Reviewing the literature

1. Reviewing the literature András István Kun

2. An 8 step model of research processes 0. Identify broad area of research • discipline, school • Formulating the research problem (specification) • Conceptualising • valid, workable, managable • Constructing an instrument for data collection • Selecting a sample (sampling) • Writing a research proposal • ‘Final’ research questions • Collecting data • Processing data • Writing a report

3. Conceptstheory Deductive Dataanalysis Researchquestion Empirical data Inductive Cyclic (‘never-ending’) process of research Where is the place of literature reviewing?

4. Functions of reviewing literature • Knowledge basis • Theoretical background • Help to find a research problem: • What is known and what is unknown • How can you contribute to the existing knowledge body of your profession • Finding the appropriate hyptheses (abduction) • Help to find out what methodology to use • Formal hypotheses, research techniqe, sampling… • Enables you to contextualize your findings

5. Paradox of literature review • You read to know, but • You have to know what to read (and you have to have some knowledge to understand) • Solution: iterative process of research reviewing

6. The progress of reviewing the literature (Saunders et al. 2016)

7. Improving methodology • What are the accepted methodologies • Methodological problems and solutions • An empirical/methodological review should be part of a literature review chapter of theses or dissertations

8. Knowledge basis • To some extent it is needed to show the context of your research and your findings • Obligatory chapter for Bachelor, Master and PhD theses

9. 5 steps of reviewing literature • Search for existing literature in your of study; • Review the literature selected; • Develop a theoretical framework; • Develop a conceptual framework; • Writing up the literature review.

10. Types of critical review • Integrative review: critiques and synthesises to generate new framework and perspectives • Historcal • Theoretical • Methodological • Other systematic

11. Adopting a critical perspective • Previewing: what is the precise purpose of the text? • Annotating: ’dialogue’ • Summarising • Comparing and contrasting

12. A good review… • From general to specific (research questions). • Summarizing the main topics, ideas. Include the key theories within your topic area. Demonstrate that your knowledge is up-to-date. • Summarise, compare and contrast • Narrow down to the research work that is more relevant to your own research • Provide a detailed account of the main findings of the literature and show how they are related. • Where and how can we contribute? • Guide the reader to the sections where our contributions are explained.

13. Main sources • Books • Journals • Grey literature • Statistical data • Online information

14. Categories of sources (Saunders et al.)

15. Books • Availability • Libraries • Bookshops • Bibliographies (!) • Internet: computer catalogs (keywords, subject) • Advantages: greater likelihood of importance, relevance, quality • Disadvantages: not up to date, price, avaliability, quality-control (bibliography!) • They serve best as starters

16. Journals • Advantages: more up-to-date than books (depends on the journal), area-specific journals • Disadvantages: need more knowledge to be understood • Serve best for focused studies • Availability: • Libraries • Electronic databases (!) • Internet

17. Gray literature • Grey literature (or gray literature) is a term used variably by the intelligence community, librarians, and medical and research professionals to refer to a body of materials that cannot be found easily through conventional channels such as publishers, "but which is frequently original and usually recent„ • Working papers • Theses • Company documents • Magazines • etc.

18. Quality in research • Whowhat can be qualified? • Researcher • Article • Journal • Institution • Publisher • …

19. Quality in research (Scientometrics) • The most accepted field of qualification is based on journals. • Academic journals • Referred journals • Peer reviewing • Journal qualification systems • Based on citation (aim: measuring impact) • Rankings • Impact factors • Hirsch index (h-index), half-life, immediacy • „Page rank”, altmetric score…

20. An example: ABDC journal quality list • http://www.abdc.edu.au/ • In 2007, ABDC established an ABDC Journal Quality List to overcome the regional and discipline bias of international lists.  • Reviewed in 2013 and 2009. The next major review will be in the second half of 2017. • In 2016:interim review:  • 1) new journals started since 1 January 2011; • 2) removal of predatory open access journals; • 3) change of Field of Research (FoR) grouping; and • 4) incorrect factual details - to produce a revised 2016 list. 

21. ABDC journal quality list • The ABDC Journal Quality List 2013 comprises 2,767 different journal titles, divided into four categories of quality, A*: 6.9%; A: 20.8%; B: 28.4%; and C: 43.9% journals.  • In each Field of Research (FoR) group, journals deemed NOT to reach the quality threshold level are not listed. 

22. The Journal Impact Factor (JIF) (WoS, Clarivate Analytics) • From 1975 • The journal must be indexed in the Journal Citation Reports • Calculation: • IF for year X = A/B. • A = citations in year X on the citable articles of the journal fromyears (X-1) and (X-2). • B = total number of the citable articles n a journal in years (X-1) és (X-2). • IF for year X is published in year (X+1). • The sum of the IFs can be used as a quality measure of authors, too.

23. Highest JIF journals by some areas (in 2015) • Economics: JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC LITERATURE, IF: 6.614 • General management:ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT REVIEW, IF: 7.288 • Accounting, finance:JOURNAL OF FINANCE, IF: 5.290JOURNAL OF ACCOUNTING & ECONOMICS, IF: 3.535 • Logistics:TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH PART B: METHODOLOGICAL, IF: 3.769SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT - AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL, IF: 2.731 • http://www.lib.unideb.hu/hu/adatbazis?b=i • > Impact Factor Social Sciences Edition

26. SCImago Journal Rank (SJR, Scopus, Elsevier) • A competitor of WoS, JIT • It is free: http://www.scimagojr.com • Q1-Q4 quartiles

28. Hirsch index or h-index • Measuring the most important publications • Author level • h: an author has published h papers each of which has citations in at least h papers Wikipedia

29. Where to start your search • You can search for: • Title • Author • Keyword • JEL classification • In text: abstract or full

30. Where to start your search • Electronic databases: • lib.unideb.hu (meta search engines) • www.jstor.org • search.epnet.com (EBSCO database) • http://www.nber.com/ • http://econpapers.repec.org/ • University pages • Pages of libraries • Library…

31. Where to start your search • „Social media” for researchers: • academia.edu • researchaget.net • ssrn.com • scholar.google.hu • tudoster.idea.unideb.hu/en

37. „Publish or Perish” • You are a good researcher if you can prove it through qualified publications. • The role of citations. • Its adverse effects. • The journey of a manuscript to become an article.

38. Co-authors • Reasons: • Working together on the given paper, • Partners in the same research team, • Provide a significant help (data, money, their name and contacts…) • Other reasons • Order of the co-authors: • Role • Name • The number and the position of the co-authors can be considered when evaluating a researcher

39. The journey of a paper to be published • Writing • Selecting the journal: submission • Editorial review • Peer review (decision: refuse, major correction, minor correction, without correction) • Open review • Single blind review • Double blind review • Editorial decision on acceptance • Editing, grammatical corrections • on-line first publication • „Real” publication (with volume & issue numbers)

40. Being refused by the editor example I regret to inform you that have now desk reviewed your paper but unfortunately feel it is unsuitable for publication in Culture and Organization. I know that this will be disappointing news so let me summarize my reasons.The first issue here is that your research mobilizes a set of ontological, epistemological and methodological assumptions which are at odds with the ethos of our journal. We specialize in critical, qualitative research which investigates the intersections between culture and organization. We do not publish work which takes a positivistic approach, is deductive and/ or uses quantitative instruments and statistical analyses. Second, your paper focuses on students, and as such is better placed in an higher education studies journal. Third, there are no references in the manuscript to previous C&O papers. While we have no hard and fast rule about appropriate numbers of citations in this regard, the absence of any at all is usually a signal that the paper isn't suitable for the journal. Sadly that is the case here. I hope you find these comments helpful.  You are of course now free to submit the paper elsewhere should you choose to do so. Thank you for considering Culture and Organization. I hope the outcome of this specific submission will not discourage you from the submission of future manuscripts.

41. Two current trends • Open Access movement • Predatory journals

42. Referencing • Why? The role of references in research. • When? • How? Systems of referencing. • Author-date sytems: Harvard, APA • Numeric systems: in the text or in the list • Plagiarism

43. Homework • Search out fourrelevant sources (full citation needed in Harvard, APA, Chicago, UD FEBA): • Book (borrow it from the library) • Journal article (record its JEL-code, JIF, scopus rank, electronic copy) • Grey source: working paper + dissertation/theses (electronic copies) • Register at the academia.edu (find me there)

44. Thanks for your attention