School leadership in Indonesia: A systematic literature review

This paper reviews systematically literature on school leadership in the context of Indonesian education from 2004 to 2019. Its purpose is to investigate major issues which exist in the school leadership practices in Indonesia and propose some sustainable solutions so that educational policymakers, stakeholders and scholars can improve their awareness and knowledge of school leadership. Eight core international EDLM (educational leadership and management) journals were used as the source of the literature. Additionally, a high-quality journal with the indexation of Scopus and Social Sciences Citation Index, Asia Pacific Journal of Education (APJE), was included. The literature search yielded 16 articles that were reviewed. This study reports several crucial issues that need to have serious attention paid to them, including a lack of capacity to lead and manage schools, insufficiency of published studies, and the inappropriateness of principal selection processes. The suggested solutions for these problems consist of developing principal training centres in all the provinces of Indonesia, conducting more collaboration with overseas scholars, and improving principal selection procedures. Contributions for theory, practices and further study are provided.

A High-Quality Journal for a Digital Society

I have accepted with great honor and a sense of responsibility the invitation of the Insights Publisher sponsored by The Bonoi Academy of Science and Education (BASE) to be an EiC – Sociology & Education Section of the Science INSIGHTS® journal. I appreciate the trust placed in me and hope to collaborate with the journal’s development.

A cause for celebration

In the current climate where there often appears to be little to celebrate, we have something we would like to celebrate with you. We have succeeded in becoming joint Academic Editors of the International Practice Development Journal and we couldn’t be more pleased! The qualities we bring to the role are based on backgrounds that are similar yet distinct. Kate has been a member of the Foundation of Nursing Studies team for 20 years, and has a previous clinical background in acute nursing and health visiting. Caroline is an academic at Queen Margaret University, Edinburgh, and an associate member of the Centre for Person-centred Practice Research, with a clinical background in community nursing, quality and practice development. Where we connect is as committed practice developers and participatory researchers, with extensive and continuously growing knowledge of the philosophical, theoretical and methodological underpinnings of person-centred practice. We see our differences and shared interests as strengths that we can bring to our editorial partnership. We can draw on our individual attributes to be efficient in terms of role allocation, while giving each other support and opportunities to continue to grow in areas we feel we need to develop as Academic Editors. We celebrate the journey the IPDJ has travelled to become a high-quality journal of choice for health and social care practitioners, social entrepreneurs, educators and academics with an interest in person-centred practice, participatory ways of working and researching and practice development, as well as related fields of inquiry, improving and transforming practices and cultures of care. We also celebrate the contributions of previous Academic Editors, Professor Jan Dewing and Dr Gemma Stacey, acknowledging the strong foundations they have created for us to build on. And as we take forward their work, we are also building on our own longstanding involvement with the journal. Kate was instrumental in its creation in 2011 and has helped steer it as Managing Editor and Associate Editor, while Caroline has been involved as a reviewer for a number of years and more recently as a member of the Editorial Management Board.

BioImpacts: An emerging global journal

The toddling BioImpacts has now grown into a young adult with strong opinions and perspectives, to a high-quality journal, and it has not been raised but by a family of professional editors, reviewers, authors, and even readers who had fantasized about a bright future and that fantasies are now coming true one-by-one.

A novel synthetic index of two counts and mathematical model for researcher evaluation

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to present a novel synthetic index of two counts and mathematical model for researcher evaluation.Design/methodology/approachA synthetic index L for researcher evaluation considering both the total number of other citations (C) and nonacademic impact (I) and a synthetic evaluation model are proposed in this paper. C and I are verified impact indexes. According to investigation by Delphi method, researchers are divided into five different classes of “below average,” “average,” “good,” “excellent” and “stellar.” The threshold values for counts C of grey class “stellar” are determined by deep investigation. The possibility functions of the two counts C and I on four grey classes of “below average,” “average,” “good” and “excellent” are built.FindingsThe novel synthetic index of two counts and mathematical model for researcher evaluation provide a better way to conduct researcher assessment.Practical implicationsThe synthetic index L presented in this paper can be used to evaluate a researcher. It's more reasonable than the current research assessment indexes such as the number of publications and the numbers of so-called high-quality journal publications and the amount of granted funds and so on. The synthetic index L reflects the actual value created by a researcher. No artificial maneuver can change them significantly.Originality/valueA synthetic index L for researcher evaluation considering both the total number of other citations (C) and nonacademic impact (I) and a synthetic evaluation model are proposed in this paper.

How to Become an Informed Research Consumer: Evaluating Journal Impact Factors and Their Alternatives

Approximately two million scientific research articles are published in journals worldwide each year (Altbach & De Wit, 2018). As a result, identifying relevant and high-quality journal articles can be an overwhelming task. journal impact factors are one metric for assessing the quality of research journals and articles. To help you become a more informed research consumer, this article will explore some common questions about journal impact factors. We begin with an explanation of Journal impact factors and their origins, followed by some critiques of journal impact factors, alternative ways of assessing publication quality, and the applications of this information to your work in psychology.

Preface to Research on Applied Ethics (Cybersecurity)

This is the second special section on applied ethics for AJIS. As was the case for the first special section on ethics, of the various submissions, only three have been accepted for publication. This is not an indication that little work is being done in relation to cybersecurity ethics, but rather a reflection of the difficulty of getting published in a high quality journal. A great deal of research is being done in the area of ethics as regards cybersecurity, particularly in Europe as a result of the recent toughening of its privacy legislation and the implications that has for all manner of ethics and technology, from blockchain, to wearable robots and through to cybersecurity. An overview of those three articles follows, after which the guest editor backgrounds are described.

Transition, not revolution

Watch the VIDEO.This presentation is aiming to discuss the effects of conversion of a journal to OA and suggests that this is likely to cause a loss of authorship of the journal. Further, we conclude that transitioning to OA via hybrid models is a more sustainable approach than flipping all journals to OA at once.As an example we use RSC Advances – a high quality journal in multidisciplinary chemistry published by RSC.Since launch in 2012, RSC Advances has achieved rapid growth and worldwide acceptance. In 2016 we converted RSC Advances to OA to:• give researchers free access to a broad scope of quality work• make the research we publish more visible• positively influence the future of OA publishing• demonstrate that OA publishing can be both affordable, and sustainableAn anticipated result of flipping to open access is the loss of authorship and submissions to competing journals. In fact, in 2017 just over 6600 articles were published in RSC Advances – less than a half of the publishing output in 2016. The loss of authorship and a risk of authors choosing to publish in a competing journal is the reason why RSC cannot go full OA (all journals) yet.This does not mean that RSC suspended the support of OA. We continue introducing new OA journals like Nanoscale Advances, and new OA transition models like Read & Publish, which allows authors to access all content behind paywall and publish OA at no extra cost.