No abstract

This study assessed the partial as well as the collaborative impact of age and gender on academic staff preparedness to adopt Internet tools for research sharing in African universities during Covid-19. Although evidence abounds in the literature on gender and age as they affect relatively, scholars’ utilisation of digital tools for research communication, such studies did not examine scholars’ preparedness to adopt from a broad perspective of Africa. This study was conducted based on the argument that the preparedness of scholars may affect their future interest to utilize digital tools for research sharing. A quantitative method, based on the descriptive survey research design, was adopted to provide answers to four prevailing research questions. The examination focused on a populace of 8,591 staff in African universities, nonetheless, information was gathered from 1,977 of them, who deliberately took part from 24 African nations. A validated electronic rating scale, which was mailed/posted to targeted participants, was used as the instrument for data collection. Gender and age significantly affected academic staff preparedness to adopt Internet tools for research sharing partially and interactively in African Universities during Covid-19. Female staff were more prepared than males to adopt internet tools for research sharing during the pandemic. Older lecturers reported a higher rate of preparedness than their younger colleagues to adopt Internet tools for research sharing during Covid-19. In light of these proofs, ramifications and proposals for future exploration are discussed.

The use of impact factor (IF) in the scientific and academic world is not new. A phenomenon that has gained widespread recognition and utilization. However, in modern-day usage, there seems to be a trend in higher education where academics are evaluated based on the impact factor of journals where scholarly works are published. This trend is gradually shifting the paradigm from the assessment of research contents to publication venue. This does not align with the original purpose of IF conceived by Garfield in 1955. One question that has continued to agitate the minds of concerned academics is whether the IF of journals is a dependable measure of research quality. This paper is an attempt to clarify or address this problem. Based on a thorough literature search and filtration, several problems about the use of IF as research quality measure are discussed as well as their implications. Recommendations were also made aimed at providing a way forward in higher education.

This dataset was collected from a total of 1,977 university lecturers across 24 African countries, that were purposively targeted due to their level of exposure to scholarly publications. The dataset was collected through an online survey that was sent to respondents through email, WhatsApp, and the Association of African Universities Telegram group. The questionnaire was designed by the researchers and validated by five experts for face and content validity. The demographic information of the data was analysed and the softcopy of the data uploaded to the Mendeley database for easy retrieval after deidentification (see Data Availability statement). The associated questionnaire can be found in the extended data. In Africa, this appears to be the broadest dataset associated with academics’ perception of utilizing digital platforms for research sharing. This implies that scholars can use this dataset to quantitatively analyse the extent to which different digital tools are being utilized for research communication. Considering the current restrictions on in-person social gatherings due to COVID-19, researchers working on related studies may readily utilize this set of data, saving time and cost. A comprehensive but non-exhaustive number of 20 digital tools were assessed based on academics' awareness and current engagement with them, and the challenges they have faced using them. This offers a wide range of areas for studies to be anchored. Furthermore, researchers interested in specific digital tools can also evaluate the extent to which academic staff in African universities are aware of and willing to utilize them for research dissemination. This data will enable scholars and researchers in Africa and beyond to understand the extent to which academics in varsities are willing to adopt digital repositories for research sharing in the context of Africa.

Background/purpose -This study analyzed the contribution of three mentorship practices relatively and cumulatively to the research productivity of early-career academics in the field of educational psychology in universities. The study was conducted in the South-South region of Nigeria.Materials/methods -The research method adopted was the quantitative approach, following the ex-post facto research design. The study's population covered 723 early-career researchers (ECRs) in educational psychology distributed across 19 universities located in South-South Nigeria. The "Mentorship Practices and Research Productivity Questionnaire" (MPRPQ) was the instrument used for data collection. The questionnaire was designed by the researchers and then validated by three experts. Reliability analysis was performed using the Cronbach approach with estimates of .80, .79, .87, and .91 obtained for the four clusters. Primary data were collected from the field after copies of the instrument had been administered to respondents.Results -Mentorship practices were generally revealed to significantly contribute to the research productivity of ECRs in educational psychology in universities. Specifically, the adoption of cloning and apprenticeship approaches to mentorship contributed substantially to the ECRs' research productivity. However, the study highlighted that nurturing contributed only negligibly to the ECRs' research productivity.Conclusion -Mentorship practices are important determinants to the research productivity of early-career educational psychologists. In order to boost the productive research capacities of ECRs, there is a need for institutions to strengthen their mentorship practices.