The small world of editorships: A network on innovation studies

Editors exert a significant influence on journal's mission and governing the strategic direction of outlets. They are the channels gatekeepers not only by ensuring the quality but also by guaranteeing the integrity of novels produced. For being such an important piece of scientific puzzle, they are a research object of utmost interest which is rather fragmented. This paper aims to better understand the relationships between editors seated on boards of 20 innovation top-tiers. The sample considered comprised 2,440 editors occupying 3,005 editorial positions and assuming 122 different duties. No single journal is free from this interlocking editorship phenomenon and 18.6% of the scholars serve on multiple boards. We deploy social network analysis to further inquire and model the editorial relationships in which innovation journals are embedded. Our results offer new insights on how the field is organised: 627 lines linking the journals were found with a 41.6% interlocking density. Research Policy has the highest number of direct links to other boards (degree) and the shortest distance from all network journals (closeness) while Industrial and Corporate Change is the one bridging the largest number of other pairs of journals (betweenness), followed by Small Business Economics and Research Policy.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Who are the gatekeepers of economics? Geographic diversity, gender composition, and interlocking editorship of journal boards

Members of editorial boards play the role of gatekeepers of science because. This paper analyses the national distribution of editorial boards members of economics journal, their affiliation, and their gender. It studies also the interlocking editorship network generated by the presence of a same person on the editorial board of more than one journal. The analysis is based on a unique database comprising all the 1,516 journals indexed in the database EconLit with an active editorial board in 2019. For each journal, we manually collected the names of the board members along with their affiliation, obtaining a database containing more than 44,000 members from more than 6,000 institutions and 142 countries. These data allow to investigate the phenomenon of gatekeeping in contemporary economics on an unprecedented large scale. The obtained results highlight some common issues concerning the editorial gatekeeping, leading to the conclusion that in Economics the academic publishing environment is governed by an \'elite composed mainly of men affiliated with United States \'elite universities. Homophily in terms of geographic, institutional and gender distribution is higher in the most prestigious journal and among Editors-in-Chief. Finally, it appears that `strategic decisions' in the selection of board members reproduce this homophily.Comment: 23 pages, 23 table, 6 figure

Who are the gatekeepers of economics? Geographic diversity, gender composition, and interlocking editorship of journal boards

Members of editorial boards play the role of gatekeepers of science because. This paper analyses the national distribution of editorial boards members of economics journal, their affiliation, and their gender. It studies also the interlocking editorship network generated by the presence of a same person on the editorial board of more than one journal. The analysis is based on a unique database comprising all the 1,516 journals indexed in the database EconLit with an active editorial board in 2019. For each journal, we manually collected the names of the board members along with their affiliation, obtaining a database containing more than 44,000 members from more than 6,000 institutions and 142 countries. These data allow to investigate the phenomenon of gatekeeping in contemporary economics on an unprecedented large scale. The obtained results highlight some common issues concerning the editorial gatekeeping, leading to the conclusion that in Economics the academic publishing environment is governed by an \'elite composed mainly of men affiliated with United States \'elite universities. Homophily in terms of geographic, institutional and gender distribution is higher in the most prestigious journal and among Editors-in-Chief. Finally, it appears that `strategic decisions' in the selection of board members reproduce this homophily

Editorial: Corporate board structure, strategy and performance in uncertain times

Corporate managers make choices that seek to improve the performance of their organisation. These decisions involve interpreting and framing the environment, developing and implementing programmes and services, and creating processes and structures to monitor and control resources for optimal impact (Brown & Iverson, 2004). Improved performance results for organisations that systematically addressed these challenges (Miles, Snow, Mathews, Miles, & Coleman, 1997). Board performs a critical function to monitor environmental trends that might affect organisational performance. A misinterpretation of the environment could result in errant policies and programmes. Consequently, boards must have mechanisms in place to ensure understanding of critical environmental trends (Brown & Iverson, 2004). The spread of environmental awareness is guided by the strategic purpose of the organisation, consequently, the structures in place should reflect those purposes. The literature suggests that the composition of the board will be contingent upon the characteristics of the firm's external environment, the demands of its strategy, the salient contextual factors, and the past financial performance of the company (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978). Although research in corporate governance argues that the board of directors' composition and leadership structure can influence a variety of organisational outcomes (Dalton, Daily, Ellstrand, & Johnson, 1998), the academic literature is yet to provide specific guidance on the superiority of specific board composition and leadership structure. These issues are addressed in the collection of high-quality papers in this issue of Corporate Board: Role, Duties and Composition

Computational innovation studies: understanding innovation studies through novel scientometric approaches

A cientometria é uma importante área de investigação dedicada ao estudo quantitativo da ciência e está a expandir-se a um ritmo sem precedentes. Surgiu como um paradigma de avaliação e espera-se que ajude na resolução de problemas sociais complexos. Apesar da sua importância, pouco se sabe sobre os guardiões da ciência e os mecanismos de governação editorial mais amplos que ajudam a orientar os esforços científicos. Neste projeto, seguimos uma perspetiva pouco explorada (assumimos os conselhos editoriais e as revistas como veículo institucional), numa área específica de investigação científica (os Estudos de Inovação). Abordamos diferentes aspetos em três etapas: em primeiro lugar, produzimos um retrato abrangente do fenómeno editorial, sondando as características estruturais heterogéneas dos conselhos editoriais, que são dominados por editores masculinos, anglo-americanos que exibem uma concentração de 85% das posições editoriais em 20% dos países; em segundo lugar, comparamos os materiais publicitários das revistas (blurbs) com uma medida de semelhança do cosseno identificando seis revistas com mais de 80% de semelhança semântica com a "Research Policy" (a revista principal) e descobrimos que as revistas podem ser classificadas em quatro grupos; e em terceiro lugar, combinamos os resumos (abstracts) das revistas realmente publicados com a descrição publicitária, revelando que o conteúdo selecionado em cinco revistas teria tido maior interesse para outras. Por fim, desenvolvemos uma ferramenta interativa que permite comparar a semelhança dos conteúdos publicados pelas revistas. Estas estratégias de investigação apresentadas juntam-se ao portfólio de metodologias que os analistas de política científica podem usar para compreender sistematicamente as agendas de revistas, a fim de refletir sobre o que foi realizado e o que ainda está por fazer.Scientometrics is an important research field that is dedicated to the quantitative study of science and is expanding at an unprecedented rate. It emerged as an evaluation paradigm and is expected to assist in the resolution of complex societal problems. For years, the impact of research has been at the top of the agenda for policymakers, however little is known about the gatekeeping processes and the broader editorial governance mechanisms that helps steer scientific efforts. In this project, we will pursue an under-explored perspective (we take on editorial boards and the journals as an institutional vehicle) and apply to a specific field of academic research (Innovation Studies). We address different aspects in three steps: first, we provide a comprehensive portrait of the editorship phenomenon by probing the heterogeneous structural features of boards, which dominated by men and angloamerican editors displaying a concentration of 85% of editorial positions in 20% of the countries; second, we compare journals’ advertising materials (blurbs) with a cosine similarity measure identifying six journals with more than 80% semantic similarity with Research Policy (the leading journal) and find out that the journals can be classified into four groups; and third, we match journal blurbs with the abstracts of papers actually published disclosing that the contents from five journals would have greater interest to other outlets. Finally, an interactive tool was developed so that researchers are better empowered to compare the similarity of journals contents in the future. These research strategies presented add to the portfolio of methodologies that science policy analysts can use to systematically understand journal agendas in order to reflect on what has been accomplished and what remains to be done

The intellectual marginalisation of Africa : African Identities

The intellectual marginalisation of Africa is often explained in terms of the lack of human capital. However, the peripheralization and systemic neglect of excellent research published in Africa problematise the human capital thesis and, ironically, demonstrate that the appeal to ‘Southern theory’ is not a panacea either. Although these perspectives are quite distinct, both seek to explain, and ultimately redress, Africa’s intellectual marginalisation apart from, not as part of, Africa’s marginalised position in the world system. The growing gulf between the use of knowledge produced in Africa and that in the metropole as well as little metropoles in the continent is patterned after global inequalities–not just differences in levels of human capital or the underappreciation of African knowledge systems. The historical and continuing concentration of the instruments of knowledge production in the hands of elites, the inferiorisation of the contribution of Africans, especially women, and the peripheralization of African outlets of production and dissemination have been central to the creation and persistence of this intellectual marginalisation. Creating structures of dependence and imitative research neither critical of, nor confrontational to, power imbalances is one outcome which, in turn, further legitimises the status quo because its resulting knowledge is unlikely to challenge the hegemony of the global north. This knowledge hierarchy reinforces the privileged status of knowledge produced in the north, while seeking to undermine the potential transformative power of southern knowledge. If so, merely seeking to develop ‘Southern theory’ is an ineffective alternative to the human capital thesis. © 2019, © 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.Peer reviewe

Social Network Analysis of Editorial Board Interlocking Phenomena from the Perspective of Astronomy and Astrophysics Journals

Editorial board members (EBMs) of journals play a pivotal role in authentic international scientific journals. Editorial Board Interlocking (EBI) phenomenon reflects the effectiveness and importance of the scholarly journal's editorial boards in various scientific fields. The primary purpose of this paper is to conduct a Social Network Analysis (SNA) of EBI phenomena from the perspective of astronomy and astrophysics journals. The present study is applied research based on EBI, SNA, and the descriptive-analytical approach. The statistical population of this study consists of the editorial board members of all journals of astronomy and astrophysics indexed in the JCR and official journal websites. There are 1597 job positions in 67 astronomy and astrophysics journals occupied by the 1394 scholars. Data analysis shows EBI for 95 scholars and 79 organizations. "Aleksei A. Starobinsky" from Russia and the Russian Academy of Sciences, "Daniel J. Scheeres" from the United States, and the University of Colorado Boulder have the highest EBI contributions in five journals. "Daniel J. Scheeres," with a centrality of 39, has the highest degree of centrality measurement among the EBMs. The presence of more than five times as many men as women indicates that astronomy and astrophysics journals are considered "masculine" by the editorial board. The EBI phenomenon is observed in astronomy and astrophysics journals due to the limited number of peop le eligible for the editorial board. Due to EBI, a limited number of famous scholars are made macro-policies such as publishing the articles, referees selections, and the reviewing process. Astronomy and astrophysics journals have "elite" academic networks. Gender inequality exists among EBMs, and the majority of them are male. Accordingly, these journals are "men's journals.

The university-related science institute as a technology transfer agency

University science center for government and industrial user