Majority of participants responded that social websites help in reshaping the information behaviour in a collaborative environment thus contributing to upsurge the SIS practices among research students. The study also found that LIS research scholars in Pakistan prefer to consult interactive websites more than social media spaces for academic information. Gender has been an influencing variable in SIS practices, however, time spent and frequency of using POSS does not affect one’s SIS practices. Originality: Social Information helps people to connect with each other and is comparatively a new concept in the field of Information Seeking Behaviour. This is the first study on SIS with respect to LIS research students in Pakistan. Full article
Figures

Figure 1

Open AccessArticle Collaborating with Management Academics in a New Economy: Benefits and Challenges
Publications 2018, 6(1), 5; doi:10.3390/publications6010005
Received: 6 December 2017 / Revised: 8 January 2018 / Accepted: 8 January 2018 / Published: 10 January 2018
PDF Full-text (247 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text
Abstract
As a response to intensified globalization, international research collaboration has become common in the social sciences. This paper reports a study that examined what Chinese management academics and their overseas counterparts perceived to be the benefits and challenges arising from research collaboration with
[...] Read more.
As a response to intensified globalization, international research collaboration has become common in the social sciences. This paper reports a study that examined what Chinese management academics and their overseas counterparts perceived to be the benefits and challenges arising from research collaboration with each other. Data collected with two parallel questionnaires administered, respectively, to 114 Chinese and 30 overseas management academics revealed a variety of perceived benefits relating mainly to Chinese and overseas academics’ complementing strengths. Analysis of the same data also identified an array of perceived challenges stemming from a combination of cultural, epistemological, ideological, linguistic, institutional, and relational differences. Our study generated insights to be drawn upon in policy-making and in the coordination of international research collaboration. Full article
Back to Top