Accounting for Impact’s Post

The Methods Section (Part 1) ✨ Why Methods Matter ✨ 🔬 The Methods section was once the part of a paper most likely to be abbreviated, overly summarized, or hidden away on publishers’ websites. While some journals still place additional details in supplementary sections, the push for greater reproducibility and scientific rigor has brought the Methods section back to center stage. 📊 Today, Methods are essential for establishing research credibility, alongside open access to data and results. This shift emphasizes transparency and trustworthiness, giving readers the information they need to evaluate and replicate studies. Source: https://lnkd.in/ga8gVRi2 🔗 #WhyMethodsMatter #ResearchMethods #ScientificRigor Abdul-Aziz Seidu, PhD REMS Consult

Mistakes are inevitable, but persisting in them without correction compromises scientific reliability and can harm patient care. Issues often arise from irreproducibility, with some flawed findings being reproduced due to repeated errors or incorrect assumptions. While retractions occur for fraudulent or glaring mistakes, many flawed articles remain, continuing to mislead. Scientific progress necessitates academic transparency, critical appraisal, and quick rectification. The explosion of publications has heightened noise levels, making post-publication scrutiny challenging, and the rise of predatory journals and scientific fraud exacerbates the issue. Addressing this crisis requires a commitment to publishing corrections and fostering open discussions about scientific data. The challenge lies in balancing the benefits of increased scientific output with the need to maintain accuracy and trust in research. 🔗 Read the full paper: https://lnkd.in/gr3xGzqF --   - #research #researchpublication #researchexcellence #researchpaper #researchstudy #researchpapers #researchinsights

Key open-access papers of #ICT4D Analyzing e-government research: perspectives, philosophies, theories, methods, and practice: https://lnkd.in/eFBZ2rfN

Maybe not fully reliable but an indicative metric....

A new CFA research article on the use of questionable research practices has received attention in several media outlets: In the newly published research article “Is something rotten in the state of Denmark? Cross-national evidence for widespread involvement but not systematic use of questionable research practices across all fields of research” authored by several CFA researchers, questionable research practices (QRP) are assessed. The article presents the hitherto most comprehensive study examining QRPs across scholarly fields and knowledge production modes. The paper surveys perception, use, prevalence and predictors of QRPs among researchers in Denmark and in the UK, USA, Croatia and Austria. 9 out of 10 respondents admitted using at least one QRP. On average, prevalence rates were roughly three times lower compared to selfreported use. The paper's findings have been discussed in Weekendavisen and ScienceReport. Read more about the paper and the media coverage of the paper here:

I don't like virtue-signalling, but here we are talking about slandering someone's name and reputation for no reason other than some social media clout. The poster below is falsely attacking Prof. John P.A. Ioannidis for supposedly NOT being among the authors of the extremely well-cited paper highlighted in the screenshot. However, this paper lists the members of a research group called PRISMA as being among the co-authors, and if one expands PRISMA's link, John P.A. Ioannidis' name can be easily found. I believe that actively opposing predatory journal practices, index worshipping, citation hoarding, slaving away PhD students in research paper mills, and "publishing or perishing", is a sign of collegiality and solidarity in the academic community. What is NOT a sign of collegiality or solidarity however, is slandering one's name without bothering to check what you're talking about. I don't even know John P.A. Ioannidis and his scientific field couldn't be further removed from mine, but seeing this post INFURIATED me. I would expect the reposter below, who is a PhD scholar, and the original poster to whom the credits are given, to be more careful with this. Both the original poster and the reposter should delete this post IMMEDIATELY.

Recent movements (sponsored by the EU) for changing research assessment advocate more emphasis on peer review. This policy proposal neglects the economics of research assessment. Research institutions (especially resource-poor ones) face sharp costs in terms of researchers' time for peer review. Conversely, appropriate quantitative metrics serve as a public good and can empower resource-poor institutions. https://lnkd.in/eEUrv5en

Dear Colleagues, We are pleased to extend a warm welcome to you for The International Conference on Business and Technology (#ICBTOxford’2024), organized by the #EuroMid Academy of Business and Technology. #ICBTOxford’2024 will be hosted by the University of #Oxford, #UK, and is scheduled to take place on November 21-22, 2024 at Lady Margaret Hall, #Norham Gardens, the University of Oxford, #Oxford, United Kingdom. Event Details: Date: November 21-22, 2024, Location: Lady Margaret Hall, Norham Gardens, the University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom. Mode: Hybrid (Online and Physically). We are excited to announce that the ICBTOxford’2024‎ symposium has garnered technical support from #SpringerNature’s proceedings. The Conference Proceedings will be indexed by renowned platforms such as SCOPUS, Google Scholar, and #Springerlink. Furthermore, this conference proceedings will be assigned an ISBN number by #SpringerNature. Selected papers will ‎be featured in special and regular issues of the following journals.‎ Journal of Strategic Marketing, Spacial Issue, Taylor & Francis, (#Scopus, Q1). Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting, Special Issue No. 1 – Emerald Publishing, (Scopus, Q1).‎ Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting, Special Issue No. 2– Emerald Publishing, (Scopus, Q1).‎ FIIB Business Review, Regular Issue, SAGE Publications (ABS, Scopus, Q1). Discover Sustainability Journal, Special Issue– Springer (Emerging Sources Citation Index (#ESCI), #SCOPUS, and #DOAJ). Journal of Business and Socio-economic Development (JBSED), Special Issue– Emerald The International Journal of Business Ethics and Governance (#IJBEG), Special Issue-EMBAT. Arab Journal of Administrative Sciences, Kuwait University, Kuwait. For more details, https://lnkd.in/dGFaty6h Business: #Accounting, #Banking, #Economics, #Entrepreneurship, #Finance, #Marketing, Supply Chain, Logistics, Transportation, Tourism, Hospitality, Health Care, Human Resource, Government, Management, Administration. Technology: Applied Sciences, #Animation, #Communication, #InformationTechnology, #InformationSystem, #Multimedia, #IR 4.0, Engineering Technology, Environmental Science, Power and Energy Engineering, Renewable Energy. October 1, 2024: Deadline for Full Paper Submissions November 10, 2024: Notification of Paper Acceptance or Rejection November 15, 2024: Deadline for Registration Payment of Accepted Authors November 21-22, 2024: Conference Dates https://lnkd.in/dmaBgYJa Best Regards, Prof. Dr. Khaled Hussainey ICBTOxford’2024‎ Chair Oxford, United Kingdom. www.icbtoxford.com  www.confmanage.com  Email: [email protected]

RESEARCH TIPS 4 FIVE BETTER HOOKS FOR RESEARCH Instead of claiming “No previous studies have investigated... ”, emphasize the following points: Emphasize the research novelty Don't focus on the absence of previous research. 1. Claim the originality of your proposed research. Example: "This study proposes a unique approach to [topic] building on [X] theories. We introduce a new methodology to address [specific gaps].“ 2.    Acknowledge existing research & identify gaps Emphasize studies have addressed the topic. But focus on limitations in existing knowledge. Example: "While previous studies have explored X and Y, they have primarily focused on [aspect Z] and not adequately addressed [gaps]." 3.    Identify practical applications or unsolved issues Draw attention to practical implications. Show unanswered remaining questions. Example: "The lack of understanding of [topic] stops us from [practical application]. This raises questions about [specific open questions].“ 4.    Show why we need more conclusive research Outline where existing conclusions stop. Promote more comprehensive research. Example: "Existing studies show [topic insights], but the field lacks a comprehensive understanding of [specific aspect] because of [obvious limitations]." 5.    Encourage longitudinal or comparative studies Push for studies to deepen knowledge. Add longitudinal or comparative parts. Example: "While cross-sectional studies have provided [existing topic insights], we need [longitudinal] studies to examine [changes over time]." What is the number ONE hook you would use for your research? Captivate. Convince. Compel. Follow me for more research tips. #DrDeyWorkshop

The pace of scientific publishing is accelerating at an exponential rate. New papers, preprints, and datasets flood our inboxes every day, making it increasingly challenging to stay up to date in our fields—let alone adjacent ones. It’s a systemic challenge with significant implications for the quality and impact of research. As researchers, it might be time to ask how can we adapt to ensure that our work remains rigorous and impactful? And funders should question the criteria (publication output?) behind funding decisions. The above is nicely summarized and explained in this paper. Some of the conclusions are very likely to be consistent with some of our existing gut-feelings, but as scientists we want to see the actual numbers of course. https://lnkd.in/eDhdSfbU #ScienceFunding #AcademicPublishing