|
on Sociology of Economics |
| By: | Maria Dolores Montoya Diaz; Fernando Antonio Slaibe Postali |
| Abstract: | Attention to issues of scientific integrity and the dissemination of good research practice have grown in all areas. The purpose of this article is to investigate how the guidelines for authors of Brazilian academic journals in the area of Economics are structured on several topics related to the widely accepted good practices of research. The analysis evidenced the absence of important requirements and even a lack of mention of ethical aspects in research. We have also found that three journals have made great progress in this direction and can serve as a basis for perfecting the whole system. Greater dissemination, both through the adoption of more explicit policies by journals and the incorporation of ethics in research in undergraduate and postgraduate programs have the potential to contribute to the dissemination of good research practices and consequently to the improvement of the quality of Brazilian research in Economics. |
| Keywords: | Ethics; Research misconduct; Brazil; Economic Journals; Submission Guidelines |
| JEL: | B49 A13 |
| Date: | 2019–12–12 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:spa:wpaper:2019wpecon49&r=all |
| By: | Abdelghani Maddi (CEPN - Centre d'Economie de l'Université Paris Nord - UP13 - Université Paris 13 - USPC - Université Sorbonne Paris Cité - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique) |
| Abstract: | The issue of Open Access (OA) in research is attracting growing interest both within the scientific community and on the political scene. Some centers specializing in the production of science indicators now include OA indicators by institution. In its 2019 ranking, the Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS) provides a ranking of institutions according to their share of open access publications. This gives an idea of the degree of openness of institutions. However, the fact of not taking into account the disciplinary specificities and the specialization of the institutions makes the rankings based on the shares of the OA publications biased. We show that open access publishing practices vary considerably by discipline. As a result, we propose two methods of normalization of OA share; by WoS subject categories and by OST disciplines. Normalization corrects OA's share taking into account disciplinary practices. This allows a better comparability of different actors. Abstract The issue of Open Access (OA) in research is attracting growing interest both within the scientific community and on the political scene. Some centers specializing in the production of science indicators now include OA indicators by institution. In its 2019 ranking, the Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS) provides a ranking of institutions according to their share of open access publications. This gives an idea of the degree of openness of institutions. However, the fact of not taking into account the disciplinary specificities and the specialization of the institutions makes the rankings based on the shares of the OA publications biased. We show that open access publishing practices vary considerably by discipline. As a result, we propose two methods of normalization of OA share; by WoS subject categories and by OST disciplines. Normalization corrects OA's share taking into account disciplinary practices. This allows a better comparability of different actors. |
| Keywords: | ranking,institution,normalisation,Open Access,bibliometrics |
| Date: | 2019–10–23 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:hal:wpaper:hal-02328158&r=all |
| By: | Bart Thijs |
| Abstract: | Science mapping using document networks is based on the assumption that scientific papers are indivisible units with unique links to neighbour documents. Research on proximity in co-citation analysis and the study of lexical properties of sections and citation contexts indicate that this assumption is questionable. Moreover, the meaning of words and co-words depends on the context in which they appear. This study proposes the use of a neural network architecture for word and paragraph embeddings (Doc2Vec) for the measurement of similarity among those smaller units of analysis. It is shown that paragraphs in the ‘Introduction’ and the ‘Discussion’ section are more similar to the abstract, that the similarity among paragraphs is related to -but not linearly- the distance between the paragraphs. The ‘Methodology’ section is least similar to the other sections. Abstracts of citing-cited documents are more similar than random pairs and the context in which a reference appears is most similar to the abstract of the cited document. This novel approach with higher granularity can be used for bibliometric aided retrieval and to assist in measuring interdisciplinarity through the application of network-based centrality measures. |
| Date: | 2019–02–11 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:ete:ecoomp:633963&r=all |
| By: | Hamuddin, Budianto; , Dahler; Wardi, Jeni |
| Abstract: | Post print in ISOL 3, Universitas Andalas, Padang. 2017. This study tries to analyze the dominance strategy of politeness used by authors in order to bring about solidarity and respect in selected economic journals. The corpus consists of 78.064 words from 12 different articles from one reputable Economic journal in the United States namely the Economic Growth Journal (EG). The data were taken from six years latest where this study conducted in 2012. The conceptual framework of the present study based on the politeness theory by Brown and Levinson (1978) alongside the application onto scientific writing by Myers (1989) and persuasive tactics proposed by Mulholland (1994). This study calculated in a total of 591 times the authors employ the tactics in order to maintain solidarity and respect in their articles. Positive politeness strategies seem to be the highest frequency (258 times) than the other 3 strategies. The data also reveals that EG authors have used 8 tactics in this strategy and it seems the 3 most used tactics was; by using in-group identity marker (62 times), using an in-group pronoun (59 times), and by informing readers about their research (40 times). This study clearly sees that the strategies and tactics employed by the authors in EG journal has a purposes to bring about solidarity and respect used by EG authors in their articles somehow used to reach the demands of the academic discourse community that expects scientific language to be objective and formal however not losing its intimacy with the economic community members and this is seems in line with the nature of positive politeness strategies. |
| Date: | 2018–03–21 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:osf:inarxi:p75gw&r=all |
| By: | Doyle, Cathal (Victoria University of Wellington); Luczak-Roesch, Markus (Victoria University of Wellington) |
| Abstract: | Registered reports (RR) are a part of open science where the aim is to improve the rigor of studies, while reducing publication biases, by encouraging researchers to preregister their study by first publishing their research idea, and study design to get feedback from peers before collecting and analysing their data. However, while these benefits could improve the rigor and reliability of DSR studies, there is no evidence of any research using RR, both from a conceptual perspective to understand RR in DSR, or using them to conduct DSR. To begin addressing this problem, this study provides such an understanding of RR from a DSR perspective, and identifies benefits to the discipline. The outcome is a method for creating RR for DSR projects which was built by implementing a RR for this very study where a problem is identified and a study design is outlined which can be viewed here: https://osf.io/9g5au. This paper is a preprint of a paper accepted at HICSS 2020 (https://hicss.hawaii.edu/). |
| Date: | 2019–07–26 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:osf:osfxxx:d8hej&r=all |