Reflective journal writing and classroom performance: Improvement and correlation among pre-service mathematics and science teachers

This study investigated improvements in reflective journal writing and classroom performance among pre-service mathematics and science teachers as well as the correlation between reflective journal writing and classroom performance. The study was conducted during a clinical experience where pre-service mathematics and science teachers were placed in 10-week field-based learning experiences during their final semester of the Bachelor of Education degree in Primary Education. Study participants included 30 pre-service mathematics and science primary school teachers, and the study was conducted during the two academic semesters of spring 2017 and fall 2017. A quantitative research approach was followed, and descriptive statistics were determined using Statistical Packages for Social Sciences (SPSS). Data were gathered using two research instruments: the Clinical Experience Evaluation (CEE) survey and a weekly reflective journal. The results of the study revealed that within the 10-week study period, participants improved, with statistically significant differences (p< 0.05), in most dimensions of reflective writing (reflectivity, thoroughness, variety, growth), with the exception of the professionalism dimension. Participants also improved, with statistically significant differences (p < 0.05), in all domains related to classroom performance, except for the assessment domain. Furthermore, throughout the clinical experience, participants showed improvement in the reflective journal dimensions. Finally, we observed that the variety dimension of reflective journal writing contributed statistically to the development of classroom performance.Scopu

The Convergence of Digital-Libraries and the Peer-Review Process

Pre-print repositories have seen a significant increase in use over the past fifteen years across multiple research domains. Researchers are beginning to develop applications capable of using these repositories to assist the scientific community above and beyond the pure dissemination of information. The contribution set forth by this paper emphasizes a deconstructed publication model in which the peer-review process is mediated by an OAI-PMH peer-review service. This peer-review service uses a social-network algorithm to determine potential reviewers for a submitted manuscript and for weighting the relative influence of each participating reviewer's evaluations. This paper also suggests a set of peer-review specific metadata tags that can accompany a pre-print's existing metadata record. The combinations of these contributions provide a unique repository-centric peer-review model that fits within the widely deployed OAI-PMH framework.Comment: Journal of Information Science [in press

F1000 recommendations as a new data source for research evaluation: A comparison with citations

F1000 is a post-publication peer review service for biological and medical research. F1000 aims to recommend important publications in the biomedical literature, and from this perspective F1000 could be an interesting tool for research evaluation. By linking the complete database of F1000 recommendations to the Web of Science bibliographic database, we are able to make a comprehensive comparison between F1000 recommendations and citations. We find that about 2% of the publications in the biomedical literature receive at least one F1000 recommendation. Recommended publications on average receive 1.30 recommendations, and over 90% of the recommendations are given within half a year after a publication has appeared. There turns out to be a clear correlation between F1000 recommendations and citations. However, the correlation is relatively weak, at least weaker than the correlation between journal impact and citations. More research is needed to identify the main reasons for differences between recommendations and citations in assessing the impact of publications

Exploring Central Platform Types and Related Concepts in Service Research – A Systematic Literature Review

Service exchange is considered as an integral component of digital platforms. Academic research differentiates between technical, economic, and social platforms, yet scholars face a multitude of diverse platform sub-types being inconsistently utilized. To address that issue and to provide a lexical platform definition overview, this study conducts a systematic scoping literature review on platform types and related concepts in the service domain. The systematic analysis of 49 high-quality service journal articles reveals that numerous digital platform sub-types exist in service research with overlapping definitions. Moreover, several relationship marketing constructs are investigated as central related concepts. This article is the first to explore divergent platform term definitions in the service domain and thus contributes a complementary service science lens on digital platforms alongside IS research

Implementation science: a reappraisal of our journal mission and scope.

The implementation of research findings into healthcare practice has become increasingly recognised as a major priority for researchers, service providers, research funders and policymakers over the past decade. Nine years after its establishment, Implementation Science, an international online open access journal, currently publishes over 150 articles each year. This is fewer than 30% of those submitted for publication. The majority of manuscript rejections occur at the point of initial editorial screening, frequently because we judge them to fall outside of journal scope. There are a number of common reasons as to why manuscripts are rejected on grounds of scope. Furthermore, as the field of implementation research has evolved and our journal submissions have risen, we have, out of necessity, had to become more selective in what we publish. We have also expanded our scope, particularly around patient-mediated and population health interventions, and will monitor the impact of such changes. We hope this editorial on our evolving priorities and common reasons for rejection without peer review will help authors to better judge the relevance of their papers to Implementation Science

Science embraces all, enriches all

Since last decade, the United Nations has emphasized more on Science as manifested from the observance of International Years of Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, et al. in recent past which reminds the researchers to cultivate science. As such science does not have any geographical boundary nor has any restriction to remain stagnant in a particular domain or discipline but it is a dynamic process, providing logical thinking towards unfolding the truth for the progress of human civilization and its chromatic culture. Since 1949, Defence Science Journal (DSJ) shares the responsibility with a broader vision and carries a much bigger canvas of publications towards integrating the whole research community of the globe. DSJ has been providing yeoman service to the entire scientific fraternity by extending its platform for publication of articles received from all echelons of scientists, technologists, and engineers without showing any proclivity towards a particular professional or research community provided their original ideas and research results imbue the minds of the readers for the larger cause of scientific culture where publications play significant role.Defence Science Journal, 2012, 62(6), pp.359-360, DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.14429/dsj.62.283

Making Sense of Entrepreneurship Journals: Journal Rankings and Strategy Choices

Dozens of peer-reviewed, English language journals are currently published in our field. How ought we to evaluate them? This paper seeks to answer this question. To do so, we utilize both relevant literature and data on Entrepreneurship journals. The literature derives from both information science and other research areas that reflect on their journals. The data derives from six citation measures from Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science. We find 59 currently published English language, peer reviewed journals in Entrepreneurship. Contestable judgments based on their impact measures suggest that one of these 59 could be considered as “A+, four as “A”, five as “AB”, eight as “B”, four as “BC”, 23 as “C”, thirteen as “barely detectable”, and one as “insufficient data but promising”. Journal rankings affect the resources and prestige accorded to business schools, disciplines and subdisciplines, and individual scholars. However, the need to fit evaluations to school strategy implies that no rating system, ours included, is definitive. Multiple measures are needed, letter grades are misleading, and journal rankings should match the institution’s strategy and priorities in stakeholder service. A wider purpose of this study is to alert readers to the range of current methodologies and the limits of conventional rankings. Our conclusions appear innocuous, but standard practice is to use restrictive measures, to employ letter grades, and to prioritize only one stakeholder: scholars. These practices are poorly suited to the Entrepreneurship field