KM around the world #periodicals #learning


Murray Jennex
 

Attached is a paper that may be of interest to the group.  The paper is on KM output in SCOPUS and is focused on who, where, and how many academic papers were written in the decade 2007 through 2016.  SCOPUS is the largest database listing peer reviewed work from around the world.  Why I'm posting the article is because if you look at it, you'll see that the leading authors are from the US, Europe, and Australia mostly, but the surprising finding is the top universities and countries producing KM articles.  The list of the top 10 universities by output is mostly Asian and Middle Eastern universities.  The table that looks at output by country is not real surprising with the US at 1, but China is 2nd with Taiwan, Malaysia, Iran, and India also in the top 10.  This is making me think that perhaps there is a lot more KM being done outside of the US, Western Europe, and Australia than expected.  My questions are why?   Is this indicative that many nations are seeing KM as a key initiative for raising their economies and societies?  And finally, are we acting rashly by looking at endorsing a KM standard that was pretty much written by the traditional KM powers and with little input from these other hotbeds of KM activity?

The final question of course is that with so much academic KM output is the KM profession hurting itself by not being better tied to academia?  I'm not trying to start a feud or argument but it does appear that KM has a great divide between KM practice and KM research and that there might be value in tying the two closer together.

Oh yes, as editor in chief of the International Journal of Knowledge Management I've been seeing this trend for several years but didn't realize how much was being done outside of the US, Western Europe, and Australia and will even go so far to say that if what I've been seeing over the last two years continues, KM research will be centered in China, India, Iran and other Asian and Middle Eastern countries in the next couple of years......murray e. jennex, professor of MIS, Fowler College of Business, San Diego State University.


Patrick Lambe
 

Thanks Murray - as you say this is a trend that suggests itself from just scanning the journal contents pages, it is useful to have it quantified.

To your question:

-------
The final question of course is that with so much academic KM output is the KM profession hurting itself by not being better tied to academia?  I'm not trying to start a feud or argument but it does appear that KM has a great divide between KM practice and KM research and that there might be value in tying the two closer together.
-------

There are a couple of follow up questions that I’d be interested in: what proportion of articles in that study are collaborations between countries/regions? Does a hard breakout of the represented countries/universities represent the actual state of affairs?

What proportion of the articles are practice-oriented vs theory oriented - e.g. reporting on case studies, field studies, experimental work, implementations, results in the field? That would be suggestive of how closely connected the academic output is related to practice.


To your question:

-----

And finally, are we acting rashly by looking at endorsing a KM standard that was pretty much written by the traditional KM powers and with little input from these other hotbeds of KM activity?

—-

My first two questions should help to clarify whether your first question is actually a strong one. IF KM academic publishing output is quite closely geared to practice, AND is undertaken pretty much independently of work in the U.S., Europe, Israel, and Australia, then clearly those are hotbeds that should be connected into the standards development work (if they are not already). 


P

Patrick Lambe
Partner
+65 62210383



twitter: @plambesg

Knowledge mapping made easy: www.aithinsoftware.com

On 26 Jan 2018, at 10:31 AM, Murray Jennex murphjen@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> wrote:

Attached is a paper that may be of interest to the group.  The paper is on KM output in SCOPUS and is focused on who, where, and how many academic papers were written in the decade 2007 through 2016.  SCOPUS is the largest database listing peer reviewed work from around the world.  Why I'm posting the article is because if you look at it, you'll see that the leading authors are from the US, Europe, and Australia mostly, but the surprising finding is the top universities and countries producing KM articles.  The list of the top 10 universities by output is mostly Asian and Middle Eastern universities.  The table that looks at output by country is not real surprising with the US at 1, but China is 2nd with Taiwan, Malaysia, Iran, and India also in the top 10.  This is making me think that perhaps there is a lot more KM being done outside of the US, Western Europe, and Australia than expected.  My questions are why?   Is this indicative that many nations are seeing KM as a key initiative for raising their economies and societies?  And finally, are we acting rashly by looking at endorsing a KM standard that was pretty much written by the traditional KM powers and with little input from these other hotbeds of KM activity?


The final question of course is that with so much academic KM output is the KM profession hurting itself by not being better tied to academia?  I'm not trying to start a feud or argument but it does appear that KM has a great divide between KM practice and KM research and that there might be value in tying the two closer together.

Oh yes, as editor in chief of the International Journal of Knowledge Management I've been seeing this trend for several years but didn't realize how much was being done outside of the US, Western Europe, and Australia and will even go so far to say that if what I've been seeing over the last two years continues, KM research will be centered in China, India, Iran and other Asian and Middle Eastern countries in the next couple of years......murray e. jennex, professor of MIS, Fowler College of Business, San Diego State University.



Bruce Boyes
 

Thanks Murray, interesting insights. I'm a little nervous though about China's ranking in the paper as second highest for KM research output behind the US, for two reasons. 

The first reason is that I'm not aware of a whole lot of KM research activity here as yet. I work in a mainland Chinese University that is highly regarded, Shanxi University, where I've been initiating some KM subjects, and I hope to expand on this. Shanxi University hasn't been carrying out any KM research, and still isn't, and when I first started with them they had a pretty low awareness of KM generally. Asking around, I haven't been able to find too many people doing KM research in mainland China. Some of the top universities are engaged in some activity, for example Sun Yat-Sen University (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Miguel_Nunes2), but even for them KM is only a small part of their primary LIS focus.

The second reason is wondering about the quality of at least some of the 1064 papers authored in China, after I noticed an odd conclusion in a conference paper last year. The paper examined ethics and integrity issues in management research through the analysis of retracted articles between 2005 and 2016, finding that "Interestingly, the analyzed results indicate that knowledge management has the highest number of retracted articles with plagiarism as the predominant ethical issues." Doing some analysis that the authors didn't do, I found that nearly all of the retracted papers were published by just one publisher - IEEE (which is indexed by SCOPUS) - and most of the retractions were also papers published in China. I've written this up at http://realkm.com/2017/06/09/knowledge-management-researchers-are-far-more-unethical-than-their-peers-study-finds-really/

While IEEE retracted a large number of dubious China-published papers, it's potentially only the tip of the iceberg. Fake research is unfortunately a serious problem here, for example as discussed in http://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/2104532/486-face-punishment-links-chinas-fake-research-paper-scandal  The Chinese Government is taking the problem seriously, and a colleague of mine recently attended a high-level conference in Beiing where this was the focus. However, it's going to take a while to clean things up.


Murray Jennex
 

I fully understand your points and agree with you.  However I have to point out that SCOPUS is a pretty good system that is relied upon heavily.  That said the research I see comes mainly from universities such as Wuhan, Beijing, Remin, Hong Kong, and others that I'm not real familiar with.  Many of the Chinese papers I receive require a lot of work to make publishable so I haven't published a large number of them in IJKM.  Basically I'm just as surprised as you are and the interesting thing is if you took the Chinese viewpoint that Taiwan is part of China then China would actually be ranked number 1.  I posted the paper because it really is surprising and in many ways perplexing to me....murray


-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Boyes bruceboyes@... [sikmleaders]
To: sikmleaders
Sent: Fri, Jan 26, 2018 5:05 am
Subject: [sikmleaders] Re: KM around the world



Thanks Murray, interesting insights. I'm a little nervous though about China's ranking in the paper as second highest for KM research output behind the US, for two reasons. 

The first reason is that I'm not aware of a whole lot of KM research activity here as yet. I work in a mainland Chinese University that is highly regarded, Shanxi University, where I've been initiating some KM subjects, and I hope to expand on this. Shanxi University hasn't been carrying out any KM research, and still isn't, and when I first started with them they had a pretty low awareness of KM generally. Asking around, I haven't been able to find too many people doing KM research in mainland China. Some of the top universities are engaged in some activity, for example Sun Yat-Sen University (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Miguel_Nunes2), but even for them KM is only a smal l part of their primary LIS focus.

The second reason is wondering about the quality of at least some of the 1064 papers authored in China, after I noticed an odd conclusion in a conference paper last year. The paper examined ethics and integrity issues in management research through the analysis of retracted articles between 2005 and 2016, finding that "Interestingly, the analyzed results indicate that knowledge management has the highest number of retracted articles with plagiarism as the predominant ethical issues." Doing some analysis that the authors didn't do, I found that nearly all of the retracted papers were published by just one publisher - IEEE (which is indexed by SCOPUS) - and most of the retractions were also papers published in China. I've written this up at http://realkm.com/2017/06/09/knowledge-management-researchers-are-far-more-unethical-than-their-peers-study-finds-really/

While IEEE retracted a large numb er of dubious China-published papers, it's potentially only the tip of the iceberg. Fake research is unfortunately a serious problem here, for example as discussed in http://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/2104532/486-face-punishment-links-chinas-fake-research-paper-scandal ; The Chinese Government is taking the problem seriously, and a colleague of mine recently attended a high-level conference in Beiing where this was the focus. However, it's going to take a while to clean things up.




Murray Jennex
 

One other point to make about SCOPUS, it lists about half of what Google Scholar lists, it is actually a little tough to be listed by SCOPUS, hence its hard to ignore the findings of the paper.  I really wonder what the results would be if all publications were considered and I suspect there would be even more publications in China, India, Iran, and the rest of Asia and the Middle East due to more local conferences and journals.  Now all that said, here is the thing to remember, the paper does not address impact, only quantity....murray


-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Boyes bruceboyes@... [sikmleaders]
To: sikmleaders
Sent: Fri, Jan 26, 2018 5:05 am
Subject: [sikmleaders] Re: KM around the world



Thanks Murray, interesting insights. I'm a little nervous though about China's ranking in the paper as second highest for KM research output behind the US, for two reasons. 

The first reason is that I'm not aware of a whole lot of KM research activity here as yet. I work in a mainland Chinese University that is highly regarded, Shanxi University, where I've been initiating some KM subjects, and I hope to expand on this. Shanxi University hasn't been carrying out any KM research, and still isn't, and when I first started with them they had a pretty low awareness of KM generally. Asking around, I haven't been able to find too many people doing KM research in mainland China. Some of the top universities are engaged in some activity, for example Sun Yat-Sen University (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Miguel_Nunes2), but even for them KM is only a smal l part of their primary LIS focus.

The second reason is wondering about the quality of at least some of the 1064 papers authored in China, after I noticed an odd conclusion in a conference paper last year. The paper examined ethics and integrity issues in management research through the analysis of retracted articles between 2005 and 2016, finding that "Interestingly, the analyzed results indicate that knowledge management has the highest number of retracted articles with plagiarism as the predominant ethical issues." Doing some analysis that the authors didn't do, I found that nearly all of the retracted papers were published by just one publisher - IEEE (which is indexed by SCOPUS) - and most of the retractions were also papers published in China. I've written this up at http://realkm.com/2017/06/09/knowledge-management-researchers-are-far-more-unethical-than-their-peers-study-finds-really/

While IEEE retracted a large numb er of dubious China-published papers, it's potentially only the tip of the iceberg. Fake research is unfortunately a serious problem here, for example as discussed in http://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/2104532/486-face-punishment-links-chinas-fake-research-paper-scandal ; The Chinese Government is taking the problem seriously, and a colleague of mine recently attended a high-level conference in Beiing where this was the focus. However, it's going to take a while to clean things up.




Murray Jennex
 

Patrick,

The paper doesn't answer these questions and there are just too many papers for me to independently do it.  I am comfortable that the numbers are close to right as I did check my numbers reported in the paper and it to be actually a little low so I can see the authors have been conservative.

I do have some insights from the articles I see at IJKM but this will be mostly anecdotal evidence.  IJKM publishes very few theoretical or conceptual papers, less than 10%, the articles I do publish are almost all tied to some aspect of KM in practice.  I am comfortable saying that over 50% of the quantitative articles use respondents from practice (as opposed to student respondents) and the case studies all look at real KM issues in real organizations.  All this is interesting but doesn't answer the final question of yours as to if the articles from outside the traditional KM countries look at KM issues in those countries.  The submissions I receive are over 90% focused on issues in the non-traditional countries.  My problem isn't that the papers look at issues in the non-traditional countries but that most authors aren't grounding in the overall KM literature or generalizing their findings to the traditional countries (or saying if the findings are unique to the non-traditional countries).  This has been my issue in coaching these papers as KM readers need more than "this is how KM is in country xyz.  Also, I'm trying to get these authors to contribute to a larger body of KM knowledge.  So my overall impression is that there is a significant amount of research being done in non-traditional KM countries and looks at organizations unique to those countries.  I do think there is enough research that is unique that the larger KM community needs to take a look at it.  Does this answer your questions enough?  I think I should also say that research from Iran and middle east is very focused on issues in organizations in those countries.  Research from India and China is more oriented to theoretical issues and much less to issues with organizations in those countries.  Of course remember my sample is based on submissions to IJKM only.....murray


-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick Lambe plambe@... [sikmleaders]
To: sikmleaders
Sent: Fri, Jan 26, 2018 2:50 am
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] KM around the world



Thanks Murray - as you say this is a trend that suggests itself from just scanning the journal contents pages, it is useful to have it quantified.

To your question:

-------
The final question of course is that with so much academic KM output is the KM profession hurting itself by not being better tied to academia?  I'm not trying to start a feud or argument but it does appear that KM has a great divide between KM practice and KM research and that there might be value in tying the two closer together.
-------

There are a couple of follow up questions that I’d be interested in: what proportion of articles in that study are collaborations between countries/regions? Does a hard breakout of the represented countries/universities represent the actual state of affairs?

What proportion of the articles are practice-oriented vs theory oriented - e.g. reporting on case studies, field studies, experimental work, implementations, results in the field? That would be suggestive of how closely connected the academic output is related to practice.


To your question:

-----

And finally, are we acting rashly by looking at endorsing a KM standard that was pretty much written by the traditional KM powers and with little input from these other hotbeds of KM activity?
—-

My first two questions should help to clarify whether your first question is actually a strong one. IF KM academic publishing output is quite closely geared to practice, AND is undertaken pretty much independently of work in the U.S., Europe, Israel, and Australia, then clearly those are hotbeds that should be connected into the standards development work (if they are not already). 


P

Patrick Lambe
Partner
+65 62210383



twitter: @plambesg

Knowledge mapping made easy: www.aithinsoftware.com

On 26 Jan 2018, at 10:31 AM, Murray Jennex murphjen@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> wrote:

Attached is a paper that may be of interest to the group.  The paper is on KM output in SCOPUS and is focused on who, where, and how many academic papers were written in the decade 2007 through 2016.  SCOPUS is the largest database listing peer reviewed work from around the world.  Why I'm posting the article is because if you look at it, you'll see that the leading authors are from the US, Europe, and Australia mostly, but the surprising finding is the top universities and countries producing KM articles.  The list of the top 10 universities by output is mostly Asian and Middle Eastern universities.  The table that looks at output by country is not real surprising with the US at 1, but China is 2nd with Taiwan, Malaysia, Iran, and India also in the top 10.  This is making me think that perhaps there is a lot more KM being done outside of the US, Western Europe, and Australia than expected.  My questions are why?   Is this indicative that many nations are seeing KM as a key initiative for raising their economies and societies?  And finally, are we acting rashly by looking at endorsing a KM standard that was pretty much written by the traditional KM powers and with little input from these other hotbeds of KM activity?

The final question of course is that with so much academic KM output is the KM profession hurting itself by not being better tied to academia?  I'm not trying to start a feud or argument but it does appear that KM has a great divide between KM practice and KM research and that there might be value in tying the two closer together.

Oh yes, as editor in chief of the International Journal of Knowledge Management I've been seeing this trend for several years but didn't realize how much was being done outside of the US, Western Europe, and Australia and will even go so far to say that if what I've been seeing over the last two years continues, KM research will be centered in China, India, Iran and other Asian and Middle Eastern countries in the next couple of years......murray e. jennex, professor of MIS, Fowler College of Business, San Diego State University.





Bruce Boyes
 

Thanks Murray for your replies. I didn't say I was surprised by the large number of Chinese KM papers indexed in SCOPUS, rather that I'd be surprised if at least some of them weren’t of doubtful quality.

SCOPUS might be a valued system, but high-impact journals are certainly not immune from research fraud. Take for example this list of 107 Chinese research papers retracted from Springer Nature Tumor Biology in April last year, due to fabricated peer review. As this MIMS article discusses, some of the authors were from top universities including Peking University and Fudan University. That article also includes the attached graph of retractions due to fabricated peer review by country between 2012 and 2016. As the article states in regard to the graph:

Retraction Watch, a research integrity watchdog based in the United States reported that China had a total of 276 studies that were retracted due to fabricated peer-reviews from 2012 to 2016. On the other hand, Japan published 4,000 papers in 2016, and has not recorded a single case of retraction due to this issue.

The graph also leads me to also wonder about the Taiwanese research in the paper you provided. I think Hong Kong is a different story though; there you’ll find highly regarded KM researchers like Hong Kong Polytechnic’s Eric Tsui.

As academic fraud fighter Shi-min Gang advises, fraudulent research is endemic in mainland China, and he’s documented hundreds of such cases on his New Threads website. As an example of the extent of academic fraud in mainland China, one Chinese journal has reported that a staggering 31% of all submissions were plagiarised.

The Chinese papers that you receive requiring a lot of work are actually the ones more likely to be worth publishing because there's a higher probability that they're both genuine and high-quality. Every year, I teach the basics of academic English writing to the senior academics from across Shanxi Province who have been selected to go overseas in the subsequent year under the Shanxi Government's visiting scholars program. Not only are their written English language skills limited, but their writing style is very different, with traditional academic writing in China being much more story-like and often including personal perspectives and feelings, particularly when they are writing about people-centered topics. Many of them have also expressed very strong concerns about the current state of academic publishing in China, so I'm in no doubt that despite the scale of the academic fraud issues, there are many ethical Chinese academics who are committed to doing the right thing. Finding effective ways of bridging the language and cultural gap would result in a lot more of these ethical Chinese researchers publishing in western journals, and this requires some intercultural flexibility and both high-quality translation and then good English editing.

As things stand, most Chinese universities have little or no internal capability to be able to do both the high-quality translation and good English editing, so authors send their draft manuscripts to writing services. These services typically try to massage the manuscripts into something with the greatest appeal to publishers, and this is one way in which the academic fraud is occurring.

More blatantly, some unethical authors get the writing services (like this one, one of many) to write their entire paper, or engage ghostwriters through freelancing websites (for example there are always numerous such requests on this Australian-based website). Paper writing services are also very popular with students, for example this one which was exposed in 2014. These services will write anything from a high school essay to a PhD dissertation, and university plagiarism detection software can be readily bypassedA comment you made in your reply to Patrick was “Research from India and China is more oriented to theoretical issues and much less to issues with organizations in those countries." I would note that research in regard to theoretical issues is much easier for writing services to prepare than research that requires organisational engagement.

Besides paper writing services, I think another factor contributing to plagiarism is the emphasis in Chinese education on rote learning, that is, repeating the ideas of others rather than creating your own. This even occurs with my classes of senior academics, who will ask me for statements they can commit to memory and then feel very uncomfortable when I say no and tell them that all I'll be giving them are objectives, standards, processes, and structures, and they'll then need to think for themselves. This Confucian education system isn't going to change any time soon, as it's deeply rooted in Chinese culture and tends to produce a range of better outcomes than western education. This means it's another intercultural factor that's going to need to be considered in strategies to achieve long-term outcomes in regard to the raising of academic standards in China.

As I said in my earlier message, significant Chinese Government efforts are underway to address the serious problem of academic fraud in China. In the meantime, extra care needs to be taken with any research that has been or is produced in mainland China, and from the attached graph, also Taiwan. Effort also needs to be put into finding effective ways of bridging language and cultural gaps, which would result in a lot more ethical Chinese researchers publishing in western journals. This requires intercultural flexibility and both high-quality translation and good English editing.

Regards,

Bruce.



On Saturday, 27 January 2018, 3:23:19 am GMT+8, Murray Jennex murphjen@... [sikmleaders] wrote:


 

I fully understand your points and agree with you.  However I have to point out that SCOPUS is a pretty good system that is relied upon heavily.  That said the research I see comes mainly from universities such as Wuhan, Beijing, Remin, Hong Kong, and others that I'm not real familiar with.  Many of the Chinese papers I receive require a lot of work to make publishable so I haven't published a large number of them in IJKM.  Basically I'm just as surprised as you are and the interesting thing is if you took the Chinese viewpoint that Taiwan is part of China then China would actually be ranked number 1.  I posted the paper because it really is surprising and in many ways perplexing to me....murray


-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Boyes bruceboyes@... [sikmleaders]
To: sikmleaders
Sent: Fri, Jan 26, 2018 5:05 am
Subject: [sikmleaders] Re: KM around the world



Thanks Murray, interesting insights. I'm a little nervous though about China's ranking in the paper as second highest for KM research output behind the US, for two reasons. 

The first reason is that I'm not aware of a whole lot of KM research activity here as yet. I work in a mainland Chinese University that is highly regarded, Shanxi University, where I've been initiating some KM subjects, and I hope to expand on this. Shanxi University hasn't been carrying out any KM research, and still isn't, and when I first started with them they had a pretty low awareness of KM generally. Asking around, I haven't been able to find too many people doing KM research in mainland China. Some of the top universities are engaged in some activity, for example Sun Yat-Sen University (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Miguel_Nunes2), but even for them KM is only a smal l part of their primary LIS focus.

The second reason is wondering about the quality of at least some of the 1064 papers authored in China, after I noticed an odd conclusion in a conference paper last year. The paper examined ethics and integrity issues in management research through the analysis of retracted articles between 2005 and 2016, finding that "Interestingly, the analyzed results indicate that knowledge management has the highest number of retracted articles with plagiarism as the predominant ethical issues." Doing some analysis that the authors didn't do, I found that nearly all of the retracted papers were published by just one publisher - IEEE (which is indexed by SCOPUS) - and most of the retractions were also papers published in China. I've written this up at http://realkm.com/2017/06/09/knowledge-management-researchers-are-far-more-unethical-than-their-peers-study-finds-really/

While IEEE retracted a large numb er of dubious China-published papers, it's potentially only the tip of the iceberg. Fake research is unfortunately a serious problem here, for example as discussed in http://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/2104532/486-face-punishment-links-chinas-fake-research-paper-scandal ; The Chinese Government is taking the problem seriously, and a colleague of mine recently attended a high-level conference in Beiing where this was the focus. However, it's going to take a while to clean things up.




Bruce Boyes
 

Thanks Murray for your replies. I didn't say I was surprised by the large number of Chinese KM papers indexed in SCOPUS, rather that I'd be surprised if at least some of them weren’t of doubtful quality.

SCOPUS might be a valued system, but high-impact journals are certainly not immune from research fraud. Take for example this list of 107 Chinese research papers retracted from Springer Nature Tumor Biology in April last year, due to fabricated peer review. As this MIMS article discusses, some of the authors were from top universities including Peking University and Fudan University. That article also includes the attached graph of retractions due to fabricated peer review by country between 2012 and 2016. As the article states in regard to the graph:

Retraction Watch, a research integrity watchdog based in the United States reported that China had a total of 276 studies that were retracted due to fabricated peer-reviews from 2012 to 2016. On the other hand, Japan published 4,000 papers in 2016, and has not recorded a single case of retraction due to this issue.

The graph also leads me to also wonder about the Taiwanese research in the paper you provided. I think Hong Kong is a different story though; there you’ll find highly regarded KM researchers like Hong Kong Polytechnic’s Eric Tsui.

As academic fraud fighter Shi-min Gang advises, fraudulent research is endemic in mainland China, and he’s documented hundreds of such cases on his New Threads website. As an example of the extent of academic fraud in mainland China, one Chinese journal has reported that a staggering 31% of all submissions were plagiarised.

The Chinese papers that you receive requiring a lot of work are actually the ones more likely to be worth publishing because there's a higher probability that they're both genuine and high-quality. Every year, I teach the basics of academic English writing to the senior academics from across Shanxi Province who have been selected to go overseas in the subsequent year under the Shanxi Government's visiting scholars program. Not only are their written English language skills limited, but their writing style is very different, with traditional academic writing in China being much more story-like and often including personal perspectives and feelings, particularly when they are writing about people-centered topics. Many of them have also expressed very strong concerns about the current state of academic publishing in China, so I'm in no doubt that despite the scale of the academic fraud issues, there are many ethical Chinese academics who are committed to doing the right thing. Finding effective ways of bridging the language and cultural gap would result in a lot more of these ethical Chinese researchers publishing in western journals, and this requires some intercultural flexibility and both high-quality translation and then good English editing.

As things stand, most Chinese universities have little or no internal capability to be able to do both the high-quality translation and good English editing, so authors send their draft manuscripts to writing services. These services typically try to massage the manuscripts into something with the greatest appeal to publishers, and this is one way in which the academic fraud is occurring.

More blatantly, some unethical authors get the writing services (like this one, one of many) to write their entire paper, or engage ghostwriters through freelancing websites (for example there are always numerous such requests on this Australian-based website). Paper writing services are also very popular with students, for example this one which was exposed in 2014. These services will write anything from a high school essay to a PhD dissertation, and university plagiarism detection software can be readily bypassedA comment you made in your reply to Patrick was “Research from India and China is more oriented to theoretical issues and much less to issues with organizations in those countries." I would note that research in regard to theoretical issues is much easier for writing services to prepare than research that requires organisational engagement.

Besides paper writing services, I think another factor contributing to plagiarism is the emphasis in Chinese education on rote learning, that is, repeating the ideas of others rather than creating your own. This even occurs with my classes of senior academics, who will ask me for statements they can commit to memory and then feel very uncomfortable when I say no and tell them that all I'll be giving them are objectives, standards, processes, and structures, and they'll then need to think for themselves. This Confucian education system isn't going to change any time soon, as it's deeply rooted in Chinese culture and tends to produce a range of better outcomes than western education. This means it's another intercultural factor that's going to need to be considered in strategies to achieve long-term outcomes in regard to the raising of academic standards in China.

As I said in my earlier message, significant Chinese Government efforts are underway to address the serious problem of academic fraud in China. In the meantime, extra care needs to be taken with any research that has been or is produced in mainland China, and from the attached graph, also Taiwan. Effort also needs to be put into finding effective ways of bridging language and cultural gaps, which would result in a lot more ethical Chinese researchers publishing in western journals. This requires intercultural flexibility and both high-quality translation and good English editing.

Regards,

Bruce.



On Saturday, 27 January 2018, 3:23:19 am GMT+8, Murray Jennex murphjen@... [sikmleaders] wrote:


 

I fully understand your points and agree with you.  However I have to point out that SCOPUS is a pretty good system that is relied upon heavily.  That said the research I see comes mainly from universities such as Wuhan, Beijing, Remin, Hong Kong, and others that I'm not real familiar with.  Many of the Chinese papers I receive require a lot of work to make publishable so I haven't published a large number of them in IJKM.  Basically I'm just as surprised as you are and the interesting thing is if you took the Chinese viewpoint that Taiwan is part of China then China would actually be ranked number 1.  I posted the paper because it really is surprising and in many ways perplexing to me....murray


-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Boyes bruceboyes@... [sikmleaders]
To: sikmleaders
Sent: Fri, Jan 26, 2018 5:05 am
Subject: [sikmleaders] Re: KM around the world



Thanks Murray, interesting insights. I'm a little nervous though about China's ranking in the paper as second highest for KM research output behind the US, for two reasons. 

The first reason is that I'm not aware of a whole lot of KM research activity here as yet. I work in a mainland Chinese University that is highly regarded, Shanxi University, where I've been initiating some KM subjects, and I hope to expand on this. Shanxi University hasn't been carrying out any KM research, and still isn't, and when I first started with them they had a pretty low awareness of KM generally. Asking around, I haven't been able to find too many people doing KM research in mainland China. Some of the top universities are engaged in some activity, for example Sun Yat-Sen University (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Miguel_Nunes2), but even for them KM is only a smal l part of their primary LIS focus.

The second reason is wondering about the quality of at least some of the 1064 papers authored in China, after I noticed an odd conclusion in a conference paper last year. The paper examined ethics and integrity issues in management research through the analysis of retracted articles between 2005 and 2016, finding that "Interestingly, the analyzed results indicate that knowledge management has the highest number of retracted articles with plagiarism as the predominant ethical issues." Doing some analysis that the authors didn't do, I found that nearly all of the retracted papers were published by just one publisher - IEEE (which is indexed by SCOPUS) - and most of the retractions were also papers published in China. I've written this up at http://realkm.com/2017/06/09/knowledge-management-researchers-are-far-more-unethical-than-their-peers-study-finds-really/

While IEEE retracted a large numb er of dubious China-published papers, it's potentially only the tip of the iceberg. Fake research is unfortunately a serious problem here, for example as discussed in http://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/2104532/486-face-punishment-links-chinas-fake-research-paper-scandal ; The Chinese Government is taking the problem seriously, and a colleague of mine recently attended a high-level conference in Beiing where this was the focus. However, it's going to take a while to clean things up.




Murray Jennex
 

I'll agree with you on the doubtful quality, but add that low quality is happening a lot including the US.  I think the problem is the pressure to publish and the open access journals.  The pressure to publish has people writing more articles and not doing a great job of it, but they need to get them out.  I've gotten to the point where over half my rejections are desk rejections that I reject in initial assessment without sending out for review because I don't want to waste reviewer time.  The open access journals I worry about as many (not all) do a fairly lax job of reviewing, and I've noticed a lot of these are in China.  So Bruce I'm agreeing with you that there are many poor quality articles even in SCOPUS.  All that said the numbers are still there so the only way to check these will be to look at impact and see which ones are getting cited....murray


-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Boyes bruceboyes@... [sikmleaders]
To: sikmleaders
Sent: Sun, Jan 28, 2018 2:26 am
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Re: KM around the world



Thanks Murray for your replies. I didn't say I was surprised by the large number of Chinese KM papers indexed in SCOPUS, rather that I'd be surprised if at least some of them weren’t of doubtful quality.

SCOPUS might be a valued system, but high-impact journals are certainly not immune from research fraud. Take for example this list of 107 Chinese research papers retracted from Springer Nature Tumor Biology in April last year, due to fabricated peer review. As this MIMS article discusses, some of the authors were from top universities including Peking University and Fudan University. That article also includes the attached graph of retractions due to fabricated peer review by country between 2012 and 2016. As the article states in regard to the graph:

Retraction Watch, a research integrity watchdog based in the United States reported that China had a total of 276 studies that were retracted due to fabricated peer-reviews from 2012 to 2016. On the other hand, Japan published 4,000 papers in 2016, and has not recorded a single case of retraction due to this issue.

The graph also leads me to also wonder about the Taiwanese research in the paper you provided. I think Hong Kong is a different story though; there you’ll find highly regarded KM researchers like Hong Kong Polytechnic’s Eric Tsui.

As academic fraud fighter Shi-min Gang advises, fraudulent research is endemic in mainland China, and he’s documented hundreds of such cases on his New Threads website. As an example of the extent of academic fraud in mainland China, one Chinese journal has reported that a staggering 31% of all submissions were plagiarised.

The Chinese papers that you receive requiring a lot of work are actually the ones more likely to be worth publishing because there's a higher probability that they're both genuine and high-quality. Every year, I teach the basics of academic English writing to the senior academics from across Shanxi Province who have been selected to go overseas in the subsequent year under the Shanxi Government's visiting scholars program. Not only are their written English language skills limited, but their writing style is very different, with traditional academic writing in China being much more story-like and often including personal perspectives and feelings, particularly when they are writing about people-centered topics. Many of them have also expressed very strong concerns about the current state of academic publishing in China, so I'm in no doubt that despite the scale of the academic fraud issues, there are many ethical Chinese academics who are committed to doing the right thing. Finding effective ways of bridging the language and cultural gap would result in a lot more of these ethical Chinese researchers publishing in western journals, and this requires some intercultural flexibility and both high-quality translation and then good English editing.

As things stand, most Chinese universities have little or no internal capability to be able to do both the high-quality translation and good English editing, so authors send their draft manuscripts to writing services. These services typically try to massage the manuscripts into something with the greatest appeal to publishers, and this is one way in which the academic fraud is occurring.

More blatantly, some unethical authors get the writing services (like this one, one of many) to write their entire paper, or engage ghostwriters through freelancing websites (for example there are always numerous such requests on this Australian-based website). Paper writing services are also very popular with students, for example this one which was exposed in 2014. These services will write anything from a high school essay to a PhD dissertation, and university plagiarism detection software can be readily bypassedA comment you made in your reply to Patrick was “Research from India and China is more oriented to theoretical issues and much less to issues with organizations in those countries." I would note that research in regard to theoretical issues is much easier for writing services to prepare than research that requires organisational engagement.

Besides paper writing services, I think another factor contributing to plagiarism is the emphasis in Chinese education on rote learning, that is, repeating the ideas of others rather than creating your own. This even occurs with my classes of senior academics, who will ask me for statements they can commit to memory and then feel very uncomfortable when I say no and tell them that all I'll be giving them are objectives, standards, processes, and structures, and they'll then need to think for themselves. This Confucian education system isn't going to change any time soon, as it's deeply rooted in Chinese culture and tends to produce a range of better outcomes than western education. This means it's another intercultural factor that's going to need to be considered in strategies to achieve long-term outcomes in regard to the raising of academic standards in China.

As I said in my earlier message, significant Chinese Government efforts are underway to address the serious problem of academic fraud in China. In the meantime, extra care needs to be taken with any research that has been or is produced in mainland China, and from the attached graph, also Taiwan. Effort also needs to be put into finding effective ways of bridging language and cultural gaps, which would result in a lot more ethical Chinese researchers publishing in western journals. This requires intercultural flexibility and both high-quality translation and good English editing.

Regards,

Bruce.



On Saturday, 27 January 2018, 3:23:19 am GMT+8, Murray Jennex murphjen@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> wrote:


 
I fully understand your points and agree with you.  However I have to point out that SCOPUS is a pretty good system that is relied upon heavily.  That said the research I see comes mainly from universities such as Wuhan, Beijing, Remin, Hong Kong, and others that I'm not real familiar with.  Many of the Chinese papers I receive require a lot of work to make publishable so I haven't published a large number of them in IJKM.  Basically I'm just as surprised as you are and the interesting thing is if you took the Chinese viewpoint that Taiwan is part of China then China would actually be ranked number 1.  I posted the paper because it really is surprising and in many ways perplexing to me....murray


-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Boyes bruceboyes@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...>
To: sikmleaders <sikmleaders@...>
Sent: Fri, Jan 26, 2018 5:05 am
Subject: [sikmleaders] Re: KM around the world



Thanks Murray, interesting insights. I'm a little nervous though about China's ranking in the paper as second highest for KM research output behind the US, for two reasons. 

The first reason is that I'm not aware of a whole lot of KM research activity here as yet. I work in a mainland Chinese University that is highly regarded, Shanxi University, where I've been initiating some KM subjects, and I hope to expand on this. Shanxi University hasn't been carrying out any KM research, and still isn't, and when I first started with them they had a pretty low awareness of KM generally. Asking around, I haven't been able to find too many people doing KM research in mainland China. Some of the top universities are engaged in some activity, for example Sun Yat-Sen University (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Miguel_Nunes2), but even for them KM is only a smal l part of their primary LIS focus.

The second reason is wondering about the quality of at least some of the 1064 papers authored in China, after I noticed an odd conclusion in a conference paper last year. The paper examined ethics and integrity issues in management research through the analysis of retracted articles between 2005 and 2016, finding that "Interestingly, the analyzed results indicate that knowledge management has the highest number of retracted articles with plagiarism as the predominant ethical issues." Doing some analysis that the authors didn't do, I found that nearly all of the retracted papers were published by just one publisher - IEEE (which is indexed by SCOPUS) - and most of the retractions were also papers published in China. I've written this up at http://realkm.com/2017/06/09/knowledge-management-researchers-are-far-more-unethical-than-their-peers-study-finds-really/

While IEEE retracted a large numb er of dubious China-published papers, it's potentially only the tip of the iceberg. Fake research is unfortunately a serious problem here, for example as discussed in http://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/2104532/486-face-punishment-links-chinas-fake-research-paper-scandal ; The Chinese Government is taking the problem seriously, and a colleague of mine recently attended a high-level conference in Beiing where this was the focus. However, it's going to take a while to clean things up.







Boris Jaeger
 

Yes, Scopus seems not to be immune against such predatory publishers (see https://doi.org/10.1108/LR-12-2016-0108, p 516). I came through this study recently when doing research on WSEAS and their AIKED conference (https://kmeducationhub.de/?p=11447). And yes, IEEE is indexing doubtable conference proceedings, too (see https://kmeducationhub.de/?p=13771, Note #3). And yes, this is not only an Asian phenomenon. Just take a look at the ACSE, formerly known as WPRLDCOMP. (https://kmeducationhub.de/wp-admin/?p=25455) #1 predator for the field may be WASET (https://kmeducationhub.de/wp-admin/?p=13904) That said, I think we shouldn't call this papers "fake research" but "maybe of low quality" research because all too often the authors/presenters are the victims acting with good faith.
 
When it comes to the theory vs practice debate I always refer to the following quote:
 
"Experience without theory is blind, but theory without experience is mere intellectual play." - Immanuel Kant
 
Recently I had to lough about a conversation between to KM consultants, both with a PhD, claiming to be totally practice oriented. It seemd to me that the lable "academic" is a kind of swearword to them.
 
As for case studies you should know that "Paper is patience!", means that you can write a lot, but it is not certain that the writing is useful (in your context) or true (success stories are easier to write than failures). I saw a lot of success stories, having a background about the real story.
 
Finally I guess it is a waste of time to continue a debate about the upcoming KM standard. The saviours of the field already decided just doing what is best for many. (as if they were g(o)od, http://tinyurl.com/yb9p8r6y) They will just entangle you in a "Never Ending Story" conversation and, like in politics, don't answer unpleasant questions (like Murry's question about the consultants in the standards working group)
 
The only thing you can do is to take appropriate action.
 
By the way, did you know that we currently have two main saviours for KM? One for the knowledge society and one for the knowledge economy. Both are consultants. The one already has his non-profit, the other will probably have one in the near future.
 
Regards from Germany,
Boris Jaeger - "Curiosity is the beginning of all learning!"


Arthur Shelley
 

Hi Boris,

Yes we agree on some things and not others Boris and that is a good thing (as mentioned earlier).

Like your quote "Curiosity is the beginning of all learning!" I believe this is a great insight – when we explore points of difference as the potential to learn alternative perspectives it is a good thing. It evolves thinking and generates new ideas from adapting older insights to align with new contexts. There is value in such dialogue.

 

I also agree that there is LOT of rubbish written in published journals, which is why we need to have critical dialogue about what is going on in the world and what practical impacts this has. We benefit from doing our homework to see who is making what contributions to what, and on what basis. Otherwise we can get bogged down into categorising to simplify too much, like thinking people with a PhD are just academics, regardless of how much time they run parallel careers and how much experience they have as practitioners before doing a PhD. It is not one’s qualifications that determine what someone is, it is mindset and openness to alternatives. Successful people are rarely just one thing, they play many roles and often in parallel.  Poor judgement comes from limiting one’s focus on only the aspects of the “evidence” one wants to see, rather than the alternative possibilities we could choose to explore together.

 

I disagree that it is easier to write about success than failure. I think it is easier to explain what went wrong and find root causes of failure. However, too often people do not look at the “causes” of success in the same way as failure. There is a lot to be learnt from that type of critical  exploratory analysis, but few choose to engage in it. I have always argued that if unless one can explain what was done to generate a successful outcome, one can’t claim it as “ours”. Unless one is prepared to admit it was luck or serendipity (which is not what “successful” people share in their retrospective success stories). There is benefit in genuine analysis of both.

 

I disagree that Murray’s question of consultants not being on committees was not answered. I gave several reasons for my disagreement on that in a reply, perhaps you missed it? I was not trying to suggest he was right or wrong, merely highlighting we differed in opinion and why I was of an alternative view. I don’t see it as my role to tell people they are wrong - I think it is of more value to highlight that alternative opinions exist and that robustly debating diversity of opinion is an excellent way to learn. The paradox is that seemingly opposites can coexist – there are often just a matter of differing interpretation, experiences and value sets than absolute categories like “right and wrong”. This is what makes human interactions both complex and interesting.

 

Regards

Arthur Shelley

Producer: Creative Melbourne

Author: KNOWledge SUCCESSion  Sustained performance and capability growth through knowledge projects

Earlier Books: The Organizational Zoo (2007) & Being a Successful Knowledge Leader (2009)

Principal: www.IntelligentAnswers.com.au 

Founder: Organizational Zoo Ambassadors Network

Mb. +61 413 047 408  Skype: Arthur.Shelley  Twitter: @Metaphorage

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=4229168

Free behavioural profiles: www.organizationalzoo.com

Blog: www.organizationalzoo.com/blog

 

From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...]
Sent: Monday, 29 January 2018 3:18 AM
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Re: KM around the world

 

 

Yes, Scopus seems not to be immune against such predatory publishers (see https://doi.org/10.1108/LR-12-2016-0108, p 516). I came through this study recently when doing research on WSEAS and their AIKED conference (https://kmeducationhub.de/?p=11447). And yes, IEEE is indexing doubtable conference proceedings, too (see https://kmeducationhub.de/?p=13771, Note #3). And yes, this is not only an Asian phenomenon. Just take a look at the ACSE, formerly known as WPRLDCOMP. (https://kmeducationhub.de/wp-admin/?p=25455) #1 predator for the field may be WASET (https://kmeducationhub.de/wp-admin/?p=13904) That said, I think we shouldn't call this papers "fake research" but "maybe of low quality" research because all too often the authors/presenters are the victims acting with good faith.

 

When it comes to the theory vs practice debate I always refer to the following quote:

 

"Experience without theory is blind, but theory without experience is mere intellectual play." - Immanuel Kant

 

Recently I had to lough about a conversation between to KM consultants, both with a PhD, claiming to be totally practice oriented. It seemd to me that the lable "academic" is a kind of swearword to them.

 

As for case studies you should know that "Paper is patience!", means that you can write a lot, but it is not certain that the writing is useful (in your context) or true (success stories are easier to write than failures). I saw a lot of success stories, having a background about the real story.

 

Finally I guess it is a waste of time to continue a debate about the upcoming KM standard. The saviours of the field already decided just doing what is best for many. (as if they were g(o)od, http://tinyurl.com/yb9p8r6y) They will just entangle you in a "Never Ending Story" conversation and, like in politics, don't answer unpleasant questions (like Murry's question about the consultants in the standards working group)

 

The only thing you can do is to take appropriate action.

 

By the way, did you know that we currently have two main saviours for KM? One for the knowledge society and one for the knowledge economy. Both are consultants. The one already has his non-profit, the other will probably have one in the near future.

 

Regards from Germany,
Boris Jaeger - "Curiosity is the beginning of all learning!"


Stephen Bounds
 

Hi Arthur,

I disagree that it is easier to write about success than failure. I think it is easier to explain what went wrong and find root causes of failure. However, too often people do not look at the “causes” of success in the same way as failure. There is a lot to be learnt from that type of critical  exploratory analysis, but few choose to engage in it. I have always argued that if unless one can explain what was done to generate a successful outcome, one can’t claim it as “ours”. Unless one is prepared to admit it was luck or serendipity (which is not what “successful” people share in their retrospective success stories). There is benefit in genuine analysis of both.


I actually think both kinds of "root cause analysis" are flawed. Any post-hoc analysis suffers from confirmation bias and spurious pattern matching, so what's more critical from a disciplinary perspective is to start to "call the shot". That is, before anything is done:
  • What is the KM theory forming the basis for action?
  • Does the theory allow for diagnosis of organisational state to confirm suitability of proposed interventions?
  • How are we controlling for the effects of random chance or external influences?
  • If a "bad" outcome happened, was the cause bad information, bad theory, or bad luck?
    (Bad luck means that you'd still recommend the same course of action next time.)
None of this happens enough, in academia or in practice. It's a major problem.

Cheers,
Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 29/01/2018 10:56 PM, 'Arthur' arthur@... [sikmleaders] wrote:
 

Hi Boris,

Yes we agree on some things and not others Boris and that is a good thing (as mentioned earlier).

Like your quote "Curiosity is the beginning of all learning!" I believe this is a great insight – when we explore points of difference as the potential to learn alternative perspectives it is a good thing. It evolves thinking and generates new ideas from adapting older insights to align with new contexts. There is value in such dialogue.

 

I also agree that there is LOT of rubbish written in published journals, which is why we need to have critical dialogue about what is going on in the world and what practical impacts this has. We benefit from doing our homework to see who is making what contributions to what, and on what basis. Otherwise we can get bogged down into categorising to simplify too much, like thinking people with a PhD are just academics, regardless of how much time they run parallel careers and how much experience they have as practitioners before doing a PhD. It is not one’s qualifications that determine what someone is, it is mindset and openness to alternatives. Successful people are rarely just one thing, they play many roles and often in parallel.  Poor judgement comes from limiting one’s focus on only the aspects of the “evidence” one wants to see, rather than the alternative possibilities we could choose to explore together.

 

I disagree that it is easier to write about success than failure. I think it is easier to explain what went wrong and find root causes of failure. However, too often people do not look at the “causes” of success in the same way as failure. There is a lot to be learnt from that type of critical  exploratory analysis, but few choose to engage in it. I have always argued that if unless one can explain what was done to generate a successful outcome, one can’t claim it as “ours”. Unless one is prepared to admit it was luck or serendipity (which is not what “successful” people share in their retrospective success stories). There is benefit in genuine analysis of both.

 

I disagree that Murray’s question of consultants not being on committees was not answered. I gave several reasons for my disagreement on that in a reply, perhaps you missed it? I was not trying to suggest he was right or wrong, merely highlighting we differed in opinion and why I was of an alternative view. I don’t see it as my role to tell people they are wrong - I think it is of more value to highlight that alternative opinions exist and that robustly debating diversity of opinion is an excellent way to learn. The paradox is that seemingly opposites can coexist – there are often just a matter of differing interpretation, experiences and value sets than absolute categories like “right and wrong”. This is what makes human interactions both complex and interesting.

 

Regards

Arthur Shelley

Producer: Creative Melbourne

Author: KNOWledge SUCCESSion  Sustained performance and capability growth through knowledge projects

Earlier Books: The Organizational Zoo (2007) & Being a Successful Knowledge Leader (2009)

Principal: www.IntelligentAnswers.com.au 

Founder: Organizational Zoo Ambassadors Network

Mb. +61 413 047 408  Skype: Arthur.Shelley  Twitter: @Metaphorage

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=4229168

Free behavioural profiles: www.organizationalzoo.com

Blog: www.organizationalzoo.com/blog

 

From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...]
Sent: Monday, 29 January 2018 3:18 AM
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Re: KM around the world

 

 

Yes, Scopus seems not to be immune against such predatory publishers (see https://doi.org/10.1108/LR-12-2016-0108, p 516). I came through this study recently when doing research on WSEAS and their AIKED conference (https://kmeducationhub.de/?p=11447). And yes, IEEE is indexing doubtable conference proceedings, too (see https://kmeducationhub.de/?p=13771, Note #3). And yes, this is not only an Asian phenomenon. Just take a look at the ACSE, formerly known as WPRLDCOMP. (https://kmeducationhub.de/wp-admin/?p=25455) #1 predator for the field may be WASET (https://kmeducationhub.de/wp-admin/?p=13904) That said, I think we shouldn't call this papers "fake research" but "maybe of low quality" research because all too often the authors/presenters are the victims acting with good faith.

 

When it comes to the theory vs practice debate I always refer to the following quote:

 

"Experience without theory is blind, but theory without experience is mere intellectual play." - Immanuel Kant

 

Recently I had to lough about a conversation between to KM consultants, both with a PhD, claiming to be totally practice oriented. It seemd to me that the lable "academic" is a kind of swearword to them.

 

As for case studies you should know that "Paper is patience!", means that you can write a lot, but it is not certain that the writing is useful (in your context) or true (success stories are easier to write than failures). I saw a lot of success stories, having a background about the real story.

 

Finally I guess it is a waste of time to continue a debate about the upcoming KM standard. The saviours of the field already decided just doing what is best for many. (as if they were g(o)od, http://tinyurl.com/yb9p8r6y) They will just entangle you in a "Never Ending Story" conversation and, like in politics, don't answer unpleasant questions (like Murry's question about the consultants in the standards working group)

 

The only thing you can do is to take appropriate action.

 

By the way, did you know that we currently have two main saviours for KM? One for the knowledge society and one for the knowledge economy. Both are consultants. The one already has his non-profit, the other will probably have one in the near future.

 

Regards from Germany,
Boris Jaeger - "Curiosity is the beginning of all learning!"



Arthur Shelley
 

True Stephen – all analysis is subjected to bias and is limited, because we are human. We seek “truth” (acceptable knowledge that explains the basis of a situation), but each truth is actually an interpretation of what happened (or will happen). The reality is there are many perceptions  and any questions that engage people to explore the possible truths (before or after the event) is useful.

 

I agree that we do not proactively discuss such things enough and your 4 questions are good options to engage people in that dialogue.  

 

Regards

Arthur Shelley

Producer: Creative Melbourne

Author: KNOWledge SUCCESSion  Sustained performance and capability growth through knowledge projects

Earlier Books: The Organizational Zoo (2007) & Being a Successful Knowledge Leader (2009)

Principal: www.IntelligentAnswers.com.au 

Founder: Organizational Zoo Ambassadors Network

Mb. +61 413 047 408  Skype: Arthur.Shelley  Twitter: @Metaphorage

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=4229168

Free behavioural profiles: www.organizationalzoo.com

Blog: www.organizationalzoo.com/blog

 

From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...]
Sent: Tuesday, 30 January 2018 12:06 PM
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Re: KM around the world

 

 

Hi Arthur,

I disagree that it is easier to write about success than failure. I think it is easier to explain what went wrong and find root causes of failure. However, too often people do not look at the “causes” of success in the same way as failure. There is a lot to be learnt from that type of critical  exploratory analysis, but few choose to engage in it. I have always argued that if unless one can explain what was done to generate a successful outcome, one can’t claim it as “ours”. Unless one is prepared to admit it was luck or serendipity (which is not what “successful” people share in their retrospective success stories). There is benefit in genuine analysis of both.


I actually think both kinds of "root cause analysis" are flawed. Any post-hoc analysis suffers from confirmation bias and spurious pattern matching, so what's more critical from a disciplinary perspective is to start to "call the shot". That is, before anything is done:

  • What is the KM theory forming the basis for action?
  • Does the theory allow for diagnosis of organisational state to confirm suitability of proposed interventions?
  • How are we controlling for the effects of random chance or external influences?
  • If a "bad" outcome happened, was the cause bad information, bad theory, or bad luck?
    (Bad luck means that you'd still recommend the same course of action next time.)

None of this happens enough, in academia or in practice. It's a major problem.

Cheers,
Stephen.

====================================

Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================

On 29/01/2018 10:56 PM, 'Arthur' arthur@... [sikmleaders] wrote:

 

Hi Boris,

Yes we agree on some things and not others Boris and that is a good thing (as mentioned earlier).

Like your quote "Curiosity is the beginning of all learning!" I believe this is a great insight – when we explore points of difference as the potential to learn alternative perspectives it is a good thing. It evolves thinking and generates new ideas from adapting older insights to align with new contexts. There is value in such dialogue.

 

I also agree that there is LOT of rubbish written in published journals, which is why we need to have critical dialogue about what is going on in the world and what practical impacts this has. We benefit from doing our homework to see who is making what contributions to what, and on what basis. Otherwise we can get bogged down into categorising to simplify too much, like thinking people with a PhD are just academics, regardless of how much time they run parallel careers and how much experience they have as practitioners before doing a PhD. It is not one’s qualifications that determine what someone is, it is mindset and openness to alternatives. Successful people are rarely just one thing, they play many roles and often in parallel.  Poor judgement comes from limiting one’s focus on only the aspects of the “evidence” one wants to see, rather than the alternative possibilities we could choose to explore together.

 

I disagree that it is easier to write about success than failure. I think it is easier to explain what went wrong and find root causes of failure. However, too often people do not look at the “causes” of success in the same way as failure. There is a lot to be learnt from that type of critical  exploratory analysis, but few choose to engage in it. I have always argued that if unless one can explain what was done to generate a successful outcome, one can’t claim it as “ours”. Unless one is prepared to admit it was luck or serendipity (which is not what “successful” people share in their retrospective success stories). There is benefit in genuine analysis of both.

 

I disagree that Murray’s question of consultants not being on committees was not answered. I gave several reasons for my disagreement on that in a reply, perhaps you missed it? I was not trying to suggest he was right or wrong, merely highlighting we differed in opinion and why I was of an alternative view. I don’t see it as my role to tell people they are wrong - I think it is of more value to highlight that alternative opinions exist and that robustly debating diversity of opinion is an excellent way to learn. The paradox is that seemingly opposites can coexist – there are often just a matter of differing interpretation, experiences and value sets than absolute categories like “right and wrong”. This is what makes human interactions both complex and interesting.

 

Regards

Arthur Shelley

Producer: Creative Melbourne

Author: KNOWledge SUCCESSion  Sustained performance and capability growth through knowledge projects

Earlier Books: The Organizational Zoo (2007) & Being a Successful Knowledge Leader (2009)

Principal: www.IntelligentAnswers.com.au 

Founder: Organizational Zoo Ambassadors Network

Mb. +61 413 047 408  Skype: Arthur.Shelley  Twitter: @Metaphorage

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=4229168

Free behavioural profiles: www.organizationalzoo.com

Blog: www.organizationalzoo.com/blog

 

From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...]
Sent: Monday, 29 January 2018 3:18 AM
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Re: KM around the world

 

 

Yes, Scopus seems not to be immune against such predatory publishers (see https://doi.org/10.1108/LR-12-2016-0108, p 516). I came through this study recently when doing research on WSEAS and their AIKED conference (https://kmeducationhub.de/?p=11447). And yes, IEEE is indexing doubtable conference proceedings, too (see https://kmeducationhub.de/?p=13771, Note #3). And yes, this is not only an Asian phenomenon. Just take a look at the ACSE, formerly known as WPRLDCOMP. (https://kmeducationhub.de/wp-admin/?p=25455) #1 predator for the field may be WASET (https://kmeducationhub.de/wp-admin/?p=13904) That said, I think we shouldn't call this papers "fake research" but "maybe of low quality" research because all too often the authors/presenters are the victims acting with good faith.

 

When it comes to the theory vs practice debate I always refer to the following quote:

 

"Experience without theory is blind, but theory without experience is mere intellectual play." - Immanuel Kant

 

Recently I had to lough about a conversation between to KM consultants, both with a PhD, claiming to be totally practice oriented. It seemd to me that the lable "academic" is a kind of swearword to them.

 

As for case studies you should know that "Paper is patience!", means that you can write a lot, but it is not certain that the writing is useful (in your context) or true (success stories are easier to write than failures). I saw a lot of success stories, having a background about the real story.

 

Finally I guess it is a waste of time to continue a debate about the upcoming KM standard. The saviours of the field already decided just doing what is best for many. (as if they were g(o)od, http://tinyurl.com/yb9p8r6y) They will just entangle you in a "Never Ending Story" conversation and, like in politics, don't answer unpleasant questions (like Murry's question about the consultants in the standards working group)

 

The only thing you can do is to take appropriate action.

 

By the way, did you know that we currently have two main saviours for KM? One for the knowledge society and one for the knowledge economy. Both are consultants. The one already has his non-profit, the other will probably have one in the near future.

 

Regards from Germany,
Boris Jaeger - "Curiosity is the beginning of all learning!"

 


Daan Boom
 

In light of the exchange on SCOPUS I share with you here the list of scientific KM and Intellectual Capital and their standing in the scientific community. 



Boris Jaeger
 

Arthur,
 
with the quote of the great Immanuel Kant I just want to stress that theory an practice have to go hand in hand. If you have an academic background you can't and shouldn't deny it. You should build upon it. Both have to work together, not blaming each other.
 
With the example of case studies I just want to show that blaming the practice is as easy than blaming the academics. This is more true if we compare the many successful case examples for KM (also prepared by consultants) and the current state of the field (again at the beginnig where it started off, at the beginning of the metaphorical knowledge ladder...)
 
Yes, I like my quote, too. (I use it since 2004 in my signature) To me curiosity means also questioning things. I am open to everything but if something turns out to be questionable and my contrary is just denying, ignoring, or blansishing this I have learned enough.
 
Following Murray's last question for which we could have expected at least some numbers:
 
"It doesn't matter how much you argue you did a good job, the job is irrelevant, what will be looked at is who is the panel of experts that wrote the standard and is it balanced.  Can this be said about this draft?"
 
Regards
Boris Jaeger - "Curiosity is the beginning of all learning!"

CONTACT
jaegerWM - Boris Jaeger
Albert-Stehlin Str. 6
79365 Rheinhausen
DEUTSCHLAND / GERMANY
-----
fon: +49-(0)7643-913880
mobile: +49-(0)1577-7544883
-----
mail: boris.jaeger@...
home: www.jaegerWM.de
-----
mail: boris.jaeger@...
home: www.KMeducationHub.de


Bruce Boyes
 

On Sunday, January 28, 2018, 7:54 pm, Murray Jennex murphjen@... [sikmleaders] wrote:

 

I'll agree with you on the doubtful quality, but add that low quality is happening a lot including the US.  I think the problem is the pressure to publish and the open access journals.  The pressure to publish has people writing more articles and not doing a great job of it, but they need to get them out.  I've gotten to the point where over half my rejections are desk rejections that I reject in initial assessment without sending out for review because I don't want to waste reviewer time.  The open access journals I worry about as many (not all) do a fairly lax job of reviewing, and I've noticed a lot of these are in China.  So Bruce I'm agreeing with you that there are many poor quality articles even in SCOPUS.  All that said the numbers are still there so the only way to check these will be to look at impact and see which ones are getting cited....murray


-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Boyes bruceboyes@... [sikmleaders]
To: sikmleaders
Sent: Sun, Jan 28, 2018 2:26 am
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Re: KM around the world



Thanks Murray for your replies. I didn't say I was surprised by the large number of Chinese KM papers indexed in SCOPUS, rather that I'd be surprised if at least some of them weren’t of doubtful quality.

SCOPUS might be a valued system, but high-impact journals are certainly not immune from research fraud. Take for example this list of 107 Chinese research papers retracted from Springer Nature Tumor Biology in April last year, due to fabricated peer review. As this MIMS article discusses, some of the authors were from top universities including Peking University and Fudan University. That article also includes the attached graph of retractions due to fabricated peer review by country between 2012 and 2016. As the article states in regard to the graph:

Retraction Watch, a research integrity watchdog based in the United States reported that China had a total of 276 studies that were retracted due to fabricated peer-reviews from 2012 to 2016. On the other hand, Japan published 4,000 papers in 2016, and has not recorded a single case of retraction due to this issue.

The graph also leads me to also wonder about the Taiwanese research in the paper you provided. I think Hong Kong is a different story though; there you’ll find highly regarded KM researchers like Hong Kong Polytechnic’s Eric Tsui.

As academic fraud fighter Shi-min Gang advises, fraudulent research is endemic in mainland China, and he’s documented hundreds of such cases on his New Threads website. As an example of the extent of academic fraud in mainland China, one Chinese journal has reported that a staggering 31% of all submissions were plagiarised.

The Chinese papers that you receive requiring a lot of work are actually the ones more likely to be worth publishing because there's a higher probability that they're both genuine and high-quality. Every year, I teach the basics of academic English writing to the senior academics from across Shanxi Province who have been selected to go overseas in the subsequent year under the Shanxi Government's visiting scholars program. Not only are their written English language skills limited, but their writing style is very different, with traditional academic writing in China being much more story-like and often including personal perspectives and feelings, particularly when they are writing about people-centered topics. Many of them have also expressed very strong concerns about the current state of academic publishing in China, so I'm in no doubt that despite the scale of the academic fraud issues, there are many ethical Chinese academics who are committed to doing the right thing. Finding effective ways of bridging the language and cultural gap would result in a lot more of these ethical Chinese researchers publishing in western journals, and this requires some intercultural flexibility and both high-quality translation and then good English editing.

As things stand, most Chinese universities have little or no internal capability to be able to do both the high-quality translation and good English editing, so authors send their draft manuscripts to writing services. These services typically try to massage the manuscripts into something with the greatest appeal to publishers, and this is one way in which the academic fraud is occurring.

More blatantly, some unethical authors get the writing services (like this one, one of many) to write their entire paper, or engage ghostwriters through freelancing websites (for example there are always numerous such requests on this Australian-based website). Paper writing services are also very popular with students, for example this one which was exposed in 2014. These services will write anything from a high school essay to a PhD dissertation, and university plagiarism detection software can be readily bypassedA comment you made in your reply to Patrick was “Research from India and China is more oriented to theoretical issues and much less to issues with organizations in those countries." I would note that research in regard to theoretical issues is much easier for writing services to prepare than research that requires organisational engagement.

Besides paper writing services, I think another factor contributing to plagiarism is the emphasis in Chinese education on rote learning, that is, repeating the ideas of others rather than creating your own. This even occurs with my classes of senior academics, who will ask me for statements they can commit to memory and then feel very uncomfortable when I say no and tell them that all I'll be giving them are objectives, standards, processes, and structures, and they'll then need to think for themselves. This Confucian education system isn't going to change any time soon, as it's deeply rooted in Chinese culture and tends to produce a range of better outcomes than western education. This means it's another intercultural factor that's going to need to be considered in strategies to achieve long-term outcomes in regard to the raising of academic standards in China.

As I said in my earlier message, significant Chinese Government efforts are underway to address the serious problem of academic fraud in China. In the meantime, extra care needs to be taken with any research that has been or is produced in mainland China, and from the attached graph, also Taiwan. Effort also needs to be put into finding effective ways of bridging language and cultural gaps, which would result in a lot more ethical Chinese researchers publishing in western journals. This requires intercultural flexibility and both high-quality translation and good English editing.

Regards,

Bruce.



On Saturday, 27 January 2018, 3:23:19 am GMT+8, Murray Jennex murphjen@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> wrote:


 
I fully understand your points and agree with you.  However I have to point out that SCOPUS is a pretty good system that is relied upon heavily.  That said the research I see comes mainly from universities such as Wuhan, Beijing, Remin, Hong Kong, and others that I'm not real familiar with.  Many of the Chinese papers I receive require a lot of work to make publishable so I haven't published a large number of them in IJKM.  Basically I'm just as surprised as you are and the interesting thing is if you took the Chinese viewpoint that Taiwan is part of China then China would actually be ranked number 1.  I posted the paper because it really is surprising and in many ways perplexing to me....murray


-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Boyes bruceboyes@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...>
To: sikmleaders <sikmleaders@...>
Sent: Fri, Jan 26, 2018 5:05 am
Subject: [sikmleaders] Re: KM around the world



Thanks Murray, interesting insights. I'm a little nervous though about China's ranking in the paper as second highest for KM research output behind the US, for two reasons. 

The first reason is that I'm not aware of a whole lot of KM research activity here as yet. I work in a mainland Chinese University that is highly regarded, Shanxi University, where I've been initiating some KM subjects, and I hope to expand on this. Shanxi University hasn't been carrying out any KM research, and still isn't, and when I first started with them they had a pretty low awareness of KM generally. Asking around, I haven't been able to find too many people doing KM research in mainland China. Some of the top universities are engaged in some activity, for example Sun Yat-Sen University (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Miguel_Nunes2), but even for them KM is only a smal l part of their primary LIS focus.

The second reason is wondering about the quality of at least some of the 1064 papers authored in China, after I noticed an odd conclusion in a conference paper last year. The paper examined ethics and integrity issues in management research through the analysis of retracted articles between 2005 and 2016, finding that "Interestingly, the analyzed results indicate that knowledge management has the highest number of retracted articles with plagiarism as the predominant ethical issues." Doing some analysis that the authors didn't do, I found that nearly all of the retracted papers were published by just one publisher - IEEE (which is indexed by SCOPUS) - and most of the retractions were also papers published in China. I've written this up at http://realkm.com/2017/06/09/knowledge-management-researchers-are-far-more-unethical-than-their-peers-study-finds-really/

While IEEE retracted a large numb er of dubious China-published papers, it's potentially only the tip of the iceberg. Fake research is unfortunately a serious problem here, for example as discussed in http://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/2104532/486-face-punishment-links-chinas-fake-research-paper-scandal ; The Chinese Government is taking the problem seriously, and a colleague of mine recently attended a high-level conference in Beiing where this was the focus. However, it's going to take a while to clean things up.







Murray Jennex
 

Bruce, I'm not disagreeing with you, its just that I have no data to support either position so I just go with the halo effect that SCOPUS provides.  Frankly this is a real problem in academia in that the journal an article appears in is more important than the article itself.  I personally prefer measuring the value of an article directly, usually through its citation counts, but that isn't perfect either.  I know my journal and the journals and conferences listed in the article are legit and articles published in those forums are reviewed.  I also know that none of these outlets has a 100% acceptance rate.  My journal, IJKM, is around 10% and I believe the journals listed in the article are all 20% or less.  Conferences have higher acceptance rates to encourage attendance and participation.  Presenting these papers gives the attendees a chance to actually discuss the article with the authors.  I can say there have been instances where the presenter knew nothing about the topic and thus suggested possible fraud.  All that aside, those articles that don't present well rarely get published in a journal.  So all that said. I do not know if a great deal of research is being published in China, India, Iran, etc.  I do know those countries are submitting a lot of papers and I know that my journal screens them well as do the other journals listed in the article.  Remember that many reviewers look at the literature cited in the article to see if the article is actually grounded in the KM literature and I will say that this is the most common issue with papers from these countries and that could very well imply that there is a lot of ghost writing going on that isn't being caught in those countries because they don't know they are plagiarizing other authors so that may support your position.  I do know I've had two cases of submissions outright plagiarizing others work and a large number of submissions that basically repeat work that has been published before.  My rule before a paper is accepted for publication is that it must make a new contribution of some kind and I do not publish replication papers.  This is why my acceptance rate is low.  So, take these comments as you will....murray jennex


-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Boyes bruceboyes@... [sikmleaders]
To: sikmleaders
Sent: Fri, Feb 23, 2018 10:49 pm
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Re: KM around the world



Murray, Boris, and all,

Some new research looking at the growing problem of the paper writing services that I mentioned in my previous comment The infernal business of contract cheating: understanding the business processes and models of academic custom writing sites 

The infernal business of contract cheating: understanding the business processes and models of academic custom writing sites

By Cath Ellis
While there is growing awareness of the existence and activities of Academic Custom Writing websites, which form a small part of the contract cheating industry, how they work remains poorly understood. Very little research has been done on these site


Bruce.

On Sunday, January 28, 2018, 7:54 pm, Murray Jennex murphjen@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> wrote:
 
I'll agree with you on the doubtful quality, but add that low quality is happening a lot including the US.  I think the problem is the pressure to publish and the open access journals.  The pressure to publish has people writing more articles and not doing a great job of it, but they need to get them out.  I've gotten to the point where over half my rejections are desk rejections that I reject in initial assessment without sending out for review because I don't want to waste reviewer time.  The open access journals I worry about as many (not all) do a fairly lax job of reviewing, and I've noticed a lot of these are in China.  So Bruce I'm agreeing with you that there are many poor quality articles even in SCOPUS.  All that said the numbers are still there so the only way to check these will be to look at impact and see which ones are getting cited.....murray


-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Boyes bruceboyes@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...>
To: sikmleaders <sikmleaders@...>
Sent: Sun, Jan 28, 2018 2:26 am
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Re: KM around the world



Thanks Murray for your replies. I didn't say I was surprised by the large number of Chinese KM papers indexed in SCOPUS, rather that I'd be surprised if at least some of them weren’t of doubtful quality.

SCOPUS might be a valued system, but high-impact journals are certainly not immune from research fraud. Take for example this list of 107 Chinese research papers retracted from Springer Nature Tumor Biology in April last year, due to fabricated peer review. As this MIMS article discusses, some of the authors were from top universities including Peking University and Fudan University. That article also includes the attached graph of retractions due to fabricated peer review by country between 2012 and 2016. As the article states in regard to the graph:

Retraction Watch, a research integrity watchdog based in the United States reported that China had a total of 276 studies that were retracted due to fabricated peer-reviews from 2012 to 2016. On the other hand, Japan published 4,000 papers in 2016, and has not recorded a single case of retraction due to this issue.

The graph also leads me to also wonder about the Taiwanese research in the paper you provided. I think Hong Kong is a different story though; there you’ll find highly regarded KM researchers like Hong Kong Polytechnic’s Eric Tsui.

As academic fraud fighter Shi-min Gang advises, fraudulent research is endemic in mainland China, and he’s documented hundreds of such cases on his New Threads website. As an example of the extent of academic fraud in mainland China, one Chinese journal has reported that a staggering 31% of all submissions were plagiarised.

The Chinese papers that you receive requiring a lot of work are actually the ones more likely to be worth publishing because there's a higher probability that they're both genuine and high-quality. Every year, I teach the basics of academic English writing to the senior academics from across Shanxi Province who have been selected to go overseas in the subsequent year under the Shanxi Government's visiting scholars program. Not only are their written English language skills limited, but their writing style is very different, with traditional academic writing in China being much more story-like and often including personal perspectives and feelings, particularly when they are writing about people-centered topics. Many of them have also expressed very strong concerns about the current state of academic publishing in China, so I'm in no doubt that despite the scale of the academic fraud issues, there are many ethical Chinese academics who are committed to doing the right thing. Finding effective ways of bridging the language and cultural gap would result in a lot more of these ethical Chinese researchers publishing in western journals, and this requires some intercultural flexibility and both high-quality translation and then good English editing.

As things stand, most Chinese universities have little or no internal capability to be able to do both the high-quality translation and good English editing, so authors send their draft manuscripts to writing services. These services typically try to massage the manuscripts into something with the greatest appeal to publishers, and this is one way in which the academic fraud is occurring.

More blatantly, some unethical authors get the writing services (like this one, one of many) to write their entire paper, or engage ghostwriters through freelancing websites (for example there are always numerous such requests on this Australian-based website). Paper writing services are also very popular with students, for example this one which was exposed in 2014. These services will write anything from a high school essay to a PhD dissertation, and university plagiarism detection software can be readily bypassedA comment you made in your reply to Patrick was “Research from India and China is more oriented to theoretical issues and much less to issues with organizations in those countries." I would note that research in regard to theoretical issues is much easier for writing services to prepare than research that requires organisational engagement.

Besides paper writing services, I think another factor contributing to plagiarism is the emphasis in Chinese education on rote learning, that is, repeating the ideas of others rather than creating your own. This even occurs with my classes of senior academics, who will ask me for statements they can commit to memory and then feel very uncomfortable when I say no and tell them that all I'll be giving them are objectives, standards, processes, and structures, and they'll then need to think for themselves. This Confucian education system isn't going to change any time soon, as it's deeply rooted in Chinese culture and tends to produce a range of better outcomes than western education. This means it's another intercultural factor that's going to need to be considered in strategies to achieve long-term outcomes in regard to the raising of academic standards in China.

As I said in my earlier message, significant Chinese Government efforts are underway to address the serious problem of academic fraud in China. In the meantime, extra care needs to be taken with any research that has been or is produced in mainland China, and from the attached graph, also Taiwan. Effort also needs to be put into finding effective ways of bridging language and cultural gaps, which would result in a lot more ethical Chinese researchers publishing in western journals. This requires intercultural flexibility and both high-quality translation and good English editing.

Regards,

Bruce.



On Saturday, 27 January 2018, 3:23:19 am GMT+8, Murray Jennex murphjen@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> wrote:


 
I fully understand your points and agree with you.  However I have to point out that SCOPUS is a pretty good system that is relied upon heavily.  That said the research I see comes mainly from universities such as Wuhan, Beijing, Remin, Hong Kong, and others that I'm not real familiar with.  Many of the Chinese papers I receive require a lot of work to make publishable so I haven't published a large number of them in IJKM.  Basically I'm just as surprised as you are and the interesting thing is if you took the Chinese viewpoint that Taiwan is part of China then China would actually be ranked number 1.  I posted the paper because it really is surprising and in many ways perplexing to me....murray


-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Boyes bruceboyes@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...>
To: sikmleaders <sikmleaders@...>
Sent: Fri, Jan 26, 2018 5:05 am
Subject: [sikmleaders] Re: KM around the world



Thanks Murray, interesting insights. I'm a little nervous though about China's ranking in the paper as second highest for KM research output behind the US, for two reasons. 

The first reason is that I'm not aware of a whole lot of KM research activity here as yet. I work in a mainland Chinese University that is highly regarded, Shanxi University, where I've been initiating some KM subjects, and I hope to expand on this. Shanxi University hasn't been carrying out any KM research, and still isn't, and when I first started with them they had a pretty low awareness of KM generally. Asking around, I haven't been able to find too many people doing KM research in mainland China. Some of the top universities are engaged in some activity, for example Sun Yat-Sen University (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Miguel_Nunes2), but even for them KM is only a smal l part of their primary LIS focus.

The second reason is wondering about the quality of at least some of the 1064 papers authored in China, after I noticed an odd conclusion in a conference paper last year. The paper examined ethics and integrity issues in management research through the analysis of retracted articles between 2005 and 2016, finding that "Interestingly, the analyzed results indicate that knowledge management has the highest number of retracted articles with plagiarism as the predominant ethical issues." Doing some analysis that the authors didn't do, I found that nearly all of the retracted papers were published by just one publisher - IEEE (which is indexed by SCOPUS) - and most of the retractions were also papers published in China. I've written this up at http://realkm.com/2017/06/09/knowledge-management-researchers-are-far-more-unethical-than-their-peers-study-finds-really/

While IEEE retracted a large numb er of dubious China-published papers, it's potentially only the tip of the iceberg. Fake research is unfortunately a serious problem here, for example as discussed in http://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/2104532/486-face-punishment-links-chinas-fake-research-paper-scandal ; The Chinese Government is taking the problem seriously, and a colleague of mine recently attended a high-level conference in Beiing where this was the focus. However, it's going to take a while to clean things up.