Wisanupong

My new research in @PPMR_new surveyed 4,998 Thai civil servants in 69 agencies and found both petty and grand corruption erode public service motivation (PSM). Paradoxically, this erosion is STRONGEST in agencies with high ethical leadership! tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.10…

The (FT50) Journal List: We're Ignoring Our Own Research—It's Hurting Us, and How To Deal with The Perfect Storm There's a profound irony at the heart of management academia. We study organizations, leadership, performance management, and human behavior. We publish thousands of peer-reviewed articles on how to measure performance fairly, how to motivate people effectively, and how to align reward systems with strategic goals. And then we go back to our own institutions and do almost none of it. This article describes the problem and offers actionable recommendations and includes published sources for dealing with “the perfect storm.” linkedin.com/posts/hermanag… @AACSB @AIB_LAC @AIB_World @anzam_news @AOM_CTO @AOM_HCM @AOM_OB @AOM_ONE @AOM_SIM @AOM_STR @AOM_TIM @AOMDEI @bam_ac_uk @cms_aom @EasternAoM @EFMDNews @ENT_Div_AoM @EURAM_BXL @GWAlumni @GWAlumniChicago @GWAlumniWeekend @GWAlumniofSoCal @GWArgentina @GWBAA @GWEnergyAlumni @gwbusiness @GW_OVPR @GWSBalumni @GWtech @GWtweets @HR_Div_AoM @IberoAoM @ICSB @IIAS_IISA @MFCAinc @mh_aom @MOC_AOM @MOCDivision @presidentofGW @RMD_AOM @SIOPtweets @SouthernMgt @Strategic_Mgmt @SWAcademyOfMGMT @ThePhDProject

The SPSA is requesting academic paper, panel, and CwC proposals for its 98th Annual Meeting taking place in St. Pete Beach, FL, January 13-16, 2027! Proposals are due by September 1. Please check your email or visit spsa.net/annual-meeting… for more information.

Research on PSM and its interactive (moderating) effects has come a long way. This paper is based on years of reflection on the observed theoretical patterns.

@MushtaqBilalPhD the sarcasm 😭😭😭

Sci-Hub is an evil website that pirated 85M+ research papers and made them freely available And now they've added AI to their database to make Sci-Bot. It answers your questions using latest, full-text articles. But DO NOT use it. We should all try to make billion-dollar academic publishers richer. I'm putting the link below so you know how to avoid it.

Yeni Makale: journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/10… Bu çalışma, nitel araştırmalarda “kaç görüşme yapılmalı?” sorusunu ele alıyor. Yazarlar 2010–2019 arasında yayımlanmış 562 akademik makaleyi inceliyor. Görüşme sayıları çok büyük farklılıklar gösteriyor. (2’den 682’ye kadar).

A Belgian Malinois dog realized that his owner was cheating in a breath-holding underwater competition. 😂😂

@fake_journals I see no issue at all provided the journal upholds integrity from the outset. Reputable journals invest in rigorously vetting high-caliber editors and editorial board members in the first place.

Should editorial board members publish in the journals they help run? A few days ago I asked (see buff.ly/rJcfJhi) whether editorial board members should have published in the journal they serve? This post considers the opposite question. Should editorial board members publish in journals on which they are serving? ________________________________________ Editors as members of the community Editorial board members are usually active researchers in the same field as the journal. It is therefore not surprising if their work sometimes (often) fits within the journal’s scope. Publishing in the journal can signal several things: ⚫️ Engagement with the journal’s scholarly community ⚫️ Confidence in the journal as an outlet ⚫️ Participation in the intellectual conversation the journal hosts In many disciplines, editors publishing in their own journals is completely normal. Most reputable journals have procedures designed to protect the integrity of the process. For example: ⚫️ Assigning an independent handling editor ⚫️ Excluding the submitting editor from the decision process ⚫️ Ensuring the manuscript undergoes standard peer review With these safeguards, the process can function quite appropriately. ________________________________________ The perception question However, even when these safeguards exist, the situation can still raise concerns. Some observers feel uncomfortable with the optics of editors publishing in their own journals. Questions that sometimes arise include: ⚫️ Whether preferential treatment might occur ⚫️ Whether reviewers feel pressure when an editor is the author ⚫️ Whether the process appears fully independent to readers None of these concerns necessarily imply wrongdoing. But scholarly publishing relies heavily on trust and perceived fairness. ________________________________________ A governance tension This creates an interesting paradox. ⚫️ Editors who never publish in the journal may appear detached from it. ⚫️ Editors who publish frequently in the journal may raise questions about independence. Different journals, disciplines and publishers manage this balance in different ways. ________________________________________ An open question So here is the follow-up question. Should editorial board members publish in the journals they serve? Or should they avoid doing so to prevent perceived conflicts of interest? Practices seem to vary quite widely between disciplines and publishers. How is this handled in your discipline?

📊Stats Lab: Understanding Interaction Terms in Regression Basic logic of interaction terms in regression: 1) Continuous x Continuous 2) Categorical x Continuous 3) Categorical x Categorical Replication R code is available! idlhy0218.github.io/page%20buildin… #stats #dataviz

Stanford paid 35,000 people to quit Facebook and Instagram for 6 weeks Depression dropped. Anxiety dropped. Happiness went up. Women under 25 on Instagram saw the biggest gains That was 6 weeks. I'm going a full year.

Yale has issued a new report on declining public trust in higher education. The New York Times has a great headline summing it up: This is so refreshing. The first step is admitting the problem.

📣 New Paper Alert How do people judge organizational legitimacy? Categorical fit is the strongest driver of propriety beliefs, while validity cues vary by type and context. 🔗 bit.ly/4cyJrWr #JMS #JMS_Journal #Legitimacy #Wiley

My new research in @PPMR_new surveyed 4,998 Thai civil servants in 69 agencies and found both petty and grand corruption erode public service motivation (PSM). Paradoxically, this erosion is STRONGEST in agencies with high ethical leadership! tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.10…

I’m genuinely thrilled to share that my systematic literature review (SLR) on the interactive (moderating) effects of PSM is now published online in @APJournalPA And it’s fully open access. Much appreciation to James Perry. tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.10…

🚀 New Article in #PPMR 🚀 📄 “The Impacts of Petty and Grand Corruption on Public Service Motivation: Unintended Consequences of Ethical Leadership in Corrupt Contexts” By Dr.Wisanupong Potipiroon 👉 Read: doi.org/10.1080/153095… #PublicServiceMotivation #PublicAdministration

Here is the link to the free eprints. #abstract" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">tandfonline.com/eprint/D7NQYSB…

My most recent paper in @PPMR_new shows that talents are particularly sensitive to perceived distributive injustice, which in turn leads to negative emotions and a broad range of counter productive work behaviors including those targeted at citizens. Find 50 free eprints below.

@helin_drsaga I have reviewed more than 300 papers in journals indexed in WoS (SSCi) and I can assure you that most rejections are due to poor design and lack of storytelling. Based on my experience alone, it is NEVER about ideas being too unconventional. Actually, the opposite.

Peer review was supposed to be science’s quality filter, but somewhere along the way it started acting more like a bouncer who only lets in the regulars. It’s slow, it tends to favor established labs and familiar names, and it gets uncomfortable around anything too unconventional. Papers loaded with mountains of data tend to cruise through, while bold ideas that actually challenge the consensus get stuck in limbo or turned away at the door. The irony is that where a paper gets published almost never determines its real worth. What actually matters is what the scientific community does with it afterward, whether people cite it, argue with it, build on it, or use it to blow up a long-held assumption. That’s where the value lives, not in the journal’s logo. A major survey a few years back found that roughly 70% of researchers think the current system is fundamentally broken, and it’s not hard to see why. Publicly funded research hides behind paywalls, editors chase whatever topic is hot that month, and the whole incentive structure pushes toward safe bets over genuinely risky and potentially important work. Science has always been complicated and deeply human and full of ego and inertia, but the conversation is shifting.

ผลการนับคะแนนเลือกตั้งใหม่ สมาชิกสภาผู้แทนราษฎร จังหวัดน่าน เขต 1 หน่วยเลือกตั้งที่ 3 ตำบลไชยสถาน อำเภอเมืองน่าน หลังเกิดกรณีเจ้าหน้าที่ประจำหน่วยฉีกบัตรลงคะแนนผิดพลาด จำนวน 69 ใบ จึงต้องมีการจัดเลือกตั้งใหม่เพื่อรักษาสิทธิของประชาชน ซึ่งผลการนับคะแนนอย่างไม่เป็นทางการ ปรากฏว่า นายเชาว์วิชญ์ อินน้อย ผู้สมัครจากพรรคประชาชน และว่าที่ร้อยเอกณัฐ เธียรสูตร ผู้สมัครจากพรรคกล้าธรรม ได้รับคะแนนสูงสุดเท่ากันที่ 112 คะแนน สำหรับผลคะแนนรายผู้สมัคร มีดังนี้ นายสักก์สีห์ พลสันติกุล พรรคภูมิใจไทย ได้ 26 คะแนน นายปรีชาพล ยะราช พรรครวมไทยสร้างชาติ ได้ 4 คะแนน นายเชาว์วิชญ์ อินน้อย พรรคประชาชน ได้ 112 คะแนน นายสันติภาพ อินทรพัฒน์ พรรคพลังประชารัฐ ได้ 5 คะแนน นายเสกสรร คันทะมูล พรรคประชาธิปัตย์ ได้ 10 คะแนน นายเอกชัย อินทะนันท์ พรรคไทยก้าวใหม่ ได้ 3 คะแนน นายทรงยศ รามสูตร พรรคเพื่อไทย ได้ 13 คะแนน ว่าที่ร้อยเอกณัฐ เธียรสูตร พรรคกล้าธรรม ได้ 112 คะแนน พันโทประยุทธ กุตตะนันท์ พรรคทางเลือกใหม่ ได้ 2 คะแนน และนายบุญยงค์ สดสอาด พรรคเศรษฐกิจ ได้ 24 คะแนน #เรื่องเล่าเช้านี้ #ครอบครัวข่าว3 #ข่าวการเมือง

จากทฤษฎีปลอกกระสุนที่เล่าให้ฟังเมื่อคืน ลองมาดู Chart นี้ที่ผมเอาข้อมูลจาก anwam.github.io/election_69_an… มาเพิ่มเติมตัวเลข สส. เขตให้ดู เราจะเห็น Pattern อะไรบางอย่างที่น่าสนใจมากๆ ว่าปลอกกระสุนมันทิ้งร่องรอยในสัดส่วนที่สูงแทบจะทุกพรรค ยกเว้นแกะส้มอยู่ตัวหนึ่ง

6. นิติรัฐเชิงสร้างสรรค์: กฎหมายเดียว หลายมาตรฐาน 7. เทคนิคการตั้งองค์กรอิสระให้ไม่อิสระ 8. ปราบคอร์รัปชันเชิงพิธีกรรม: จับรายย่อย ปล่อยรายใหญ่ 9. สูตรการโกง: ฉบับเขากระโดง 10. หลอกไทยเรียกใช้ scammer

หากพรรคเทา ๆ ได้เป็นรัฐบาล แนะนำใหัเปิดหลักสูตรสอนเทาทั่วไทย ภายใต้ Gray Academy ดังนี้ 1. ซื้อเสียงอย่างไรให้จับไม่ได้ 2. เขย่งอย่างไรให้ถึงดาว 3. กลไกซื้อตัวข้ามขั้ว ยันฮั้ว สว 4. ฟันโครงการอย่างไรให้ถึงร้อยละ 80 5. มีทอนไม่มีเทา (มีต่อ) #เลือกตั้ง69 #นับใหม่ทั่วประเทศ