Why bother with evaluation?

This paper puts supplier evaluation into the context of the changing environment in which library acquisitions are carried out. A number of “forces of change” are identified, and the relevance of supplier evaluation to these forces is reinforced throughout the article. Some practical suggestions for making time for evaluation and making evaluation work for your institution conclude the article.     

Why do authors publish in predatory journals?

This study examines the reasons why authors publish in ‘predatory’ OA journals. In total, 50 journals were randomly selected from Beall's list of ‘predatory’ journals. Different methods, including WHOIS tracking, were utilized to query basic information about the selected journals, including location and registrant. Then, 300 articles were randomly selected from within selected journals in various scientific fields. Authors of the selected articles were contacted and sent survey questions to complete. A grounded theory qualitative methods approach was used for data collection and analysis. The results demonstrated that most of these journals were located in the developing world, usually Asia or Africa, even when they claimed they were in the USA or UK. Furthermore, four themes emerged after authors’ survey responses were coded, categorized, and sub‐categorized. The themes were: social identity threat, unawareness, high pressure, and lack of research proficiency. Scholars in the developing world felt that reputable Western journals might be prejudiced against them and sometimes felt more comfortable publishing in journals from the developing world. Other scholars were unaware of the reputation of the journals in which they published and would not have selected them had they known. However, some scholars said they would still have published in the same journals if their institution recognised them. The pressure to ‘publish or perish’ was another factor influencing many scholars’ decisions to publish in these fast‐turnaround journals. In some cases, researchers did not have adequate guidance and felt they lacked the knowledge of research to submit to a more reputable journal. More needs to be done by institutions and reputable journals to make researchers aware of the problem of ‘predatory’ journals.     

Why do researchers decide to publish in questionable journals? A review of the literature

Peer review is a cornerstone of scientific publication, and consequently, predatory journals are feared to be a threat to the credibility of science as they perform no or low‐quality peer review. The question of why researchers decide to publish in a questionable journal remains relatively unexplored. This paper provides an overview of the existing literature on why researchers decide to publish papers in questionable journals, specifically whether or not they search for a low‐barrier way to getting published while being aware that the chosen journal probably does not adhere to acceptable academic standards. The choice of a publication outlet can be seen as a submission tree that consists of various incentives, and explaining why authors publish in deceptive journals may thus consist of a combination of awareness and motivational factors. Awareness and motivation of diligent authors is very different from that of unethical authors. Unethical authors may use a lack of awareness to excuse their actions, but they may actively search for a low‐barrier way to getting published. As there are different types of authors who publish in deceptive journals, we need different approaches to solve the problem.     

XML: Why Bother?

An XML-first workflow provides a framework that will empower publishers to move from a print-centric to a content-centric creation process, freeing them to find new and creative ways to present content to the world, to connect with readers in new ways. XML is far more than a production workflow—it is the medium that will allow publishers to deliver their message most effectively, and will enable a rapid and necessary evolution in the way publishers manage and disseminate an author’s content.     

Why do people use information kiosks? A validation of the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology

The importance of information kiosk development and implementation in the context of E-Government policies has been discussed in previous research. While many governments are today making considerable investments to implement information kiosks, previous research suggests that citizens may not use information kiosks in spite of their availability. However, the successful implementation of information kiosks depends significantly on whether or not citizens are willing to adopt the new information technology (IT). Therefore, based on the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT), this study investigates the determinants of use behavior regarding information kiosks and the moderating effects of age and gender differences on the relationships between the determinants and behavioral intention/use behavior. Data collected from 244 respondents in Taiwan were tested against the research model using structural equation modeling techniques. The results partially support the applicability of the UTAUT in the context of information kiosks. The findings of this research provide several prominent implications for the research and practice of information kiosk development and implementation.     

Why is medical software so hard?

Medical software is regarded as both a success and a risk factor for quality and efficiency of medical care. First, reasons are given in what respects the medical industry is special: it is highly complex and variable, exposed to risks of privacy/confidentiality but also of denied access to authorized personnel, and medical users are a highly qualified and demanding population. Then some software technology and engineering approaches are presented that partially master these challenges. They include various divide and conquer strategies, process and change management approaches and quality assurance approaches. Benchmark institutions and comprehensive solutions are also presented. Finally, some challenges are presented that call for approaches other than technical to achieve user “buy in”, handle the outer limits of complexity, variability and change. Here, methods from psychology, economics and game theory complement domain knowledge and exploratory experimentation with new technologies.

---

Zusammenfassung  Medizinische Software wird sowohl als Erfolgs- als auch als Risikofaktor für die Qualit?t und Effizienz medizinischer Versorgung gesehen. In diesem Artikel werden zun?chst Gründe aufgeführt, inwiefern der medizinische Sektor sich von anderen abhebt: Er ist hoch komplex und variantenreich und den Risiken stark ausgesetzt, die sich aus Vertraulichkeit und Schutzbedürftigkeit der Daten einerseits und andereseits aus deren Nicht-Verfügbarkeit für autorisiertes Personal ergeben. Auch sind medizinische Nutzer hoch und vielf?ltig qualifiziert und entsprechend anspruchsvoll. Es werden dann Verfahren aus Software-Technologie und -Engineering vorgestellt, welche diese Herausforderungen z.T. meistern. Darunter befinden sich „Teile-und-Herrsche“-artige Partitionierungsverfahren, Prozess- und ?nderungsmanagement- sowie Qualit?tssicherungsmethoden. Einige richtungweisend erfolgreiche Institutionen und L?sungen werden erl?utert. Schlie?lich wird auf Herausforderungen hingewiesen, bei denen andere als technische Zug?nge naheliegen, damit anspruchsvolle Nutzer „einsteigen“ und grenzwertig schwierige Anforderungen an Komplexit?t, Variabilit?t und ?nderungsintensit?t handhabbar werden. Dabei erg?nzen Methoden aus Psychologie, Wirtschaftswissenschaften und Spieltheorie ein vertieftes Wissen über den medizinischen Gegenstandsbereich und das Experimentieren mit neuen Technologien.

CR subject classification  D.2.1; D.2.2; D.2.7; D.2.8; D.2.9; D.2.11; D.2.12; D.4.6; H.1.2; H.2.7; H.4.1; H.5.3; J.3; K.1; K.4.1; K.4.3; K.5.2     

Why Didn't They Teach Us That?

No abstract available for this article.     

How do entrepreneurs obtain financing? An evaluation of available options and how they fit into the current entrepreneurial ecosystem

ABSTRACT

Given the high visibility of venture capital and private equity (VC/PE) in business news, entrepreneurs may be misled on the role and relative size of this financing model. In reality however, VC/PE is quite difficult to obtain, particularly for young entrepreneurs. With this in mind, I assess seven popular models for financing that may be of interest to entrepreneurial students. These seven models include: self-funding/bootstrapping; friends, family, and colleagues; banks; accelerators; angel investors; peer-to-peer (P2P) lending; and crowdfunding. Each model is summarized and evaluated for their advantages and disadvantages. A discussion of relevant resources for each model is also provided.     

Why Isn’t Health a Priority?

This study helps bridge the existing divide between the knowledge on health news reporting in mainstream mass media and health reporting in media outlets serving Native American populations in the United States. The current work presents the first survey of journalists working in Native-serving media outlets to identify role conceptions, perceived importance, and actual practices of health reporting. Aided in data collection by the Native American Journalists Association, findings indicate journalists (N?=?100) place a high value on their role as disseminators of culturally relevant health information. However, results conflict in regard to the prioritization of health news reporting. Although journalists recognize health news should be a top priority, they point to a general lack of will from news leadership to make it an organizational priority. Additionally, results show that although journalists have comfort and confidence in health-related reporting, access to qualified sources remains an area for opportunity.     

Citing data sources in the social sciences: do authors do it?

It is expected that authors will provide citations for all papers referenced in their writings. The necessity of providing citations for data is not so widely recognized. Proponents of the data‐sharing movement have advocated the citation of datasets in order to recognize contributions and enhance access. This study examines a sample of papers from the Inter‐University Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR) Bibliography of Data‐Related Literature that are based on secondary analysis of datasets available in the ICPSR data archive to determine the data citation practices of authors. The results indicate that many authors fail to cite the data used in secondary analysis studies. Possible reasons for the dismal state of data citation practices are considered, including the recent introduction of data into the scholarly record and its marginalization as an information format. Updating citation practices to include datasets will support data sharing and foster responsible scholarship.