No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Public Private Partnership (PPP) is widely practiced in delivering public infrastructure. PPP utilizes private finance and management strengths. A number of countries worldwide have diverse demands. Political, institutional and macroeconomic conditions are involved in PPP in a wide range of public infrastructures and services. In diverse situations, countries worldwide are involved in a multiple number of PPP projects. With the proliferation of wide engagement in PPP, this paper examines how countries are attracting the private sector in the development of public infrastructure. The paper also determines what is engaged in PPP infrastructure using the multiple discrete-continuous extreme value (MDCEV) model. By examining the 4,423 projects from 86 developing countries, we found that countries are likely to be involved in telecommunication projects, followed by the energy and transportation and water projects. Water is one of the least preferred sectors among the four major infrastructure sectors provided by the PPI database of the World Bank.

No abstract

The article has explored the preferential publication bias of Nepal’s medical journals. To this end, it has reviewed the frequency and proportion of preferential publishing and editorial involvement in endogenous publication practices in six national medical journals registered in the Scopus database system. For the analysis of the data, social network analysis application – VOSviewer for graphical visualisation has been used. Editorial engagement in self-publishing and preferential publishing is found to be common in all journals. The study suggests that as long as the trend of preferential and sequestered publication continues, the integrity and validity generated and disseminated by the journals risks losing trust by the community concerned and the chances of these non-mainstream journals contributing to mainstream journals being slim. And,  by way of recommendatory conclusions, it offers the following four questions and areas for further investigation to arrive at the clarity and understanding of some of the issues that have been flagged in the findings and discussions: (a) Why do editors engage in excess self-promotion using the outlet they are supposed to objectively and transparently manage? (b) What is the motivating factor for authors to rely on a particular journal to get published despite having multiple outlets to pick and choose from? (c) Why should the editors and reviewers of scientific contributions maintain the networking silo to include a few in the loop and exclude others from it.