Evaluation Of Research Papers Research Articles

Altmetrics as an Answer to the Need for Democratization of Research and Its Evaluation

In the evaluation of research, the same unequal structure present in the production of research is reproduced. Despite a few very productive researchers (in terms of papers and citations received), there are also few researchers who are involved in the research evaluation process (in terms of being editorial board members of journals or reviewers). To produce a high number of papers and receive many citations and to be involved in the evaluation of research papers, you need to be in the minority of giants who have high productivity and more scientific success. As editorial board members and reviewers, we often find the same minority of giants. In this paper, we apply an economic approach to interpret recent trends in research evaluation and derive a new interpretation of Altmetrics as a response to the need for democratization of research and its evaluation. In this context, the majority of pygmies can participate in evaluation with Altmetrics, whose use is more democratic, that is, much wider and open to all.

Improving China’s scientific publishing is imperative

In China, with the steady increase of investment in scientific research, there has been an improvement in research and growing numbers of research papers, which enable the country to establish and publish its first-class scientific, technical, and medical (STM) journals that adhere to international standards. To enhance the publication of STM journals in China, a complete understanding of their social function is primarily required. STM journals are an important tool for promoting a country’s scientific and technological innovation as well as its discursive power in science and technology. They are essential for leading the direction of scientific research; safeguarding a country’s security in science, technology, and culture; nurturing scientific spirit and methods; and winning international respect. Additionally, STM journals are an important component of a nation’s cultural industries, demonstrated by the fact that the highest-level journals are also the most profitable journals worldwide. Being an integral part of science and technology work, STM journals should be understood and managed as per scientific-research laws. First, we should make conscientious efforts to encourage and promote the vigorous development of STM journals alongside the progress of science and technology. Second, we should accurately understand the difficulties we face as well as the conditions that favor STM publications. Third, enhancing the publication of STM journals is a major task for a huge country like China, and hence, we should orient it scientifically, build our discursive power, and emphasize independence as well as international cooperation in the production, communication, and evaluation of research papers. While top-level design is a priority, we should employ a strategy that encourages the creation of first-class STM journals in the disciplines and industries in which China has an advantage, and induce the formation of a cluster effect by developing high-quality journals in our national specialties. Large publishing groups and major STM publishing houses as well should place special emphasis on the development of such journals. Moreover, the government should provide greater policy support and more funding, particularly for developing large and efficient STM communication platforms.

The assessment and evaluation of research papers published in the J.C.M.T. 2017: The search for the best research paper of the year award.

The purpose of this article is to explain the criteria and to describe the procedure adopted to select the best research paper published in 2017 in The Journal of Commerce and Management Thoughta peer reviewed Journal being published by ABEED since 2010. After three rounds of careful and critical readings of all papers, the paper entitled Afloat in Uncertainty and Cynicism: An Experience from Egypt (Volume 8, Number 3, July-Sept. 2017) by Mr. Mohamed Mousa and Ms. Hala A. Abdelgaffar has been nominated for the Best Research Paper Award

Competencias docentes para la enseñanza de la metodología de la investigación y la evaluación de trabajos de grado y tesis doctorales en administración

Este artículo aborda un tema de especial relevancia en la dinámica académica actual y en el proceso de formación de los estudiantes de pre y postgrado, pues se relaciona directamente con los procesos de enseñanza y evaluación. Por ello este texto aborda dos procesos relacionados directamente con el quehacer investigativo, dado que se centra en la enseñanza de la metodología de la investigación y en la evaluación de trabajos de grado y tesis doctorales y en las habilidades y competencias que deben desarrollar los docentes para realizar estas actividades.

The evaluation of research papers in the XXI century. The Open Peer Discussion system of the World Economics Association

The paper starts with a brief discussion of the traditional peer review (TPR) system of research evaluation, its role, and the criticisms levelled at it. An analysis of specific problems in economics leads to a full discussion of the Open Peer Review (OPR) system developed by the World Economics Association (WEA) and the principles behind it. The system is open in the following two respects: (a) disclosure of names of authors and reviewers; and (b) inclusivity of potential reviewers in terms of paradigmatic approaches, country, and community. The paper then discusses the applicability of the same system to other disciplines. In doing so, it stressed the aims of various evaluation systems and the possible pitfalls of rating systems. It also speculates on the future of journal publication.

The Evaluation of Research Papers (Or How to Get an Academic Committee to Agree on Something)

The College of Commerce and Finance at Villanova University sponsors an annual research awards program. Its objectives are to encourage and reward faculty research efforts. The process of selecting papers to win the award turned out to be far more complex than we initially expected. After many unsuccessful attempts at developing a manageable procedure, we used the analytic hierarchy process to structure the selection process. We have used this approach for the last three years without any serious problems. The faculty and external advisors using the system believe that it can better capture the subjective judgments of the evaluators than any of the previous approaches.