This paper proposes a fuzzy logic model for evaluating stakeholder motivation for high-quality publications. Conceptually, the model is based on stakeholder theory and Vroom's expectancy theory of motivation. Instrumentally, tools of fuzzy sets, fuzz...

This article proffers a fuzzy logic model for assessing and mapping stakeholders’ control influences to boost Scopus/WoS-indexed publications by researchers. The conceptual framework of the model integrates ideas from theories of stakeholders and control, as well as Vroom’s motivation theory. The suggested model is underpinned by tools of fuzzy sets and fuzzy logic, the expert judgment method, and a validated fuzzy model for motivation towards highquality publications. The independent variables used are stakeholder potential and motivation. The model was implemented at a university in Bulgaria. According to the results, it is straightforward to implement, operates successfully, and offers numerous benefits. Theoretically, the model advances and refines frameworks related to control over research output. Additionally, it represents a follow-up to established motivational frameworks to increase research productivity. In terms of practice, the model can function as a tool for boosting the quantity of Scopus/WoS-indexed publications in universities, thereby improving their scientific outcomes and academic governance at the national level.

Background. Academic writing for publication (AWforP) has recently come to the fore because of the critical importance of scholarly publication to academia. A review of the scientific literature on AWforP found that it is underdeveloped and lacks comprehensive frameworks and models for AWforP challenges, AWforP strategies, or both. Purpose. To contribute to bridging these gaps, this article aims to summarize and map the AWforP challenges and AWforP strategies identified in the scholarly empirical literature. Method. A systematic Scopus/WoS literature review was used for data collection, identifying 15 relevant sources (n, sample size). Data were analyzed and summarized by deduction and meta-analysis based on chi-square heterogeneity test and meta-regression, then mapped by induction and K-means clustering. Results. First, 31 challenges to AWforP and 36 strategies for AWforP were detected. Second, an original classification of AWforP challenges was introduced. The taxonomy of academic writing strategies was expanded with AWforP strategies. Third, AWforP challenges/strategies were ranked based on their frequency of mention in the sample. Semantic difficulties were the most prevalent challenge, and attending academic writing courses was the most advised strategy. Fourth, through meta-analysis, the sample was found to be moderately statistically heterogeneous (I2=60.97%), and the summary effect size was positive and statistically significant. Fifth, the sampled sources were mapped into five clusters based on the country of researchers studied (SSE=10.511). Conclusion. This article conceptualizes empirical research on AWforP challenges and AWforP strategies by identifying, comprehensively systematizing, summarizing, and mapping them. Implementing the proposed taxonomy of AWforP challenges/strategies under the identified cluster specifics in strategic research planning and control practices would improve researchers’ publication activity and research management effectiveness at the university and national levels.

The scientific periodical journal (indexed on Web of Science) published by the Tomas Bata University in Zlin offers results of basic and applied economic research in the English language.

Introduction. Under the growing role of university science in Russia, special attention is paid to improving the quality of scientific publications of Russian university researchers in leading international and Russian journals. To understand the direction of scientific discourse on this issue, the authors explored scientific publications that address the tools to influence Russian university researchers to publish in journals indexed by Scopus or Web of Science. Materials and Methods. Articles found up to 2022 in the Scopus or Web of Science databases were included in this review. A systematic approach based on PRISMA recommendations and the qualitative content analysis method were applied. The review sample covered 14 articles. Results. The review results showed that the research topic is in its infancy, but there is interest in it. Three stakeholders were identified on this topic: the researcher, government bodies, and university management. The most mentioned tools of influence were: for the “researcher” stakeholder – the propensity for scientific work and participation in scientific projects, for the “government bodies” stakeholder – grants and government policy pressure, for the “university management” stakeholder – implementation of the rating system/scientometrics, initiation of incentive payments, support for collaboration, and competition stimulation. According to the review results, the main shortcomings of the system of influencing Russian researchers were bureaucratic management, scarce funding, pressure to publish, “academic capitalism”, and restrictions on academic freedoms. Most authors of the review sample commented that a number of tools to influence Russian researchers need to be improved or even replaced. Discussion and Conclusion. This review contributes to improving research management in Russia, highlighting the features of stakeholders to influence Russian researchers for high-quality publications, the main shortcomings of the system of influence and recommendations to address these shortcomings.