Search results

The purpose of this paper is to analyse the legal and political background of COVID-19 related measures introduced during the first wave of the pandemic in the Visegrad Group. These countries introduced measures within the state of emergency that may be violation against the values of the European Union, such as the rule of law.

A mixed approach methodology is used. Firstly, the examined countries are analysed and compared from the aspect of constructional law and political science in the form of case studies. Then, empirical research is conducted based on social media analysis limited to Twitter contents.

The authors found that, however, in every analysed country, the measures challenge the European values these are not expressed in the social media equally. While Slovakia is displayed from a cooperative aspect, the Czech Republic has a few critics. Poland and Hungary have a biased, negative reputation filled with heavy critics.

The limitation of this paper lies in the empirical research, as social media analysis was conducted based on keyword search and within a defined time scope.

Findings help decision-makers concentrate on and modify their communication concerning the extraordinary regulations during a worldwide crisis, such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

The feedback of social media users analysed is valuable for politicians and government officials as well.

The socio-political impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic have not been elaborated in the literature yet with respect to the V4 countries. The V4-countries are a special entity as an intergovernmental platform within the EU, whose reputation as democracies is rather heterogeneous.

This study explores the use and perceptions of scholarly journal ranking lists in the management field based on stakeholders’ lived experience.

The results are based on a survey of 463 active knowledge management and intellectual capital researchers.

Journal ranking lists have become an integral part of contemporary management academia: 33% and 37% of institutions and individual scholars employ journal ranking lists, respectively. The Australian Business Deans Council (ABDC) Journal Quality List and the UK Academic Journal Guide (AJG) by the Chartered Association of Business Schools (CABS) are the most frequently used national lists, and their influence has spread far beyond the national borders. Some institutions and individuals create their own journal rankings.

Management researchers employ journal ranking lists under two conditions: mandatory and voluntary. The forced mode of use is necessary to comply with institutional pressure that restrains the choice of target outlets. At the same time, researchers willingly consult ranking lists to advance their personal career, maximize their research exposure, learn about the relative standing of unfamiliar journals, and direct their students. Scholars, academic administrators, and policymakers should realize that journal ranking lists may serve as a useful tool when used appropriately, in particular when individuals themselves decide how and for what purpose to employ them to inform their research practices.

The findings reveal a journal ranking lists paradox: management researchers are aware of the limitations of ranking lists and their deleterious impact on scientific progress; however, they generally find journal ranking lists to be useful and employ them.

The purpose of this article is to theoretically outline and empirically test two contribution-based indicators: (1) the scholars' annual contribution-based measurement and (2) the annual contribution modified h-index, computing six criteria: total number of papers, computed SCImago Journal Rank values, total number of authors, total number of citations of a scholar’s work, number of years since paper publication and number of annual paper citations.

Despite widespread scholarly agreement about the relevance of research production in evaluation and recruitment processes, the proposed mechanisms for gauging publication output are still rather elementary, consequently obscuring each individual scholar’s contributions. This study utilised the Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution method, and the authors built two indicators to value author's contribution.

To test both indicators, this study focussed on the most productive scholars in communication during a specific time period (2017–2020), ranking their annual research contribution and testing it against standard productivity measures (i.e. number of papers and h-index).

This article contributes to current scientometric studies by addressing some of the limitations of aggregate-level measurements of research production, providing a much-needed understanding of scholarly productivity based on scholars' actual contribution to research.

The use of gamification might offer a partial solution to the decline in students' motivation and engagement the school system is currently facing. However, there has been a lack of empirical evidence on whether and how gamification may be able to improve learning motivation. Specifically, this study aims at exploring the antecedents and consequences of intrinsic learning motivation and its mediating role in gamification context.

A survey method was used to gather the information from students, and regression analysis was used to examine the relationship between three categories of gamification features (social, achievement and immersion), and intrinsic learning motivation. Moreover, this study further used self-determination theory to clarify how students' psychological needs (relatedness, competence and autonomy) mediate the effects of gamification and learning motivation.

Results showed that social, achievement and immersion features are key aspects that impact students' intrinsic motivation. The psychological needs of students can further enhance these relationships.

Overall, the findings illuminate the unique motivations for learning and reveal design strategies that can be implemented to improve teaching through gamification features.