Dynamics of Business Models in Industry-Wide Collaborative Networks for Circularity

Incumbent B2B manufacturing companies join forces and form collaborative networks, called consortia, aiming to increase the circularity of their products. Our research interest lies in the understanding of how the business models (BM) of the companies and the industry are affected by such collaborations in the collaborative networks of the circular economy (CE). Given the exploratory nature of our empirical research, we applied a mixed research strategy of an inductively deductive nature. We carried out case studies in a manufacturing industry field and combined them with quantitative content analyses of the companies’ financial and non-financial reports. Drawing on the assumptions of the Attention-Based View Theory and Legitimacy Theory, we defined and found verbally communicated identifiers of BM elements, CE strategies, and collaborative networks, quantified their occurrences, and transformed them into variables. Using correlation analyses, we determined the tightness and the changes in relationships between the BMs’ elements and CE strategies. We examined the dynamic changes in the structure of BMs and their elements occurring within the implementation of selected CE strategies. Our findings suggest that collaborative networks for CE support an adaptation of the industry’s BMs. The higher-level CE strategies impact the BM more than the lower-level ones. The contribution of our research is in the suggested method of quantification and concretization of an abstract concept of BMs’ elements and their interrelations. This enables an assessment and a direct comparison of BMs, as well as of implemented CE strategies across companies and across industries. Our results also shed more light on the way the companies and industries adapt their BMs towards reaching circularity, as well as on how collaborative networks support such a transition.

QGIS a constatly growing free and open-source geospatial software contributing to scientific development

QGIS is the most popular free geospatial software in the world. QGIS belongs to the Open-Source Geospatial Foundation (OSGeo). Among the main strengths of this Geographic Information Systems are: the incorporation of tools via plugins, and a community of users and developers in constant growth. Despite the importance on the use of QGIS on the scientific community, to date there are no systematic studies indicating how the acceptance of this software has evolved through time. Therefore, the objective of this research was to characterize the scientific production and extent where QGIS has been used as their main geospatial tool. We conducted a bibliometric analysis of documents published in Scopus from 2005 to 2020 (931 manuscripts). The annual rate of publications increase was 40.3%. We found strong and positive correlations regarding the number of contributing code programmers (r=0.66, p0.005); and the total income of the QGIS project (r=0.88, p0.001). Seventy-two percent of the publications were included in six fields of study, being Earth and Planetary Sciences the most representative. Italy was the country with larger scientific production, while the USA was the most influential country (being the first, regarding the number of citations). In terms of the countries, the larger number of papers found were from Portugal, Italy, Brazil, and France. The International Archives of the Photogrammetry Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences - ISPRS Archives stands among journals with the largest number of publications (47). In terms of collaborative networks among countries, we found strong links between authors from Germany, Switzerland, Greece, and Spain. Author network analysis showed three solid networks in different fields of study. We observed a favorable trend in the acceptance of QGIS across the world and a widespread development of collaborative networks. The present paper allowed increase the knowledge of geographic information systems, especially the development of scientific production using QGIS.

Study of the Most Valuable Researcher: Bibliometric Indicators and Collaboration Networks

This work seeks to find the Most Valuable Researcher (MVR) within the academics of Faculties of Engineering and Business of a University in Chile, applying bibliometric indicators and collaboration networks. The methodology consisted in reviewing the literature referring to similar bibliometric studies from open databases, such as SciELO and Google Scholar. As a result of the study, a model was proposed based on the main bibliometric indicators used, with it was possible to filter the researchers from both faculties and establish a ranking with those academics with the best results and the current situation facing the research in each unit. This ranking indicates the standard that the most valuable researchers have, identifying that the variable “collaborative networks” has a direct relationship with the productivity of researchers and, also, the existence of correlations with indicators of network grade, co-authorship, and research area. This work seeks to deliver recommendations on the quantity and quality of scientific production within the University. Future research should include other databases and expand the scope by region, country, and area of expertise, and consider other factors such as the age of the researcher, forms of citation, and characteristics by area of knowledge, as well as deepen the concept of MVR, and its virtuous effect on the productivity of an academic unit.

Closing the circle: a key collaborative opportunity for general practice and psychiatry

Two of the authors were general practitioners (GPs) in the 1980s, when there was much interest in consultation, stimulated by the psychoanalyst Michael Balint. Around one in five psychiatrists worked in consultation liaison in general practice at that time, but in the 1990s this was stopped to increase the focus on psychosis. However, the Royal College of Psychiatrists and Royal College of General Practitioners have a strong history of collaboration, and many psychiatrists, nurses and GPs trained together in the national Trailblazers programme, focusing on service delivery in all areas of mental health. Recent proposals for mental health community collaborative networks from the NHS provide an opportunity for psychiatrists to work with GPs and a range of other professionals once more, for complex non-psychotic illness that cannot be helped by Improving Access to Psychological Therapies services. The circle is closing for GPs like us, who were working in the 1980s.

Accountability in Collaborative Federal Programs—Multidimensional and Multilevel Performance Measures Needed: The Case of Wildland Fire Prevention

Collaborative programs among Federal agencies, state and local agencies, and private sector organizations are often prescribed to address difficult interdisciplinary and intersectoral problems. Accountability for these efforts is difficult to achieve and has frequently proved elusive. This research explores the nature of the accountability dilemma in collaborative programs and analyzes and illustrates them in the context of wildland fire prevention in the United States. It suggests a multilevel–multimeasurement approach is key to achieving a fuller picture of accountability in collaborative networks.

Geology Uprooted! Decolonising the Curriculum for Geologists

Geology is colonial. It has a colonial past, and a colonial present. The majority of the knowledge we accept as the modern discipline of geology was founded during the height of the early modern European Empires colonial expansion. Knowledge is not neutral and its creation and use can be damaging to individuals and peoples. The concept of knowledge being colonial or colonised has gathered attention recently, but this concept can be misunderstood or difficult to engage with by individuals who are not familiar or trained to work with the literature on the issue. This paper aims to demystify Decolonising the Curriculum, particularly with respect to geology. We explain what Decolonising the Curriculum is, and outline frameworks and terminology often found in decolonising literature. We discuss how geology is based on colonised knowledge and what effects this may have. We explore how we might decolonise the subject and most importantly, why it matters. Together, through collaborative networks, we need to decolonise geology to ensure our discipline is inclusive, accessible to all and relevant to the grand challenges facing our civilization.

Mapping coronavirus research: quantitative and visualization approaches

PurposeThe present study aims to measure the global research landscape on coronavirus indexed in the Web of Science from 1989 to 2020. The study examines growth rates, authorship trends, institutional productivity, collaborative networks and prominent authors, institutions and countries.Design/methodology/approachThe research literature on coronavirus published globally and indexed in the Web of Science core collection was retrieved using the term “Coronavirus” and its related and synonymous terms (e.g. COVID-19, SARS-COV, SARS-COV-2 and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus) as per the Medical List of Subject Headings. A total of 5,625 publications were retrieved; however, the study was restricted to articles only (i.e. 4,471), and other document types were excluded. Quantitative and visualization techniques were used for data analysis and interpretation. VOSViewer software was employed to map collaborative networks of authors, institutions and countries.FindingsA total of 4,471 articles have been published on coronavirus by 99 countries of the world with the maximum contribution from the USA, followed by the People's Republic of China. The United States, China, Canada, Netherlands and Germany are the front runners in the collaborative network and form strong sub-networks with other countries as well. More than 1,000 institutions collaborate in the field of coronavirus research among 99 contributing countries. The authorship pattern shows that 97.5% of publications are contributed by authors in collaboration in which 77.5% of publications are contributed by four or more than four authors. The range between degree of collaboration (DC) varies from 0.89 in 1993 to 1 in 2000 with an average of 0.96 from 1989 to 2020. The results confirm that the coronavirus research is carried out in teamwork at the individual, institutional and global levels with high magnitude and density of collaboration. The relative growth of the literature has shown inconsistency as a decreasing trend has been observed from 2007 onwards, thereby increasing the doubling time from 4.2 in the first ten years to 17.3 in the last ten years.Research limitationsThe study is limited to the publications indexed in the Web of Science; the findings cannot be generalized across other databases.Practical implicationsThe results of the study may help medical scientists to identify the progress in COVID-19 research. Besdies, it will help to identify the prolific authors, institutions and countries in the development of research.Social implicationsThe current COVID-19 pandemic poses urgent and prolonged threats to the health and well-being of the population worldwide. It has not only attacked the health of the people but the economy of nations as well. Therefore, it is feasible to know the research landscape of the disease to conquer the problem.Originality/valueThe current COVID-19 pandemic poses urgent and prolonged threats to the health and well-being of the population worldwide. It has not only attacked the health of the people but also the economy of nations as well. Therefore, it is feasible to know the research landscape of the disease to conquer the problem.