Search Results (2)

The degree of compliance with the Registro de Empresas Acreditadas (REA) (Registry of Accredited Companies) and its implementation by the Public Administrations in Spain is compared with its implementation among private construction sector firms. The Registry of Accredited Companies is a tool for risk-prevention control that is defined by Law 32/2006 in Regulation of Subcontracting in the Construction Sector in Spain. On the basis of a quantitative analysis of the data obtained from public bodies registered with the REA, the study is limited to Ayuntamientos y Diputaciones Provinciales (Municipal Town and City Councils and Provincial Councils of the Provincial Government). To do so, the registration records with the REA of both public administrations are analyzed within the 50 Provinces and the two Autonomous Cities that together constitute the 17 Autonomous Communities of the national territory of Spain. In parallel, a comparative study is performed of the registration records of private construction sector firms registered with the REA. Public digital data-management tools are used for the investigation, together with publicly available information known as the Relación de Puestos de Trabajo (RPT) (List of Employment Positions) of the corresponding public entities under analysis, with the objective of testing the information and validating its degree of reliability. Likewise, a survey is administered to gather data on the registration of private construction center firms, in addition to the use of the qualitative Focus Groups technique, so as to assure the reliability the survey data. The results revealed unequal treatment by the Labor Authority with regard to the imposition of similar administrative obligations. A clearly negative discrimination was noted with regard to private construction sector firms, in comparison with the permissive attitude and light administrative burden of the Public Administrations. Full article

In December 2012, DOAJ’s (The Directory of Open Access Journals) parent company, IS4OA, announced they would introduce new criteria for inclusion in DOAJ and that DOAJ would collect vastly more information from journals as part of the accreditation process—journals already included would need to reapply in order to be kept in the registry. My working hypothesis was that the journals removed from DOAJ on May 9th 2016 would chiefly be journals from small publishers (mostly single journal publishers) and that DOAJ journal metadata information would reveal that they were journals with a lower level of publishing competence than those that would remain in the DOAJ. Among indicators of publishing competence could be the use of APCs (Article Processing Charges), permanent article identifiers, journal licenses, article level metadata deposited with DOAJ, archiving policy/solutions and/or having a policy in SHERPA/RoMEO, the database containing self-archiving policies for more than 30,000 journals. The analysis shows my concerns to be correct. Full article