We study how scholar collaboration varies across disciplines in science, social science, arts and humanities and the effects of author collaboration on impact and quality of co-authored papers. Impact is measured with the aid of citations collected by papers, while quality is determined by the judgements expressed by peer reviewers. To this end, we take advantage of the dataset provided by the first-ever national research assessment exercise of Italian universities, which involved 20 disciplinary areas, 102 research structures, 18500 research products, and 6661 peer reviewers. Collaboration intensity neatly varies across disciplines: it is inescapable is most sciences and negligible in most humanities. We measured a general positive association between the cardinality of the author set of a paper and the citational impact and peer quality of the contribution. The correlation is stronger when the affiliations of authors are heterogeneous. There exist, however, notable and interesting counter-examples.

PurposeThe purpose of this exploratory study is to investigate why and how public health agencies employed social media during coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak to foster public engagement and dialogic accounting.Design/methodology/approachThe authors analysed the official Facebook pages of the leading public agencies for health crisis in Italy, United Kingdom and New Zealand and they collected data on the number of posts, popularity, commitment and followers before and during the outbreak. The authors also performed a content analysis to identify the topics covered by the posts.FindingsEmpirical results suggest that social media has been extensively used as a public engagement tool in all three countries under analysis but – because of legitimacy threats and resource scarcity – it has also been used as a dialogic accounting tool only in New Zealand. Findings suggest that fake news developed more extensively in contexts where the public body did not foster dialogic accounting.Practical implicationsPublic agencies may be interested in knowing the pros and cons of using social media as a public engagement and dialogic accounting tool. They may also leverage on dialogic accounting to limit fake news.Originality/valueThis study is one of the first to look at the nature and role of social media as an accountability tool during public health crises. In many contexts, COVID-19 forced for the first time public health agencies to heavily engage with the public and to develop new skills, so this study paves the way for numerous future research ideas.

This article focuses on the sustainability balanced scorecard (SBSC) as a performance measurement and management control tool that can play an essential role in driving companies towards sustainability goals. According to previous studies, research on the SBSC can be structured into the stages of design, implementation, use and evolution. This study aims to systematise knowledge on the use stage. Specifically, it addresses the determinants affecting SBSC use, the approaches that companies employ in SBSC application and the outcomes it generates in terms of the effects on sustainability control and management. The research was conducted through a systematic literature review considering 65 articles published in ABS‐ranked journals in the period 2000–2020. Findings add to the body of literature on the SBSC in management and accounting fields, providing an overview of current research, mapping research streams, indicating potential future research avenues and highlighting some managerial implications.

a b s t r a c tIn December 2003, seventeen years after the first UK research assessment exercise, Italy started up its first-ever national research evaluation, with the aim to evaluate, using the peer review method, the excellence of the national research production. The evaluation involved 20 disciplinary areas, 102 research structures, 18,500 research products and 6661 peer reviewers (1465 from abroad); it had a direct cost of 3.55 millions Euros and a time length spanning over 18 months. The introduction of ratings based on ex post quality of output and not on ex ante respect for parameters and compliance is an important leap forward of the national research evaluation system toward meritocracy. From the bibliometric perspective, the national assessment offered the unprecedented opportunity to perform a large-scale comparison of peer review and bibliometric indicators for an important share of the Italian research production. The present investigation takes full advantage of this opportunity to test whether peer review judgements and (article and journal) bibliometric indicators are independent variables and, in the negative case, to measure the sign and strength of the association. Outcomes allow us to advocate the use of bibliometric evaluation, suitably integrated with expert review, for the forthcoming national assessment exercises, with the goal of shifting from the assessment of research excellence to the evaluation of average research performance without significant increase of expenses.

No abstract