Are web mentions accurate substitutes for inlinks for Spanish universities?

This article is (c) Emerald Group Publishing and permission has been granted for this version to appear here. Emerald does not grant permission for this article to be further copied/distributed or hosted elsewhere without the express permission from Emerald Group Publishing Limitedurpose – Title and URL mentions have recently been proposed as web visibility indicators instead of inlink counts. The objective of this study is to determine the accuracy of these alternative web mention indicators in the Spanish academic system, taking into account their complexity (multi-domains) and diversity (different official languages). Design/methodology/approach – Inlinks, title and URL mentions from 76 Spanish universities were manually extracted from the main search engines (Google, Google Scholar, Yahoo!, Bing and Exalead). Several statistical methods, such as correlation, difference tests and regression models, were used. Findings – Web mentions, despite some limitations, can be used as substitutes for inlinks in the Spanish academic system, although these indicators are more likely to be influenced by the environment (language, web domain policy, etc.) than inlinks. Research limitations/implications – Title mentions provide unstable results caused by the multiple name variants which an institution can present (such as acronyms and other language versions). URL mentions are more stable, but they may present atypical points due to some shortcomings, the effect of which is that URL mentions do not have the same meaning as inlinks. Practical implications – Web mentions should be used with caution and after a cleaning-up process. Moreover, these counts do not necessarily signify connectivity, so their use in global web analysis should be limited. Originality/value – Web mentions have previously been used in some specific academic systems (US, UK and China), but this study analyses, in depth and for the first time, an entire non-English speaking European country (Spain), with complex academic web behaviour, which helps to better explain previous web mention results.Ortega, JL.; Orduña Malea, E.; Aguillo, IF. (2014). Are web mentions accurate substitutes for inlinks for Spanish universities?. Online Information Review. 38(1):59-77. doi:10.1108/OIR-10-2012-0189S5977381Adecannby, J. (2011), “Web link analysis of interrelationship between top ten African universities and world universities”, Annals of Library and Information Studies, Vol. 58 No. 2, pp. 128-138.Aguillo, I. (2009). Measuring the institution’s footprint in the web. Library Hi Tech, 27(4), 540-556. doi:10.1108/073788309Aguillo, I.F. , Ortega, J.L. and Fernández, M. (2008), “Webometric ranking of world universities: introduction, methodology, and future developments”, Higher Education in Europe, Vol. 33 Nos 2/3, pp. 234-244.Aguillo, I. F., Granadino, B., Ortega, J. L., & Prieto, J. A. (2006). Scientific research activity and communication measured with cybermetrics indicators. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(10), 1296-1302. doi:10.1002/asi.20433Barabási, A.-L., & Albert, R. (1999). Emergence of Scaling in Random Networks. Science, 286(5439), 509-512. doi:10.1126/science.286.5439.509Bar-Ilan, J. (2005). The use of web search engines in information science research. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 38(1), 231-288. doi:10.1002/aris.1440380106Bar-Ilan, J. (2004). A microscopic link analysis of academic institutions within a country - the case of Israel. Scientometrics, 59(3), 391-403. doi:10.1023/b:scie.0000018540.33706.c1Bar-Ilan, J. (2005). What do we know about links and linking? A framework for studying links in academic environments. Information Processing & Management, 41(4), 973-986. doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2004.02.005Björneborn, L., & Ingwersen, P. (2004). Toward a basic framework for webometrics. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 55(14), 1216-1227. doi:10.1002/asi.20077Bland, J.M. and Altman, D.G. (1996), “Transforming data”, British Medical Journal, Vol. 312 No. 7033, p.Cronin, B., Snyder, H. W., Rosenbaum, H., Martinson, A., & Callahan, E. (1998). Invoked on the Web. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49(14), 1319-1328. doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-4571(1998)49:143.0.co;2-wFriedman, M. (1937). The Use of Ranks to Avoid the Assumption of Normality Implicit in the Analysis of Variance. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 32(200), 675-701. doi:10.1080/01621459.1937.10503522Harries, G., Wilkinson, D., Price, L., Fairclough, R., & Thelwall, M. (2004). Hyperlinks as a data source for science mapping. Journal of Information Science, 30(5), 436-447. doi:10.1177/0165551504046736Heimeriks, G. and Van den Besselaar, P. (2006), “Analyzing hyperlink networks: the meaning of hyperlink based indicators of knowledge”, Cybermetrics, Vol. 10, available at: http://cybermetrics.cindoc.csic.es/articles/v10i1p1.pdf (accessed 10 July 2013).Heimeriks, G., Hörlesberger, M., & Van den Besselaar, P. (2003). Scientometrics, 58(2), 391-413. doi:10.1023/a:1026296812830Kousha, K. and Horri, A. (2004), “The relationship between scholarly publishing and the counts of academic inlinks to Iranian university web sites: exploring academic link creation motivations”, Journal of Information Management and Scientometrics, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 13-22.Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2009). Google book search: Citation analysis for social science and the humanities. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(8), 1537-1549. doi:10.1002/asi.21085Kretschmer, H., & Aguillo, I. F. (2004). Visibility of collaboration on the Web. Scientometrics, 61(3), 405-426. doi:10.1023/b:scie.0000045118.68430.fdOrduña-Malea, E. (2012), “Fuentes de enlaces web para análisis cibermétricos (2012)”, Anuario Thinkepi, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 276-280.Orduña-Malea, E. (2013), “Espacio universitario español en la Web (2010): estudio descriptivo de instituciones y productos académicos a través del análisis de subdominios y subdirectorios”, Revista Española de Documentación Científica, Vol. 36 No. 3.Orduña-Malea, E., & Ontalba-Ruipérez, J.-A. (2012). Proposal for a multilevel university cybermetric analysis model. Scientometrics, 95(3), 863-884. doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0868-5Orduña-Malea, E., Serrano-Cobos, J., Ontalba-Ruipérez, J. A., & Lloret-Romero, N. (2010). Presencia y visibilidad web de las universidades públicas españolas. Revista española de Documentación Científica, 33(2), 246-278. doi:10.3989/redc.2010.2.740Ortega, J. L., & Aguillo, I. F. (2008). Visualization of the Nordic academic web: Link analysis using social network tools. Information Processing & Management, 44(4), 1624-1633. doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2007.09.010Ortega, J. L., & Aguillo, I. F. (2009). Análisis estructural de la web académica iberoamericana. Revista española de Documentación Científica, 32(3), 51-65. doi:10.3989/redc.2009.3.689Ortega, J. L., Aguillo, I., Cothey, V., & Scharnhorst, A. (2007). Maps of the academic web in the European Higher Education Area — an exploration of visual web indicators. Scientometrics, 74(2), 295-308. doi:10.1007/s11192-008-0218-9Qiu, J., Chen, J., & Wang, Z. (2004). An analysis of backlink counts and Web Impact Factorsfor Chinese university websites. Scientometrics, 60(3), 463-473. doi:10.1023/b:scie.0000034387.76981.83Seeber, M., Lepori, B., Lomi, A., Aguillo, I., & Barberio, V. (2012). Factors affecting web links between European higher education institutions. Journal of Informetrics, 6(3), 435-447. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2012.03.001Seidman, E. (2007), “We are flattered, but …”, Bing Community, available at: www.bing.com/community/site_blogs/b/search/archive/2007/03/28/we-are-flattered-but.aspx (accessed 20 October 2012).Smith, A.G. (1999), “A tale of two web spaces: comparing sites using web impact factors”, Journal of Documentation, Vol. 55 No. 5, pp. 577-592.Smith, A., & Thelwall, M. (2002). Scientometrics, 54(3), 363-380. doi:10.1023/a:1016030415822Stuart, D., & Thelwall, M. (2006). Investigating triple helix relationships using URL citations: a case study of the UK West Midlands automobile industry. Research Evaluation, 15(2), 97-106. doi:10.3152/147154406781775968Thelwall, M. (2001). Extracting macroscopic information from Web links. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52(13), 1157-1168. doi:10.1002/asi.1182Thelwall, M. (2002). An initial exploration of the link relationship between UK university Web sites. Aslib Proceedings, 54(2), 118-126. doi:10.1108/00012530210435248Thelwall, M. and Aguillo, I.F. (2003), “La salud de las web universitarias españolas”, Revista Española de Documentación Científica, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 291-305.Thelwall, M., & Kousha, K. (2008). Online presentations as a source of scientific impact? An analysis of PowerPoint files citing academic journals. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(5), 805-815. doi:10.1002/asi.20803Thelwall, M., & Sud, P. (2011). A comparison of methods for collecting web citation data for academic organizations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(8), 1488-1497. doi:10.1002/asi.21571Thelwall, M., & Sud, P. (2012). Webometric research with the Bing Search API 2.0. Journal of Informetrics, 6(1), 44-52. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2011.10.002Thelwall, M., & Zuccala, A. (2008). A university-centred European Union link analysis. Scientometrics, 75(3), 407-420. doi:10.1007/s11192-007-1831-8Thelwall, M., Tang, R., & Price, L. (2003). Scientometrics, 56(3), 417-432. doi:10.1023/a:1022387105904Thelwall, M., Binns, R., Harries, G., Page-Kennedy, T., Price, L., & Wilkinson, D. (2002). Scientometrics, 53(1), 95-111. doi:10.1023/a:1014836021080Vaughan, L. (2012). An Alternative Data Source for Web Hyperlink Analysis: «Sites Linking In» at Alexa Internet. Collnet Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management, 6(1), 31-42. doi:10.1080/09737766.2012.10700922Vaughan, L., & Romero-Frías, E. (2012). Exploring Web keyword analysis as an alternative to link analysis: a multi-industry case. Scientometrics, 93(1), 217-232. doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0640-xVaughan, L., & Shaw, D. (2003). Bibliographic and Web citations: What is the difference? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(14), 1313-1322. doi:10.1002/asi.10338Vaughan, L., & Yang, R. (2012). Web data as academic and business quality estimates: A comparison of three data sources. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(10), 1960-1972. doi:10.1002/asi.22659Vaughan, L., & You, J. (2010). Word co-occurrences on Webpages as a measure of the relatedness of organizations: A new Webometrics concept. Journal of Informetrics, 4(4), 483-491. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2010.04.005Vaughan, L., Kipp, M. E. I., & Gao, Y. (2007). Why are Websites co-linked? The case of Canadian universities. Scientometrics, 72(1), 81-92. doi:10.1007/s11192-007-1707-y(The) Washington Post(2009), “It's official: Yahoo-Microsoft announce ten-year search/ad pact”, The Washington Post, available at: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/29/AR2009072901108.html (accessed 27 February 2013).Wilkinson, D., Harries, G., Thelwall, M., & Price, L. (2003). Motivations for academic web site interlinking: evidence for the Web as a novel source of information on informal scholarly communication. Journal of Information Science, 29(1), 49-56. doi:10.1177/016555150302900105Zhang, Y. (2006). The Effect of Open Access on Citation Impact: A Comparison Study Based on Web Citation Analysis. Libri, 56(3). doi:10.1515/libr.2006.14

Corporate venturing – a new way of creating a company’s future

Purpose – More and more companies are embarking on an experimental journey into an unpredictable future – a future that is characterised by uncertainty and new challenges. Corporate venturing enables established companies, so-called incumbents, to deal with new markets and business models in a highly flexible and innovative way, besides their existing business and well known, successful business models. A new innovator’s dilemma has emerged: not only established companies are required to be increasingly creative and to question existing thought patterns, but it is similar for start ups and new businesses. Research method – After conceptualising the paper and conducting literature bibliometry by VOSviewer, the research gap was identified. It is based on the three presented approaches: Causation, Effectuation and Bricolage as transformative approaches for strategic decision-making. Using a qualitative research by conducting 30 in-depth interviews, a transcription and a MaxQDA analysis, 5 identified corporate venturing tools were shown. Originality/value – The paper introduces a new approach of management which rapidly gains importance and which is crucial for companies in upcoming times to compete with flexible and disruptive start-up based business models.Thomas BAAKEN: [email protected] ALFERT: [email protected] KLIEWE: [email protected] BAAKEN, Professor - Managing Director of the Science-to-Business Marketing Research Centre, MünsterCarina ALFERT, MA - Academic Researcher, Science-to-Business Marketing Research Centre, Münster, Münster & VU Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The NetherlandsThorsten KLIEWE, Professor - Research Director of the Science-to-Business Marketing Research Centre, MünsterAlfert C., Bossink B., Baaken T., Kliewe T., 2019, Linking corporate venturing and effectuation in established organizations. A theory-focused literature review, [in:] Proceedings of HTSF, High Tech Small Firms Conference, Enschede, Netherlands, 27-28 May 2019.Antoncic B., Hisrich R.D., 2003, Clarifying the intrapreneurship concept, “Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development”, vol. 10(1), pp. 7-24, DOI: 10.1108/14626000310461187.Baker T., Miner A.S., Eesley D.T., 2003, Improvising firms: Bricolage, account giving and improvisational competencies in the founding process, “Research Policy”, vol. 32(2), pp. 255-276.Baker T., Nelson R.E., 2005, Creating something from nothing: Resource construction through entrepreneurial bricolage, “Administrative Science Quarterly”, vol. 50(3), pp. 329-366, DOI: 10.2189/asqu.2005.50.3.329.Battistini B., Hacklin F., Baschera P., 2013, The State of Corporate Venturing: Insights from a Global Study, “Research-Technology Management”, vol. 56(1), pp. 31-39, DOI: 10.5437/08956308X5601077.Birkinshaw J., Hill S.A., 2005, Corporate Venturing Units, “Organizational Dynamics”, vol. 34(3), pp. 247-257, DOI: 10.1016/j.orgdyn.2005.06.009.Bosma N.S., Stam E., Wennekers S., 2011, Intrapreneurship versus independent entrepreneurship: A cross-national analysis of individual entrepreneurial behaviour, Utrecht School of Economics, Working Papers, vol. 11(4).Bouette R.D., 2004, Creative Coupling Programme, Report prepared for the Government of Victoria, Melbourne.Bryman A., Bell E., 2015, Business research methods, Fourth edition, University Press, Oxford.Chesbrough H., 2010, Business Model Innovation: Opportunities and Barriers, “Long Range Planning”, vol. 43(2-3), pp. 354-363, DOI: 0.1016/j.lrp.2009.07.010.Christensen C.M., Raynor M.E., McDonald R., 2015, What is disruptive innovation, “Harvard Business Review”, vol. 93(12), pp. 44-53.Christensen C.M., 1997, The Innovator’s Dilemma, Harvard Business School Press, Boston.Christensen C.M., Overdorf M., 2000, Meeting the Challenge of Disruptive Change, “Harvard Business Review”, vol. 78(2), pp. 6-77.Covin J.G., Garrett R.P., Gupta J.P., Kuratko D.F., Shepherd D.A., 2018, The Interdependence of Planning and Learning among Internal Corporate Ventures, “Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice”, vol. 42(4), pp. 537-570, DOI: 10.1177/1042258718783430.Davey T., Meerman A., Galan-Muros V., Orazbayeva B., Baaken T., 2018, The State of University-Business Cooperation in Europe, Report for the European Commission, Publications Office of the European Union, Brussels.Dew N., Sarasvathy S.D., 2001, Of immortal firms and mortal markets: Dissolving the Innovator’s Dilemma, Presented at: The Second Annual Technology Entrepreneurship Research Policy Conference, Robert H. Smith School of Business, University of Maryland, December.Dew N., Sarasvathy S.D., Rea S., Wiltbank R., 2008, Immortal firms in mortal markets?: An entrepreneurial perspective on the “innovator’s dilemma”, “European Journal of Innovation Management”, vol. 11(3), pp. 313-329, DOI: 10.1108/14601060810888982.Duymedjian R., Rüling C.-C., 2010, Towards a Foundation of Bricolage in Organization and Management Theory, “Organization Studies”, vol. 31(2), pp. 133-151, DOI: 10.1177/0170840609347051.van Eck N.J., Waltman L., 2017, Citation-based clustering of publications using CitNetExplorer and VOSviewer, “Scientometrics”, vol. 111(2), pp. 1053-1070, DOI: 10.1007/s11192-017-2300-7.Evald M.R., Senderovitz M., 2013, Exploring Internal Corporate Venturing in SMEs: Effectuation at Work in a New Context, “Journal of Enterprising Culture”, vol. 21(03), pp. 275-299, DOI: 10.1142/S021849581350012X.Fisher G., 2012, Effectuation, Causation, and Bricolage: A Behavioral Comparison of Emerging Theories in Entrepreneurship Research, “Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice”, vol. 36(5), pp. 1019-1051, DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6520.2012.00537.x.Franco M., de Fátima Santos M., Ramalho I., Nunes C., 2014, An exploratory study of entrepreneurial marketing in SMEs: The role of the founder-entrepreneur, “Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development”, vol. 21(2), pp. 265-283, DOI: 10.1108/JSBED-10-2012-0112.Futterer F., Schmidt J., Heidenreich S., 2018, Effectuation or Causation as the Key to Corporate Venture Success? Investigating Effects of Entrepreneurial Behaviors on Business Model Innovation and Venture Performance, „Long Range Planning”, vol. 51(1), pp. 64-81, DOI: 10.1016/j.lrp.2017.06.008.Garrett Jr. R.P., Neubaum D.O., 2013, Top management support and Initial strategic assets: A dependency model for internal corporate venture performance, “Journal of Product Innovation Management”, vol. 30(5), pp. 896-915, DOI: 10.1111/jpim.12036.Harms R., Schiele H., 2012, Antecedents and consequences of effectuation and causation in the international new venture creation process, “Journal of International Entrepreneurship”, vol. 10(2), pp. 95-116, DOI: 10.1007/s10843-012-0089-2.Hmieleski K.M., Corbett A.C., 2006, Proclivity for improvisation as a predictor of entrepreneurial intentions, “Journal of Small Business Management”, vol. 44(1), pp. 45-63, DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-627X.2006.00153.x.Faschingbauer M., Baierl R., Grichnik D., 2013, Effectuation: Gestalten statt Vorhersagen, [in:] Das unternehmerische Unternehmen: revitalisieren und gestalten der Zukunft mit Effectuation, Grichnik D., Gassmann O. (eds.), Springer-Gabler, Wiesbaden, pp. 3-21.Kliewe T., Alfert C., Baaken T., 2019, Corporate Venture Management und Entrepreneurial Marketing, [in:] Entrepreneurial Marketing, PraxisWISSEN Marketing, Rumler A., Stumpf M. (eds.), UNI-Edition, Berlin, pp. 16-30, DOI: 10.15459/95451.28.Kliewe T., Marquardt P., Baaken T., 2009, Leveraging Organizational Resources by Creative Coupling: An Evaluation of Methods for Intellectual Asset Identification, “Journal of Knowledge Globalization”, vol. 2(2), pp. 1-23.Kötting M., Kuckertz A., 2018, Innovationsförderung durch Corporate Venturing, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322835366_Innovationsforderung_durch_Corpo rate_Venturing_Ein_ganzheitliches_Framework_fur_die_praktische_Umsetzung, [date of entry: 02.11.2018]Kuratko D.F., Covin J.G., Garrett R.P., 2009, Corporate venturing: Insights from actual performance, “Business Horizons”, vol. 52(5), pp. 459-467, DOI: 10.1016/j.bushor. 2009.05.001.Kuratko D.F., 2010, Corporate entrepreneurship: An introduction and research review, [in:] Handbook of entrepreneurship research, Springer, New York, pp. 129-163.Lévi-Strauss C., 1966, The savage mind, University Press, Chicago.Lumpkin G.T., 2007, Intrapreneurship and innovation, [in:] The Psychology of Entrepreneurship, Baum J.R., Frese M., Baron R. (eds.), Lawrence Erlbaum, New Jersey, pp. 237-264.MacMillan I.C., Block Z., Narasimha P.S., 1986, Corporate venturing: Alternatives, obstacles encountered, and experience effects, “Journal of Business Venturing”, vol. 1(2), pp. 177-191.Mainela T., Puhakka V., 2009, Organising New Business in a Turbulent Context: Opportunity Discovery and Effectuation for IJV Development in Transition Markets, “Journal of International Entrepreneurship”, vol. 7, pp. 111-134, DOI: 10.1007/s10843-008-0034-6.Mayring P., 2010, Qualitative inhaltsanalyse, [in:] Handbuch qualitative Forschung in der Psychologie, VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden, pp. 601-613.Mes F., 2011, Internal Corporate Venturing zur Steigerung der Innovationsfähigkeit etablierter Unternehmen, Gabler, Wiesbaden.Miles M.P., Covin J.G., 2002, Exploring the practice of corporate venturing: Some common forms and their organizational implications, “Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice”, vol. 26(3), pp. 21-40, DOI: 10.1177/104225870202600302.Moe N.B., Dingsøyr T., Dybå T., 2010, A teamwork model for understanding an agile team: A case study of a Scrum project, “Information and Software Technology”, vol. 52(5), pp. 480-491, DOI: 10.1016/j.infsof.2009.11.004.Narayanan V.K., Yang Y., Zahra S.A., 2009, Corporate venturing and value creation: A review and proposed framework, “Research Policy”, vol. 38(1), pp. 58-76, DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2008.08.015.Nolte A., Pe-Than E.P.P., Filippova A., Bird C., Scallen S., Herbsleb J.D., 2018, You Hacked and Now What?: Exploring Outcomes of a Corporate Hackathon, [in:] Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, t. 129.O’Reilly C.A., Tushman M.L., 2008, Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator’s dilemma, “Research in Organizational Behavior”, vol. 28, pp. 185-206, DOI: 10.1016/j.riob.2008.06.002.Parker S.K., Collins C.G., 2010, Taking Stock: Integrating and Differentiating Multiple Proactive Behaviors, “Journal of Management”, vol. 36(3), pp. 633-662, DOI: 10.1177/0149206308321554.Perry J.T., Chandler G.N., Markova G., 2012, Entrepreneurial effectuation: a review and suggestions for future research, “Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice”, vol. 36(4), pp. 837-861, DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00435.x.Petzold N., Landinez L., Baaken T., 2019, Disruptive innovation from a process view: A systematic literature review, „Creativity and Innovation Management Journal”, vol. 28(1), pp. 1-18, DOI: 10.1111/caim.12313.Poguntke, M. 2016, Abstrakte Interaktionsmodelle für die Integration in bestehende Benutzerschnittstellen (Doctoral dissertation, University of Ulm).Scaringella L., Radziwon A., 2018, Innovation, entrepreneurial, knowledge, and business ecosystems: Old wine in new bottles?, “Technological Forecasting and Social Change”, vol. 136, pp. 59-87, DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2017.09.023.Sarasvathy S.D., 2001, What makes entrepreneurs entrepreneurial?, The Darden Graduate School of Business Administration, University of Virginia, Virginia.Sarasvathy S.D., Berglund H., 2010, On the Relevance of Decision-making in Entrepreneurial Decision-making, [in:] Historical foundations of entrepreneurial research, Landström H., Lohrke L. (eds.), Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp. 163-184.Schmidt A.L., Alfert C., Petzold N., Junker C., 2018, Business Model Innovation in Corporate Ventures – The Nucleus of Disruption, [in:] Proceedings of 19th International CINet Conference Continuous Innovation: Spinning out and spinning in, Dublin, September.Sharma P., Chrisman J.J., 1999, Toward a reconciliation of the definitional issues in the field of corporate entrepreneurship, “Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice”, vol. 23(3), pp. 11-28.Stokes D., 2000, Entrepreneurial marketing: a conceptualisation from qualitative research, “Qualitative market research – an international Journal”, vol. 3(1), pp. 47-54, DOI: 10.1108/13522750010310497.1(99)32

Auditing scholarly journals published in Malaysia and assessing their visibility

The problem with the identification of Malaysian scholarly journals lies in the lack of a current and complete listing of journals published in Malaysia. As a result, librarians are deprived of a tool that can be used for journal selection and identification of gaps in their serials collection. This study describes the audit carried out on scholarly journals, with the objectives (a) to trace and characterized scholarly journal titles published in Malaysia, and (b) to determine their visibility in international and national indexing databases. A total of 464 titles were traced and their yearly trends, publisher and publishing characteristics, bibliometrics and indexation in national, international and subject-based indexes were described

Chemistry

published or submitted for publicatio

Searching Data: A Review of Observational Data Retrieval Practices in Selected Disciplines

A cross-disciplinary examination of the user behaviours involved in seeking and evaluating data is surprisingly absent from the research data discussion. This review explores the data retrieval literature to identify commonalities in how users search for and evaluate observational research data. Two analytical frameworks rooted in information retrieval and science technology studies are used to identify key similarities in practices as a first step toward developing a model describing data retrieval

The Open Research Web: A Preview of the Optimal and the Inevitable

The multiple online research impact metrics we are developing will allow the rich new database , the Research Web, to be navigated, analyzed, mined and evaluated in powerful new ways that were not even conceivable in the paper era – nor even in the online era, until the database and the tools became openly accessible for online use by all: by researchers, research institutions, research funders, teachers, students, and even by the general public that funds the research and for whose benefit it is being conducted: Which research is being used most? By whom? Which research is growing most quickly? In what direction? under whose influence? Which research is showing immediate short-term usefulness, which shows delayed, longer term usefulness, and which has sustained long-lasting impact? Which research and researchers are the most authoritative? Whose research is most using this authoritative research, and whose research is the authoritative research using? Which are the best pointers (“hubs”) to the authoritative research? Is there any way to predict what research will have later citation impact (based on its earlier download impact), so junior researchers can be given resources before their work has had a chance to make itself felt through citations? Can research trends and directions be predicted from the online database? Can text content be used to find and compare related research, for influence, overlap, direction? Can a layman, unfamiliar with the specialized content of a field, be guided to the most relevant and important work? These are just a sample of the new online-age questions that the Open Research Web will begin to answer

Smart Computing and Sensing Technologies for Animal Welfare: A Systematic Review

Animals play a profoundly important and intricate role in our lives today. Dogs have been human companions for thousands of years, but they now work closely with us to assist the disabled, and in combat and search and rescue situations. Farm animals are a critical part of the global food supply chain, and there is increasing consumer interest in organically fed and humanely raised livestock, and how it impacts our health and environmental footprint. Wild animals are threatened with extinction by human induced factors, and shrinking and compromised habitat. This review sets the goal to systematically survey the existing literature in smart computing and sensing technologies for domestic, farm and wild animal welfare. We use the notion of \emph{animal welfare} in broad terms, to review the technologies for assessing whether animals are healthy, free of pain and suffering, and also positively stimulated in their environment. Also the notion of \emph{smart computing and sensing} is used in broad terms, to refer to computing and sensing systems that are not isolated but interconnected with communication networks, and capable of remote data collection, processing, exchange and analysis. We review smart technologies for domestic animals, indoor and outdoor animal farming, as well as animals in the wild and zoos. The findings of this review are expected to motivate future research and contribute to data, information and communication management as well as policy for animal welfare

User involvement in healthcare technology development and assessment: Structured literature review

Purpose – Medical device users are one of the principal stakeholders of medical device technologies. User involvement in medical device technology development and assessment is central to meet their needs. Design/methodology/approach – A structured review of literature, published from 1980 to 2005 in peer-reviewed journals, was carried out from social science perspective to investigate the practice of user involvement in the development and assessment of medical device technologies. This was followed by qualitative thematic analysis. Findings – It is found that users of medical devices include clinicians, patients, carers and others. Different kinds of medical devices are developed and assessed by user involvement. The user involvement occurs at different stages of the medical device technology lifecycle and the degree of user involvement is in the order of design stage > testing and trials stage > deployment stage > concept stage. Methods most commonly used for capturing users’ perspectives are usability tests, interviews and questionnaire surveys. Research limitations/implications – We did not review the relevant literature published in engineering, medical and nursing fields, which might have been useful. Practical implications – Consideration of the users’ characteristics and the context of medical device use is critical for developing and assessing medical device technologies from users’ perspectives. Originality/value – This study shows that users of medical device technologies are not homogeneous but heterogeneous, in several aspects, and their needs, skills and working environments vary. This is important consideration for incorporating users’ perspectives in medical device technologies. Paper type: Literature review