Publishing is an industry, and a very competitive one. Today more than ever, academic journals strive to be recognized as the most influential in their area, and this is shaped by somewhat strange, and often perverse, measures such as citation indexes and impact factors. Organization Studies plays this game: to be read, to spread the ideas expressed in the articles we publish; as well as to broaden the scope of our readership and to make sure that the most influential scholars and institutions see the journal as a key player and a necessary outlet for great research.Clearly, there is a connection between the content and the style of a journal and its reputation within the academic community. More particularly, Organization Studies has one major peculiarity compared to other journals in the field. It is still known as deeply embedded in the EGOS community and its underlying values. People, especially newcomers, frequently ask whether they need to be EGOS members in order to be 'allowed' to submit a paper to the journal. This is of utmost importance as EGOS is still known as both an open and a closed 'polity'. Open, because members vote, give opinions, share ideas, go to the general assembly at each conference and discuss ideas for the common good etc. Closed, because being an Egosian still means being infused with certain values that other fragments of academia do not necessarily share: those values are close to reinforcing the diverse diversities shaping the very academic community, striving to ignore knowledge silos, keeping strong local-European and ethical roots while reinforcing the global side of the journal 1 . In that sense, the relationships that Organization Studies has had with the North American community have never been simple. They are even still a bit unclear. We both strive to get North American scholars involved in OS, yet we sometimes tend to think that our traditions and backgrounds are better informed and less ignorant of the roots of social sciences. This has obviously changed over time, and the fact that North American colleagues are now much more involved in the running of the journal is clearly symptomatic of its 'globalization' as it retains its scientific roots and traditions. The recent move toward North American visions and colleagues is a good sign both of the influence of the journal and of its actual cultural and scientific openness. It is also important to develop closer connections with other academic communities such as those existing in Asia, Latin America and Africa. The challenge of incorporating such different strands of culture, experiences, and knowledge is an enormous endeavour for OS. It is definitely worth trying, though. Now that the journal is recognized as one of the 12 most influential journals in the field 2 , we need to be careful that
El artículo cuestiona los supuestos de la visión individualista de la corrupción y se introduce al contrario una conceptualización más «densa socialmente»: el proceso de normalización de la corrupción. En esta última lógica, se advierte que una definición de corrupción es siempre una definición política e ideológica que intenta imponer una visión determinada de comportamientos «adecuados» de acuerdo a una separación pretendidamente tajante y clara entre las esferas de lo público y lo privado. Se realiza una revisión de parte de la literatura sobre corrupción organizacional, con el fin de comprender cómo las rutinas, procesos y estructuras de socialización propias de la arena organizacional pueden llevar justamente a las personas a «caer en resbaladilla» hacia una dinámica de corrupción. A normalizarla en otras palabras. Se concluye con un llamado a discutir los procesos de desnormalización de la corrupción, como estrategia sustantiva más allá de la visión individualista o moralista del fenómeno. Derechos Reservados © 2016 Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Facultad de Contaduría y Administración. Este es un artículo de acceso abierto distribuido bajo los términos de la Licencia Creative Commons CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.
Since the late 1990s social science-based studies have allocated much less attention to public organizations. Based on the sixth Organization Studies summer workshop, this introductory paper suggests a diagnosis of such a decline as well as a research agenda. It lists some fundamental issues still to be explored such as publicness and governance. It also considers how social science-based organizational knowledge might be extended to various empirical objects and fields in public domains and set-ups such as inter-organizational arrangements, hybrid organizations, multi-stakeholder arenas, hybrid organizing, and transnationalization processes, that usually are covered by scholars -economists, historians, anthropologists, management academics, etc. -who are not using organizational theory lenses.
Occultations of stars by asteroids have been observed since 1961, increasing from a very small number to now over 500 annually. We have created and regularly maintain a growing data-set of more than 5,000 observed asteroidal occultations. The data-set includes: the raw observations; astrometry at the 1 mas level based on centre of mass or figure (not illumination); where possible the asteroid’s diameter to 5 km or better, and fits to shape models; the separation and diameters of asteroidal satellites; and double star discoveries with typical separations being in the tens of mas or less. The data-set is published at NASA’s Planetary Data System and is regularly updated. We provide here an overview of the data-set, discuss the issues associated with determining the astrometry and diameters, and give examples of what can be derived from the data-set. We also compare the occultation diameters of asteroids with the diameters measured by the satellites NEOWISE, AKARI AcuA, and IRAS, and show that the best satellite-determined diameter is a combination of the diameters from all three satellites.
The debate on New Public Management (NPM) has largely neglected the discussion of justice and equality. Fortunately enough, there is now a long list of articles that provide empirical analyses of the consequences of NPM in a variety of settings. Despite these analyses, the organizational, moral, administrative, and ethical repercussions of NPM are enormous and require further careful attention. This article attempts to link a specific version of NPM that I have called Economic New Public Management (or E-NPM) with the discussion on justice and equality. This version of NPM frequently resembles specific versions of libertarian critiques toward liberalism. Five organizational outcomes are proposed so as to asses the impact that this version of NPM has on governmental organizations.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.