Mandana Azadegan-Mehr

Bio: Mandana Azadegan-Mehr is an academic researcher from Iran University of Science and Technology. The author has contributed to research in topics: Philosophy of science & SWOT analysis. The author has an hindex of 2, co-authored 2 publications receiving 196 citations.

Swot Methodology: A State-of-the-Art Review for the Past, A Framework for the Future

Abstract: The SWOT analysis is the process of exploring the internal and external environments of an organization and extracting convenient strategies based on its strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. This paper presents a literature review of SWOT analysis, based on a reference bank of about 557 papers established through searching various databases. This paper reviews papers that have been published up to the end of 2009. The origination and historical development of SWOT are explained first, followed by a survey on trends & classifications in SWOT papers including journals, countries, years, people & contents. Then a categorical analysis is conducted about application area and scope of SWOT. Also a methodological development of SWOT is discussed. Finally, concluding remarks and a few suggestions and challenges are presented for future studies. It is hoped that the paper can serve the needs of researchers and practitioners for easy references of SWOT studies and applications, and hence promo...

Iranian Academia: Evolution after Revolution and Plagiarism as a Disorder

Abstract: Recently, a few of scientific journals raise serious questions about scientific ethics and moral judgment of some of the Iranian government’s senior executives in their papers. Plagiarism, under any circumstances is not justified, and we do not intend to justify it in this note. However, we find it useful in understanding why otherwise respected, responsible individuals may engage in plagiarism by terse review of the history Iranian academia.

Strategy tools-in-use: A framework for understanding “technologies of rationality” in practice

Abstract: In response to critiques of strategy tools as unhelpful or potentially dangerous for organizations, we suggest casting a sociological eye on how tools are actually mobilized by strategy makers. In conceptualizing strategy tools as tools-in-use, we offer a framework for examining the ways that the affordances of strategy tools and the agency of strategy makers interact to shape how and when tools are selected and applied. Further, rather than evaluating the ‘correct’ or ‘incorrect’ use of tools, we highlight the variety of outcomes that result, not just for organizations but also for the tools and the individuals who use them. We illustrate this framework with a vignette and propose an agenda and methodological approaches for further scholarship on the use of strategy tools.

A Comprehensive Survey of Retracted Articles from the Scholarly Literature

Abstract: Background The number of retracted scholarly articles has risen precipitously in recent years. Past surveys of the retracted literature each limited their scope to articles in PubMed, though many retracted articles are not indexed in PubMed. To understand the scope and characteristics of retracted articles across the full spectrum of scholarly disciplines, we surveyed 42 of the largest bibliographic databases for major scholarly fields and publisher websites to identify retracted articles. This study examines various trends among them. Results We found, 4,449 scholarly publications retracted from 1928–2011. Unlike Math, Physics, Engineering and Social Sciences, the percentages of retractions in Medicine, Life Science and Chemistry exceeded their percentages among Web of Science (WoS) records. Retractions due to alleged publishing misconduct (47%) outnumbered those due to alleged research misconduct (20%) or questionable data/interpretations (42%). This total exceeds 100% since multiple justifications were listed in some retraction notices. Retraction/WoS record ratios vary among author affiliation countries. Though widespread, only miniscule percentages of publications for individual years, countries, journals, or disciplines have been retracted. Fifteen prolific individuals accounted for more than half of all retractions due to alleged research misconduct, and strongly influenced all retraction characteristics. The number of articles retracted per year increased by a factor of 19.06 from 2001 to 2010, though excluding repeat offenders and adjusting for growth of the published literature decreases it to a factor of 11.36. Conclusions Retracted articles occur across the full spectrum of scholarly disciplines. Most retracted articles do not contain flawed data; and the authors of most retracted articles have not been accused of research misconduct. Despite recent increases, the proportion of published scholarly literature affected by retraction remains very small. Articles and editorials discussing retractions, or their relation to research integrity, should always consider individual cases in these broad contexts. However, better mechanisms are still needed for raising researchers’ awareness of the retracted literature in their field.

SWOT analysis applications: An integrative literature review

Abstract: A strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) analysis has become a key tool used by businesses for strategic planning. Scholars have conducted SWOT research for over six decades. However, a collective understanding of SWOT analysis remains vague. This study accessed, analyzed, and synthesized the SWOT literature, allowing for new theoretical perspectives and frameworks to emerge. Using an integrative literature review, this study reviewed SWOT studies historically, providing a greater understanding of the SWOT analysis in different sectors and the different approaches used in SWOT studies. Furthermore, it fills the knowledge gap in the strategic planning context and indicates meaningful implications for managers that could help improve their strategic decisions.

A wildfire risk management concept based on a social-ecological approach in the European Union: Fire Smart Territory

Abstract: The current wildfire policies in European Union countries have not solved the wildfire problem and probably will not be effective in the future, as all the initiatives focus on suppression and minimize the use of fire embedded in the Traditional Ecologic Knowledge of European communities. The traditional fire use as a tool for land management has been handled and almost criminalized by an urban-centric perspective and anti-fire bias. These policies are poorly adapted to, and cannot cope with, the complex nature of the wildfire phenomenon since they neglect its social roots. This paper presents a forward-looking and innovative model of wildfire management focused not at the landscape, or community, or forest level but at the territory scale. Fire Smart Territory (FST) is the proposed theoretical, the context specific, and place-based operational framework. The grounding assumptions of FST are that fire is a dual and ambiguous process, that it is not merely a biophysical process with social overtones but a social process, and it is a complex issue which can be understood only in the coupled human and natural systems where it occurs. FST advocates that the current wildfire challenges cannot be solved by a check list of theoretically adequate procedures, but through locally understanding the wildfire problem and strategically preparing each territory to be less wildfire prone, and its inhabitants to be less vulnerable, and more resilient, in the scope of economic valorization, sustainable development, and safety of the territory resources.