Mapping the quantity, quality and structural indicators of Asian (48 countries and 3 territories) research productivity on cloud computing

PurposeThe purpose of this study was to map the quantity (frequency), quality (impact) and structural indicators (correlations) of research produced on cloud computing in 48 countries and 3 territories in the Asia continent.Design/methodology/approachTo achieve the objectives of the study and scientifically map the indicators, data were extracted from the Scopus database. The extracted bibliographic data was first cleaned properly using Endnote and then analyzed using Biblioshiny and VosViewer application software. In the software, calculations include citations count; h, g and m indexes; Bradford's and Lotka's laws; and other scientific mappings.FindingsResults of the study indicate that China remained the most productive, impactful and collaborative country in Asia. All the top 20 impactful authors were also from China. The other most researched areas associated with cloud computing were revealed to be mobile cloud computing and data security in clouds. The most prominent journal currently publishing research studies on cloud computing was “Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing.”Originality/valueThe study is the first of its kind which identified the quantity (frequencies), quality (impact) and structural indicators (correlations) of Asian (48 countries and 3 territories) research productivity on cloud computing. The results are of great importance for researchers and countries interested in further exploring, publishing and increasing cross country collaborations related to the phenomenon of cloud computing.

Global research mapping on reproductive health: a bibliometric visualisation analysis

Purpose This study aims to examine the research productivity and network visualisation on reproductive health (RH) domain with several bibliometric indicators and applied visualisation approach in co-authorship, citation, co-occurrence of keywords and bibliographic coupling analysis in the area of RH. Design/methodology/approach This study used bibliometric indicators to determine the highly productive authors, source title, documents and organisations. This study used Web of Science database and retrieved a total of 18,186 scientific publications on the domain of RH published during the period of 2010–2020. Data analysis was also performed using VOS viewer software and RStudio. Findings The findings discovered the increasing trends of research publications in reproductive health in past ten years. The USA UK, China and Australia were the top four productive countries in terms of publishing research in the arena, and “Kishsin DM” and “Hauser R” have secured in top two positions under highly prolific authors category. University of California, Harvard University and University of London were observed under the top three productive institutions in the domain. This study also revealed association and collaboration among authors, country and institutions in the visualisation analysis. The core findings of co-occurrence of keywords emphasised that “RH,” “assisted reproductive technology,” “women,” “pregnancy” and “in-vitro fertilization” were established frequently used keywords and have robust link strength. Practical implications The findings will be helpful to the researchers to know about the status of latest trends and development of the domain. This study is also helpful to the library authority for collection development in the specific subject domain. Originality/value To the best of the authors’ knowledge, there was no past study found on the evaluation of research productivity and network visualisation in the domain of RH, which is a globally important issue.

Factors Influencing Faculty Publication Performance: A Grounded Theory Analysis

The study's major goal was to develop a theoretical model for the elements that influence ESSU faculty members' publication performance. The following conclusions were drawn using the grounded theory technique of qualitative research and the theoretical sampling procedure in the deciding to involve a total of 16 participants: favorable research atmosphere defined by the availability of funding support for publication fee, publication incentive, availability of technical support service, low workload in instruction and administration; research exposure and peer influence; favorable attitude toward publication; and belief in the beneficial effects of publication are the factors that lead to high publication performance. An unfavorable research environment, lack of exposure to research or weak research background, and a negative attitude toward research and publishing research results are all variables that contribute to poor publication performance. Furthermore, faculty members with excellent publishing performance were acknowledged in the scientific world, and a strong research track record led to funding opportunities and peer reviewer positions in scientific journals. Fortunately, the faculty members' academic rank rose as a result of their high publication performance.

Editors publishing in their own journals – a systematic review of prevalence and a discussion of normative aspects

Journal editors are the main gatekeepers in scientific publishing. Yet there is a concern that they may receive preferential treatment when submitting manuscripts to their own journals. The prevalence of such self-publishing is not known, nor the consequences for reliability and trustworthiness of published research. This study aimed to systematically review the literature on the prevalence of editors publishing in their own journals and to conduct a normative ethical analysis of this practice. A systematic review was performed using the following databases: Medline, PsycInfo, Scopus, and Web of Science. Articles that provided primary data about editors publishing in own journals were included. We identified 15 studies meeting inclusion criteria. There was large variability of self-publishing across fields, journals, and editors, ranging from those who never published in their own journal to those publishing extensively in their own journal. Many studies suffered from serious methodological limitations. Nevertheless, our results show that there are settings where levels of self-publication are very high. We recommend that editors-in-chief and associate editors who have considerable power in journals refrain from publishing research articles in their own journals. Journals should have clear processes in place about treatment of articles submitted by editorial board members.

A PubMed-Based Exploration of the Course of Yoga Research from 1948 to 2020

Yoga research citations from 1948 to 2020 in PubMed were filtered and sorted in 10-year intervals to explore the occurrence and time frame of change in (1) the focus of research; (2) the number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), systematic reviews (SRs), and meta-analyses (MAs); (3) health conditions researched for yoga as therapy; (4) journals with yoga research; and (5) the research on yoga from different countries. Publications on yoga between 1948 and 1970 (1.25%) focused on exceptional abilities of experienced yoga practitioners, apparently related to the spiritual goal of yoga; from 1971 to 2000 (6.87%), the focus was on yoga in health and therapy; and from 2001 to 2020 (91.88%), research publications on yoga increased and continued to focus on health and therapy, with fewer RCTs relative to the SRs and MAs on yoga in PubMed. Publications on yoga reported the following health conditions most often: from 1981 to 1990, (1) asthma, (2) stress, and (3) diabetes; from 1991 to 2000, (1) stress followed by (2) asthma, anxiety, and pain (all three with equal percentages); from 2001 to 2010, (1) depression, (2) stress, and (3) anxiety; and from 2011 to 2020, (1) stress, (2) depression, and (3) pain. The journals publishing research on yoga in PubMed have changed between 1971 and 2020 as follows: highly clinically relevant, broad-interest medical journals (1971 to 1990); journals relevant to mind-body interventions (1991 to 2000); and specialized journals for complementary and alternative medicine, particular branches of medicine, or research study designs (2001 to 2020). The highest yoga research output from 1971 to 1980 came from the United Kingdom (RCTs); from 1981 to 1990 the most research came from the United States (RCTs); from 1991 to 2000 the most research came from India (RCTs) and the United Kingdom (SRs); from 2001 to 2010 the most research came from the United States (RCTs, SRs) and the United Kingdom (MAs); and from 2011 to 2020 the most research came from the United States (RCTs, SRs, MAs). The trends in yoga research from this analysis reflect increased research related to yoga and health while suggesting areas for future research based on the strengths and gaps that have emerged.

Internationalization vs Englishization in Italian higher education

This chapter investigates the concepts of internationalization/ internazionalizzazione and Englishization/anglicizzazione as used by academics publishing research about Italian higher education in English and Italian. We seek to understand whether internationalization is understood principally as Englishization, and to investigate the resonance of the terms in context. Methodologically, three corpora are analysed within a corpus-assisted discourse studies approach. The f indings indicate that internationalization is presented in a neutral light, is not construed exclusively as Englishization, which is used invariably as a negative term indicating an invasive process from which Italian academia needs to defend itself. The research suggests reconsidering the role of English as a way of making Italian academic culture more accessible to international audiences, rather than a threat to its identity.

(In)equity in peer review in CSD: A tutorial

Under review at the American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology. Purpose: The field of communication sciences and disorders (CSD) faces a critical shortage of faculty to train the next generation of practitioners and researchers, as well as of minorities from marginalized backgrounds. In parallel, the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) has committed to advancing diversity, equity, and inclusion by retaining and advancing Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) faculty in CSD. Given that publishing research is central to retention and advancement, this tutorial addresses the challenge of inequity in peer review and provides some practical strategies for developing equitable peer review practices.Method: We describe the demographics of ASHA constituents, including those holding research doctorates, who would typically be involved in peer review. Next, we explore the peer review process, describing examples from an ASHA journal to emphasize how inequity in peer review may adversely impact BIPOC authors or research with BIPOC communities. Finally, we offer real-world examples of and a framework for equitable peer review.Conclusions: Inequity at the individual and systemic levels in peer review can harm BIPOC CSD authors. Such inequity has effects not limited to peer review itself and exerts long-term adverse effects on the retention and advancement of BIPOC faculty in CSD. To uphold ASHA’s commitment to DEI and to progress the field of CSD, it is imperative to build equity into the editorial structure for publishing, the composition of editorial boards, and journals content. While we focus on inequity in the field of CSD, these issues are relevant to other fields.