Search

This paper highlights the dark side of power imbalance regarding its consequences in agri-food supplier–buyer relationships. We report on findings from two studies. The first study is based on a sample of 105 key informants, while study 2 is based on a sample of 444 key informants, all from the cocoa agri-food supply market of Ghana. While the first study focuses on the antecedents of power imbalance and its consequences, the second study explores the role of cooperatives/collective action in minimizing supplier exploitation. Data from these studies were analysed using the partial least squares technique (SmartPLS). Analysis of these findings shows switching costs’ impact on power imbalance to be curvilinear, while power imbalance has a curvilinear relationship with opportunism. The negative consequences of power imbalance are further exacerbated by dependency and the lack of joint action. Furthermore, we found the negative impact of power imbalance on financial performance to be stronger for non-cooperative members than for cooperative members, while, counterintuitively, we found the positive impact of economic satisfaction on financial performance to be stronger for non-cooperative members than for cooperative members.

This study investigates the effects of large-scale research funding from the Japanese government on the research outcomes of university researchers. To evaluate the effects, we use the difference-in-differences estimator and measure research outcomes in terms of number of papers and citation counts per paper. Our analysis shows that the funding program led to an increase in the number of papers in some fields and an increase in the citation counts in the other fields. A comparison of our estimation results with assessment data obtained from peer reviews showed important differences. Since the characteristics of research vary according to the field, bibliometrics analysis should be used along with the peer review method for a more accurate analysis of research impact.

The growing literature on gender inequality in academia attests to the challenge that awaits female researchers during their academic careers. However, research has not yet conclusively resolved whether these biases persist during the peer review process of research grant funding and whether they impact respective funding decisions. Whereas many have argued for the existence of gender inequality in grant peer reviews and outcomes, others have demonstrated that gender equality is upheld during these processes. In the present paper, we illustrate how these opinions have come to such opposing conclusions and consider methodological and contextual factors that render these findings inconclusive. More specifically, we argue that a more comprehensive approach is needed to further the debate, encompassing individual and systemic biases as well as more global social barriers. We also argue that examining gender biases during the peer review process of research grant funding poses critical methodological challenges that deserve special attention. We conclude by providing directions for possible future research and more general considerations that may improve grant funding opportunities and career paths for female researchers.

This paper explores the mobility of the highly educated young Greek scholars. This is made possible through a bibliometric analysis of the affiliation countries of scholars who have published in peer reviewed journals indexed in Scopus. Approximately half of the researchers are identified from publications covered in Scopus for the period 2000–2019. A general taxonomy model is followed for analysing scientific mobility using affiliation changes. The greatest share of researchers (78.3%) appear to be static (74.6% in Greece and 3.7% abroad), whereas the mobile researcher category (21.7%) is divided into migrants (8.9%)—researchers who have left their country of origin—and travellers (12.8%)—researchers who gain additional affiliations while maintaining affiliation with their country of origin. According to the findings, the majority and especially the researcher elite (90.5%) did not sever ties with their country of origin, Greece, but instead built a chain of affiliations that linked nations together. Such chains are represented as groups of countries (clusters), in which the scientific connections between different countries can be visualised. It can be reasoned that the majority of researchers (70.3%) have a tendency to publish to a group of countries with ‘traditionally’ significant scientific impact.