Search results

Human resource analytics (HRA) has recently received attention. However, its literature remains unknown and scattered due to both limited conceptual lenses and limited classification. So, this study is conducted to provide a comprehensive research analysis in this field.

Accordingly, 107 HRA studies, which were collected according to the Scientific Procedures and Rationales for Systematic Literature Reviews (SPAR-4-SLR) in the last 14 years (2010–2023), were analyzed in the first using the theory-context-characteristics-methods step to examine the evolution of HRA research. The study also develops a conceptual framework based on socio-technical system theory that shows the antecedents and outcomes of HRA adoption. In the second step, fuzzy Delphi and fuzzy step-wise weight assessment ratio analysis techniques were used to validate and refine the antecedents and outcomes obtained from the first step in such a way that experts’ opinions can be used and the existing knowledge body can be expanded.

In total, 30 antecedents and outcomes were confirmed based on the consensus of experts. Senior management support was identified as the most important antecedent and achieving organizational strategic outcomes as the most important outcomes of HRA adoption.

The study maps the current state of HRA studies, identifies directions for future studies by providing a state-of-the-art review of theories, antecedents, outcomes, contexts and methodologies and proposes a framework for HR managers and professionals to apply.

Scientific publishing has recently faced challenges in dealing with questionable (predatory and hijacked) journals. The presence of questionable journals in any field, including management science, will yield junk science. Although there are studies about questionable journals in other fields, these journals have not yet been examined in the field of business and management. This study aims to identify facilitators and barriers to dealing with questionable journals in management science.

A Delphi research method consisting of three rounds was used in this study. Data were collected from 12 experts in the first two rounds, and ten experts in the final round.

The present study shows that management science is vulnerable to questionable journals. A total of 18 barriers and eight facilitators to dealing with questionable journals in management science were found. The present study also identifies some new barriers and facilitators for avoiding questionable journals, which are specific to management science and have not been identified in previous research. Most of these barriers and facilitators were identified as “important” or “very important”. Publishers and scientific databases, government, the research community and universities and research centers were identified as critical players in overcoming challenges posed by questionable journals.

The number of articles that investigate predatory journals in management science is limited, and there is no research focused specifically on hijacked journals in this field. This study identifies facilitators and obstacles to dealing with predatory and hijacked journals in the field of management, by gathering opinions from experts. Thus it is the first study to examine hijacked journals in the field of management science. It is also one of the few studies that examine predatory and hijacked journals by conducting exploratory research rather than with a descriptive/conceptual approach.