No abstract

As higher education institutions (HEIs) across the world strive to become increasingly international, English-medium instruction (EMI) is swiftly becoming mainstream in contexts where English has traditionally held a foreign language status. This change in the language of instruction has given rise to a number of concerns, which are still largely under-explored. Amongst these, research into the effects of EMI on students' disciplinary knowledge is of great importance and should be regarded as crucial so that HEIs offer the same possibilities for student construction of knowledge, irrespective of the language used. Our paper duly examines the impact that EMI may have on student academic performance when compared to their counterparts' in their L1 (Spanish). As sample data, a comparable set of first-year student grades was collected for the subject of Financial Accounting I in a Spanish university during four academic years (2010-14). A total of 383 student grades were gathered and compared using mean difference tests. Overall, findings show no statistical differences across groups and that the use of EMI does not lower student final academic outcomes. These results may be relevant for other EMI contexts, the business education community and ESP course developers in general.

The aim of this study was to investigate whether firms’ reporting delays are interconnected with bankruptcy risk and its financial determinants. This study was based on 698,189 firm-year observations from Estonia. Annual report submission delay, either in a binary or ordinal form, was used as the dependent variable, while bankruptcy risk based on an international model or the financial ratios determining it were the independent variables. The findings indicated that firms with lower values of liquidity and annual and accumulated profitability were more likely to delay the submission of an annual report over the legal deadline. In turn, firm leverage was not interconnected with reporting delays. In addition, firms with a higher risk of bankruptcy were more likely to delay the submission of their annual reports. Firms with different ages, sizes and industries varied in respect to the obtained results. Different stakeholders should be aware that when reporting delays occur, these can be conditioned by higher bankruptcy risk or poor performance, and thus, for instance, crediting such firms should be treated with caution. State institutions controlling timely submission should take strict(er) measures in cases of firms delaying for a lengthy period.

No abstract

Structured abstract -PurposeThe objective of this paper is to analyse the creativity level of business administration undergraduates who have attended an entrepreneurship seminar in contrast to those that have not. -Design/methodology/approachUsing two samples of Spanish students, the factors that condition the creation of new start-ups are analysed. A survey following the creativity items from the Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory was employed for a start-up seminar students and a control sample. Non-parametric tests were carried out on the responses. -FindingsOur results show that students' entrepreneurial intentions are not conditioned by entrepreneurial courses, parental self-employment, or by their creativity level. However, there are differences in creativity level by genders for their future ability to start-up a company. -Practical implicationsThere are no external constraints for not being an entrepreneur, who play a fundamental role in the future of a country and are a way to reduce current youth unemployment rates. Social and educational implications are also presented. -Originality/valueThe use of the Kirton's Adaptation-Innovation (KAI) inventory as a proxy of creativity index is original in our research. Moreover, this study contributes to a better understanding of the factors to become an entrepreneur, through exposure to creativity, growing up around businesses and awareness of individual creativity index. Integration of university courses with entrepreneurship actions will be of interest to the society development.

No abstract

No abstract

Why authors choose some references in preference to others is a question that is still not wholly answered despite its being of interest to scientists.The relevance of references is twofold: They are a mechanism for tracing the evolution of science, and because they enhance the image of the cited authors, citations are a widely known and used indicator of scientific endeavor. Following an extensive review of the literature, we selected all papers that seek to answer the central question and demonstrate that the existing theories are not sufficient: Neither citation nor indicator theory provides a complete and convincing answer. Some perspectives in this arena remain, which are isolated from the core literature. The purpose of this article is to offer a fresh perspective on a 30-year-old problem by extending the context of the discussion. We suggest reviving the discussion about citation theories with a new perspective, that of the readers, by layers or phases, in the final choice of references, allowing for a new classification in which any paper, to date, could be included. IntroductionFrom the scientist's perspective, knowing the mechanisms that govern the choice of references is of interest for at least two reasons. First, a citation (of a reference) comprises the essential unit of information, one that allows for the progress of science to be followed (Cozzens, 1985, p. 136). Therefore, the only way to observe the progress of science is by knowing the original sources of ideas and how they later evolved (McInnis & Symes, 1988;Price, 1963;Van Dalen & Henkens, 1999). Second, not only do scientists' rewards, promotions, and research funds depend on the number of times that their papers are cited (and by whom and in which journals) but at the same time, the global analysis of citations is a general tool for evaluating and managing the level of science in many countries (Aksnes, 2006, p. 177). This is based on a range of criteria such as the ranking of journals, obtaining funds for research subjects, evaluation of universities, the impact of papers, and maps of science (Cano, 1989;Leydesdorff & Amsterdamska, 1990;Nicolaisen, 2007;Snyder, Cronin, & Davenport, 1995), despite the limitations of such methods (e.g., Coleman, 2007;MacRoberts & MacRoberts, 1996;Marx & Cardona, 2007;Száva-Kováts, 1994).To date, the theories for explaining the selection of references are not convincing (Baldi, 1998;Leydesdorff, 1998;Nicolaisen, 2004;Wouters, 1999aWouters, , 1999b, but there has been an increase in the number of publications on this subject, as can be seen in Figure 1. That is because it seems that this viewpoint screens other alternatives. In this sense, this is not a small problem because all papers that analyze nonmotivational factors are removed from this debate, and as a result, these are not included in any complete citation theory (van Raan, 1998). We seek to remedy this problem.The aim of this article is to show that this controversy is simply the consequence of choosing the author's perspective as the unit of anal...