Eight factors for desk-review rejection at RAUSP’s management journal

Hourneaux, Flávio

doi:10.1108/rausp-04-2020-151

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 8 publications

(9 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is also a way to emphasise to the reviewers if the article has an actual social impact. Moreover, it can also be a criterion for desk-rejecting the article (please see Hourneaux Junior [2020]).…”

Section: Research Impact – How To Deal With It? Editorial Impact Series Partmentioning

confidence: 99%

Editorial

Sandes-Guimarães

Hourneaux

2021

RAUSP

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This publication is the last part of a three-editorial series about research impact. In the first (Sandes-Guimarães & Hourneaux Junior, 2020), we presented the main concepts and ideas that define research impact. In the second (Hourneaux Junior & Sandes-Guimarães, 2020), we discussed the most important models and frameworks for assessing research impact in the literature.If these two challengesidentifying and measuringare not quite enough, another task presents itself to researchers, universities and society in general. It is related to the numerous constraints and difficulties can be found in the literature regarding the research impact assessment.In this editorial, we aim to present the most critical (and controversial) problems and critics in the current debate on research impact and discuss some initiatives and possible solutions to those problems. Main problems and critics on research impactDespite its importance and extensive knowledge, literature also presents diverse problems and some criticism regarding research impact. Some of these issues are discussed next.Causality/attribution The attribution and causality issues are repeatedly highlighted in the research impact literature as one of the main limitations of impact assessment. Causality refers to the challenge in attributing impacts to a specific source or cause. Attribution means the proportion of influence or impact that can be attributed to efforts derived from research projects, researchers or organisations (Derrick & Samuel, 2016;Morgan Jones, Manville, & Chataway, 2017).Using a linear and unidirectional logic model, from inputs to impacts, one can have the impression that the research is solely responsible for impacting that group or community directly and measurably (Edwards & Meagher, 2020). However, it has been recognised that the path between scientific research and its impact is a complex and non-linear process, including several interactions among researchers, users and stakeholders and interconnections among research activities and their outcomes (Penfield, Baker, Scoble, & Wykes, 2014; Riley et al., 2018). In this sense, the impact or the perceived change derives

show abstract

Section: Research Impact – How To Deal With It? Editorial Impact Series Partmentioning

confidence: 99%