The Experts below are selected from a list of 198840 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Austin L Reitenga - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
a cross discipline comparison of top tier academic Journal Publication rates 1997 1999
Journal of Accounting Education, 2002Co-Authors: Steve Buchheit, Denton Collins, Austin L ReitengaAbstract:Abstract We examine “top-tier” academic Journal Publications in four major business disciplines (accounting, finance, management, and marketing) during the 1997 through 1999 time period. We document cross-discipline differences with respect to the number of articles published per discipline and the types of institutions that capture these Publications. Specifically, the accounting discipline has considerably fewer top-tier articles published relative to other business disciplines. In addition, a significantly higher percentage of accounting top-tier Publications are written by authors with top 20 academic affiliation relative to the top-tier Publications in other business disciplines. Other cross-discipline differences are also documented.
-
A cross-discipline comparison of top-tier academic Journal Publication rates: 1997–1999
Journal of Accounting Education, 2002Co-Authors: Steve Buchheit, Denton Collins, Austin L ReitengaAbstract:Abstract We examine “top-tier” academic Journal Publications in four major business disciplines (accounting, finance, management, and marketing) during the 1997 through 1999 time period. We document cross-discipline differences with respect to the number of articles published per discipline and the types of institutions that capture these Publications. Specifically, the accounting discipline has considerably fewer top-tier articles published relative to other business disciplines. In addition, a significantly higher percentage of accounting top-tier Publications are written by authors with top 20 academic affiliation relative to the top-tier Publications in other business disciplines. Other cross-discipline differences are also documented.
Steve Buchheit - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
a cross discipline comparison of top tier academic Journal Publication rates 1997 1999
Journal of Accounting Education, 2002Co-Authors: Steve Buchheit, Denton Collins, Austin L ReitengaAbstract:Abstract We examine “top-tier” academic Journal Publications in four major business disciplines (accounting, finance, management, and marketing) during the 1997 through 1999 time period. We document cross-discipline differences with respect to the number of articles published per discipline and the types of institutions that capture these Publications. Specifically, the accounting discipline has considerably fewer top-tier articles published relative to other business disciplines. In addition, a significantly higher percentage of accounting top-tier Publications are written by authors with top 20 academic affiliation relative to the top-tier Publications in other business disciplines. Other cross-discipline differences are also documented.
-
A cross-discipline comparison of top-tier academic Journal Publication rates: 1997–1999
Journal of Accounting Education, 2002Co-Authors: Steve Buchheit, Denton Collins, Austin L ReitengaAbstract:Abstract We examine “top-tier” academic Journal Publications in four major business disciplines (accounting, finance, management, and marketing) during the 1997 through 1999 time period. We document cross-discipline differences with respect to the number of articles published per discipline and the types of institutions that capture these Publications. Specifically, the accounting discipline has considerably fewer top-tier articles published relative to other business disciplines. In addition, a significantly higher percentage of accounting top-tier Publications are written by authors with top 20 academic affiliation relative to the top-tier Publications in other business disciplines. Other cross-discipline differences are also documented.
Denton Collins - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
a cross discipline comparison of top tier academic Journal Publication rates 1997 1999
Journal of Accounting Education, 2002Co-Authors: Steve Buchheit, Denton Collins, Austin L ReitengaAbstract:Abstract We examine “top-tier” academic Journal Publications in four major business disciplines (accounting, finance, management, and marketing) during the 1997 through 1999 time period. We document cross-discipline differences with respect to the number of articles published per discipline and the types of institutions that capture these Publications. Specifically, the accounting discipline has considerably fewer top-tier articles published relative to other business disciplines. In addition, a significantly higher percentage of accounting top-tier Publications are written by authors with top 20 academic affiliation relative to the top-tier Publications in other business disciplines. Other cross-discipline differences are also documented.
-
A cross-discipline comparison of top-tier academic Journal Publication rates: 1997–1999
Journal of Accounting Education, 2002Co-Authors: Steve Buchheit, Denton Collins, Austin L ReitengaAbstract:Abstract We examine “top-tier” academic Journal Publications in four major business disciplines (accounting, finance, management, and marketing) during the 1997 through 1999 time period. We document cross-discipline differences with respect to the number of articles published per discipline and the types of institutions that capture these Publications. Specifically, the accounting discipline has considerably fewer top-tier articles published relative to other business disciplines. In addition, a significantly higher percentage of accounting top-tier Publications are written by authors with top 20 academic affiliation relative to the top-tier Publications in other business disciplines. Other cross-discipline differences are also documented.
Jinseok Kim - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
author based analysis of conference versus Journal Publication in computer science
Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2019Co-Authors: Jinseok KimAbstract:Conference Publications in computer science (CS) have attracted scholarly attention due to their unique status as a main research outlet, unlike other science fields where Journals are dominantly used for communicating research findings. One frequent research question has been how different conference and Journal Publications are, considering an article as a unit of analysis. This study takes an author‐based approach to analyze the publishing patterns of 517,763 scholars who have ever published both in CS conferences and Journals for the last 57 years, as recorded in DBLP. The analysis shows that the majority of CS scholars tend to make their scholarly debut, publish more articles, and collaborate with more coauthors in conferences than in Journals. Importantly, conference articles seem to serve as a distinct channel of scholarly communication, not a mere preceding step to Journal Publications: coauthors and title words of authors across conferences and Journals tend not to overlap much. This study corroborates findings of previous studies on this topic from a distinctive perspective and suggests that conference authorship in CS calls for more special attention from scholars and administrators outside CS who have focused on Journal Publications to mine authorship data and evaluate scholarly performance.
-
Author‐based analysis of conference versus Journal Publication in computer science
Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2018Co-Authors: Jinseok KimAbstract:Conference Publications in computer science (CS) have attracted scholarly attention due to their unique status as a main research outlet, unlike other science fields where Journals are dominantly used for communicating research findings. One frequent research question has been how different conference and Journal Publications are, considering an article as a unit of analysis. This study takes an author‐based approach to analyze the publishing patterns of 517,763 scholars who have ever published both in CS conferences and Journals for the last 57 years, as recorded in DBLP. The analysis shows that the majority of CS scholars tend to make their scholarly debut, publish more articles, and collaborate with more coauthors in conferences than in Journals. Importantly, conference articles seem to serve as a distinct channel of scholarly communication, not a mere preceding step to Journal Publications: coauthors and title words of authors across conferences and Journals tend not to overlap much. This study corroborates findings of previous studies on this topic from a distinctive perspective and suggests that conference authorship in CS calls for more special attention from scholars and administrators outside CS who have focused on Journal Publications to mine authorship data and evaluate scholarly performance.
-
author based analysis of conference versus Journal Publication in computer science
arXiv: Digital Libraries, 2018Co-Authors: Jinseok KimAbstract:Conference Publications in computer science (CS) have attracted scholarly attention due to their unique status as a main research outlet unlike other science fields where Journals are dominantly used for communicating research findings. One frequent research question has been how different conference and Journal Publications are, considering a paper as a unit of analysis. This study takes an author-based approach to analyze publishing patterns of 517,763 scholars who have ever published both in CS conferences and Journals for the last 57 years, as recorded in DBLP. The analysis shows that the majority of CS scholars tend to make their scholarly debut, publish more papers, and collaborate with more coauthors in conferences than in Journals. Importantly, conference papers seem to serve as a distinct channel of scholarly communication, not a mere preceding step to Journal Publications: coauthors and title words of authors across conferences and Journals tend not to overlap much. This study corroborates findings of previous studies on this topic from a distinctive perspective and suggests that conference authorship in CS calls for more special attention from scholars and administrators outside CS who have focused on Journal Publications to mine authorship data and evaluate scholarly performance.
Hussein Meihami - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Informetrics of Scientometrics abstracts: a rhetorical move analysis of the research abstracts published in Scientometrics Journal
Scientometrics, 2018Co-Authors: Naser Rashidi, Hussein MeihamiAbstract:The research abstracts have significant functions in the process of conveying information about each research. This is much important in the scientometrics field due to the informative nature of it. The information which a research abstract provides can be of different types. That said, the purpose of the current study was to investigate the information provided by the research abstracts published in the Scientometrics Journal during 1978–2017. To that end, we used a rhetorical move analysis method to analyze the research abstracts of the Scientometrics Journal. In this study, 4214 research abstracts in 113 volumes of the Scientometrics Journal were extracted from the original papers and reports and examined for their information based on Hyland’s (Disciplinary discourses: social interactions in academic writing, Longman London, 2000 ) five-move model. The results indicated that most of the information provided by the research abstracts during each decade of the Journal Publication and as a whole, was on method and results of the studies. Nevertheless, the least information both during each decade of the Journal Publication and as a whole, was on the conclusion of the studies. The results also revealed that there was a positive trajectory of development regarding information about introduction and purpose of the studies in the research abstracts. Thus, it can be concluded that there are some reasons such as situational options, community of practice, and the extent of the explicitness of the information which have effects on the information provided by the research abstracts.
