Search

This paper investigates different uses of the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) in national journal rankings and discusses the merits of supplementing metrics with expert assessment. Our focus is national journal rankings used as evidence to support decisions about the distribution of institutional funding or career advancement. The seven countries under comparison are China, Denmark, Finland, Italy, Norway, Poland, and Turkey—and the region of Flanders in Belgium. With the exception of Italy, top‐tier journals used in national rankings include those classified at the highest level, or according to tier, or points implemented. A total of 3,565 (75.8%) out of 4,701 unique top‐tier journals were identified as having a JIF, with 55.7% belonging to the first Journal Impact Factor quartile. Journal rankings in China, Flanders, Poland, and Turkey classify journals with a JIF as being top‐tier, but only when they are in the first quartile of the Average Journal Impact Factor Percentile. Journal rankings that result from expert assessment in Denmark, Finland, and Norway regularly classify journals as top‐tier outside the first quartile, particularly in the social sciences and humanities. We conclude that experts, when tasked with metric‐informed journal rankings, take into account quality dimensions that are not covered by JIFs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The leading international standards for information security management, ISO/IEC 27001 and ISO/IEC 27002 originate from the UK, but are applied worldwide. This paper explores whether the processes of selection, implementation and use of these interrelated standards differ between China and Europe by studying cases of Chinese and European companies. Chinese companies face some additional problems with the standards but manage to get them successfully implemented in a short period of time. Main differences relate to governance and management of standard adoption. This study is innovative in the method used for standardisation research (comparative multi-case study), and the topic: implementation and impact of information security management standards. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: This paper investigates the connectivity of the airport networks in China, Europe and US. Our aim is to analyze which network is most beneficial to final passengers in terms of travel time and which of the network features lead to such a result. A time-dependent minimum path approach is employed to calculate the minimum travel time between each pair of airports in the three networks, inclusive of flight times and waiting times in intermediate airports. We evaluate each fastest indirect connection in terms of waiting times and routing factors to consider the effect of the hubs’ coordination and locations. The Chinese network provides the quickest travels for passengers, but this performance is explained by a small number of airports per inhabitant. The US network is the most coordinated when considering indirect connections. The EU network provides the most homogeneous level of service when comparing airports of different sizes. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]