Technology parks in brazil: an analysis of the determinants of performance evaluation
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5585/iji.v10i1.19456Keywords:
Technology park, Science park, Innovation policy, Economic development, Performance evaluation.Abstract
Objective of the study: The aim of this study was to develop a systemic framework to understand the nature and dynamics of technology parks in Brazil and to analyze the mais determinants for evaluating their performance in the settlement process.
Relevance/originality: This work is unprecedented for the analysis of the dissemination of technology parks in Brazil, throughout its history, and for the application of multivariate data analysis for performance analysis in the settlement (number of tenant companies).
Methodology/approach: This study is characterized as a qualitative and quantitative combination of research methods, defined as combined exploratory, carried out in two phases. The qualitative approach is carried out first, with the aim of exploring the research topic in order to provide subsidies for the quantitative phase.
Main results: The Simple Correspondence Analysis demonstrated that the two determinants that impact the settlement of technology parks in Brazil are financing and park´s age, confirming the thesis that they are long-term enterprises.
Theoretical/methodological contributions: This study is characterized as a qualitative and quantitative combination of research methods, defined as combined exploratory, carried out in two phases. The qualitative approach is carried out first, with the aim of exploring the research topic in order to provide subsidies for the quantitative phase.
Social/management contributions: The results demonstrate the importance of technology parks in Brazil and the need to maintain public policies in the long term, in order to increase the size of parks, in terms of concentration of new technology-based companies, and attraction of anchor companies, generating jobs and income qualified.
Downloads
References
Albahari, A., Barge-Gil, A., Pérez-Canto, S., & Modrego, A. (2018). The influence of science and technology park characteristics on firms’ innovation results. Papers in Regional Science, 97(2), pp. 253-279. https://doi.org/10.1111/pirs.12253
Amaratunga, D., Baldry, D., Sarshar, M., & Newton, R. (2002). Quantitative and qualitative research in the built environment: application of 'mixed' research approach. Study Work, 1, pp. 17-31. https://doi.org/10.1108/00438020210415488
ANGLE Technology. (2003). Evaluation of the past & future economic contribution of the UK Science Park Movement. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-018-09712-x
Associação Nacional de Entidades Promotoras de Empreendimentos Inovadores (Anprotec) & Agência Brasileira de Desenvolvimento Industrial (ABDI). (2008). Parques Tecnológicos no Brasil – Estudo, Análise e Proposições. XVIII Seminário Nacional de Parques Tecnológicos e Incubadoras de Empresas. Brasília: Anprotec. Retrieved March 30, 2020, from http://www.anprotec.org.br/ArquivosDin/estudo-parques_pdf_16.pdf
Associação Nacional de Entidades Promotoras de Empreendimentos Inovadores (Anprotec). (2016). Estudo de impacto econômico: segmento de incubadoras de empresas do Brasil. Brasília: Anprotec. Retrieved March 30, 2020, from http://www.anprotec.org.br/Relata/18072016%20Estudo_ANPROTEC_v6.pdf
Associação Nacional de Entidades Promotoras de Empreendimentos Inovadores (Anprotec). (2019). Mapeamento dos mecanismos de geração de Empreendimentos Inovadores no Brasil. Brasília: Anprotec. Retrieved March 30, 2020, from https://informativo.anprotec.org.br/mapeamento-dos-mecanismos-de-geracao-de-empreendimentos-inovadores
Association of University Research Parks (AURP) & Battelle Technology Partnership Practice (BTPP). (2013). Driving regional innovation and growth: the 2012 survey of North America University Research Parks. Retrieved March 30, 2020, from https://aurp.memberclicks.net/assets/documents/aurp_batelllestudy2012-final.pdf
Association of University Research Parks (AURP). (2018). Communities of Innovation a State of the Practice. Retrieved 30 de March de 2020, from https://www.aurp.net/assets/publications/2018_AURP_Benchmarking-FINAL2_rev.pdf. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJIS-09-2017-0086
Bai, C., & Sarkis, J. (2013). A grey-based DEMATEL model for evaluating business process management critical success factors. International Journal of Production Economics, 146(1), pp. 281-292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2013.07.011
Bakouros, Y. L., Mardas, D., & Varsakelis, N. (2002). Science park, a high tech fantasy?: an analysis of the science parks of Greece. Technovation, 22, 123–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4972(00)00087-0
Bellavista, J., & Sanz, L. (2009). Science and technology parks: habitats of innovation: introduction to special section. Science and Public Policy, 36(7), 499-510. https://doi.org/10.3152/030234209X465543
Bellgardt, F., Gohlke, J., Haase, H., Parzonka, R., & Schicketanz, J. (2014). Triple helix and residential development in a science and technology park: the role of intermediaries. Triple Helix, 1(10), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40604-014-0010-1
Castells, M., & Hall, P. (1994). Technopoles of the world: the making of 21st century industrial complexes (1 ed.). London: Routledge. Retrieved April 01, 2020, from https://ssrn.com/abstract=1496180. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315832203
Chiochetta, J. C. (2010). Proposta de um modelo de governança para Parques Tecnológicos. 208 f. Tese (Doutorado em Engenharia de Produção) –. Porto Alegre: Programa de Pós-Graduação em Engenharia de Produção, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul. Retrieved April 01, 2020, from https://www.lume.ufrgs.br/bitstream/handle/10183/28794/000770257.pdf?sequence=1
Colombo, M. G., & Marco Delmastro. (2002). How effective are technology incubators?: evidence from Italy. Research Policy, 31(7), pp. 1103-1122. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(01)00178-0
Creswell, J. W. (2010). Métodos qualitativo e quantitativo (3 ed.). (M. Lopes, Trad.) Porto Alegre: Artmed.
Dabrowska, J. (2011). Measuring the success of science parks: performance monitoring and evaluation. XXVIII IASP World Conference on Science and Technology Parks, pp. 1-23. Retrieved May 14, 2019, from http://repositorio.colciencias.gov.co/handle/11146/265
Dabrowska, J., & Faria, A. F. (Jun de 2020). Performance measures to assess the success of contemporary science parks. Triple Helix, pp. 1-43. https://doi.org/10.1163/21971927-bja10006
Etzkowitz, H. (2003a). Innovation in innovation: the Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations. Social Science Information, 42(3), 293-337. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F05390184030423002
Etzkowitz, H. (2003b). Research groups as ‘quasi-firms’: the invention of the entrepreneurial university. Research Policy, 32, 109–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00009-4
Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and ‘‘Mode 2’’ to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations. Research Policy, 29, 109–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00055-4
Etzkowitz, H., & Zhou, C. (2018). Innovation incommensurability and the science park. R&D Management, 48(1), pp. 73-87. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12266
Etzkowitz, H., de Mello, J. M., & Almeida, M. (2005). Towards “meta-innovation” in Brazil: The evolution of the incubator and the emergence of a triple helix. Research Policy, 34(4), pp. 411-424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.01.011
European Commission. (2007). Research intensive clusters regional and science parks. Belgium: EC 2008. Retrieved April 01, 2020, from https://ec.europa.eu/research/regions/pdf/publications/sc_park.pdf
European Commission. (2014). Setting up, managing and evaluating EU science and technology parks — An advice and guidance report on good practice. Luxemburgo: Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2776/73401
Faria, A. F., Ribeiro, J. d., Amaral, M. G., & Sedyama, J. A. (2019). Success factors and boundary conditions for technology parks in the light of the triple helix model. Journal of Business and Economics, 10(1), 50-67. https://doi.org/10.15341/jbe(2155-7950)/01.10.2019/005
Faria, A. F., Rodrigues, M., & Pinheiro, W. (2015). Estudo, análise e proposições sobre as incubadoras de empresas de Minas Gerais. Viçosa: CenTev. Retrieved February 02, 2020, from http://www.ntg.ufv.br/wp-content/uploads/Estudo-dos-Ambientes-de-Inova%C3%A7%C3%A3o-de-MG.pdf
Faria, A. F., Sediyama, J. A., & Leonel, D. S. (2017a). Censo mineiro de startups e demais empresas de base tecnológica. Viçosa: NTG / UFV. Retrieved February 02, 2020, from http://repos.simi.org.br/Relat%C3%B3rio%20Censo%20-%2001-12-2017.pdf
Faria, A. F., Suzuki, J. A., Rodrigues, M. F., & Moura, R. (2017b). Estudo dos ambientes de inovação de Minas Gerais: empresas, incubadoras de empresas e parques tecnológicos. NTG, Viçosa. Retrieved February 02, 2020, from http://www.ntg.ufv.br/wp-content/uploads/Estudo-dos-Ambientes-de-Inova%C3%A7%C3%A3o-de-MG.pdf
Ferguson, R., & Olofsson, C. (2004). Science parks and the development of NTBFs — location, survival and growth. Journal of Technology Transfer, 29, 5–17. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOTT.0000011178.44095.cd
Fukugawa, N. (2006). Science parks in Japan and their value-added. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 24, 381– 400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijindorg.2005.07.005
Greenacre, M. J. (1993). Theory and applicatiopns of correspondence analysis. London: Academic Press.
Guo, Y., & Verdini, G. (2015). The role of geographical proximity in the establishment and development of science parks –evidence from Nanjing, China. Asian Geographer, 2, pp. 117-133. https://doi.org/10.1080/10225706.2015.1079726
Habib, F. (2012). Correspondence analysis: a new method for analyzing qualitative data in architecture. Em Digital Fabrication (pp. 517-538). Birkhäuser: Basel.
Hansson, F., Husted, K., & Vestergaard, J. (2005). Second generation science parks: from structural holes jockeys to social capital catalysts of the knowledge society. Technovation, 25, 1039–1049. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2004.03.003
Helmers, C. (2011). "What makes science parks successful". Retrieved February 02, 2020, from https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=2011050709095848
Hobbs, K. G., Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2017). Science and technology parks: an annotated and analytical literature review. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 42, pp. 957-976. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-016-9522-3
Hoffman, D. L., & Franke, G. (1986). Correspondence Analysis: graphical representation of categorical data in marketing research. Journal of Marketing Research, 23(3), pp. 213-227. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151480
Jia, N., Gao, J., & Cao, S. (2015). Tsinghua Science Park - source of chinese entrepreneurial innovation. Harvard Business Review - Study Case. Retrieved February 02, 2020, from https://store.hbr.org/product/tsinghua-science-park-source-of-chinese-entrepreneurial-innovation/tu0078?sku=TU0078-PDF-ENG. https://doi.org/10.1109/TST.20136449406
Jobson, J. D. (1996). Applied multivariate data analysis. v. I e II. New York: Springer Verlag.
Johnson, W. H. (2008). Roles, resources and benefits of intermediate organizations supportingtriple helix collaborative R&D: The case of Precarn. Technovation, 28, 495–505. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2008.02.007
Jongwanich, J., Kohpaiboon, A., & Yang, C.-H. (2014). Science park, triple helix, and regional innovative capacity: province-level evidence from China. Journal of the Asia Pacific Economy, 19(2), pp. 333-352. https://doi.org/10.1080/13547860.2014.880285
Júnior, A. C., Porto, G. S., Pacífico, O., & Júnior, A. P. (2015). Project stakeholder management: a case study of a brazilian science park. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, 10(2), pp. 39-49. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-27242015000200004
Kennedy, R., Riquier, C., & Byron, S. (1996). Practical applications of correspondence analysis to categorical data in market research. Journal of Targeting Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, 5, pp. 56-70. https://doi.org/10.2307/2348490
Kharabsheh, R. (2012). Critical sucess factors of technology parks in Australia. Internacional Journal of Economic and Finance, 4(7), pp. 57-66. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijef.v4n7p57
Kharabsheh, R., Magableh, I. K., & Arabiyat, T. S. (2011). Obstacles of sucess of technology parks: the case of Jordan. International Journal of Economics and Finance, 3(6). https://doi.org/10.5539/ijef.v3n6p219
Kroonemberg, P. M., & Lombardo, R. (1999). Nonsymmetric correspondence analysis: A tool for analysing contingency tables with a dependence structure. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 34(3), pp. 367-396. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327906MBR3403_4
Lahorgue, M. A. (2004). Pólos, parques e incubadoras: instrumentos de desenvolvimento do século XXI. Brasília: Anprotec. Retrieved February 02, 2020, from https://anprotec.org.br/site/publicacoes/polos-parques-e-incubadoras-instrumentos-de-desenvolvimento-do-seculo-xxi-2004/
Lamperti, F., Mavilia, R., & Castellini, S. (2017). The role of Science Parks: a puzzle of growth, innovation and R&D investments. The Journal of Technology Transfer, pp. 158-183. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-015-9455-2
Lecluyse, L., Knockaert, M., & Spithoven, A. (2019). The contribution of science parks: a literature review and future research agenda. The Journal of Technology Transfer, pp. 559-595. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-018-09712-x
Leidecker, J. K., & Bruno, A. (1984). Identifying and using critical success factors. Long Range Planning, 17(1), pp. 23-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-6301(84)90163-8
Leyden, D. P., Link, A. N., & Siegel, D. S. (2008). A theoretical and empirical analysis of the decision to locate on a university research park. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 55(1), pp. 23-28. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2007.912810
Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The triple helix: an evolutionary model of innovations. Research Policy, 29, 243–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00063-3
Liberati, D., Marinucci, M., & Tanzi, G. M. (2016). Science and technology parks in Italy: main features and analysis of their effects on the firms hosted. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41, pp. 694-729. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-015-9397-8
Lindelöf, P., & Löfsten, H. (2004). Proximity as a resource base for competitive advantage: university–industry links for technology transfer. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 29, pp. 311-326. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOTT.0000034125.29979.ae
Link, A. N., & Scott, J. (2003b). U .S. science parks: the diffusion of an innovation and its effects on the academic missions of universities. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 21, 1323–1356. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-7187(03)00085-7
Link, A. N., & Scott, J. (2005). Opening the ivory tower’s door: An analysis of the determinants of the formation of U.S. university spin-off companies. Research Policy, 34, 1106–1112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.05.015
Link, A. N., & Scott, J. (2006). U.S. university research parks. Journal of Productivity, 25, 43–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11123-006-7126-x
Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2003a). The growth of Research Triangle Park. Small Business Economics volume, 20, pp. 167-175. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022216116063
Löfsten, H., & Lindelöf, P. (2001). Science parks in Sweden – industrial renewal and development? R&D Management, 31(3), pp. 309-322. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9310.00219
Löfsten, H., & Lindelöf, P. (2002). Science Parks and the growth of new technology-based firms—academic-industry links, innovation and markets. Research Policy, 31, 859–876. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(01)00153-6
Löfsten, H., & Lindelöf, P. (2003). Determinants for an entrepreneurial milieu: Science Parks and. Technovation, 23(1), pp. 51-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4972(01)00086-4
Löfsten, H., & Lindelöf, P. (2005). R&D networks and product innovation patterns—academic and non-academic new technology-based firms on science parks. Technovation, 25(9), pp. 1025-1037. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2004.02.007
Martins, R. A. (2018). Abordagens quantitativa e qualitativa. Em P. A. Cauchick-Miguel, Metodologia de pesquisa em engenharia de produção e gestão de operações (p. 244). Rio de Janeiro: Elsevier.
Metcalfe, A. S. (2010). Examining the trilateral networks of the Triple Helix: intermediating organizations and academy-industry-government relations. Critical Sociology, 36(4), 503-519. https://doi.org/10.1177/0896920510365920
Mingoti, S. A. (2005). Analise de dados através de métodos de estatística multivariada: uma abordagem aplicada. Belo Horizonte: UFMG.
Ministério de Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação (MCTI) & Centro de Apoio ao Desenvolvimento Tecnológico (CDT/UNB). (2014). Estudo de Projetos de Alta Complexidade: Indicadores de Parques Tecnológicos. Brasília: Brasil. Retrieved February 02, 2020, from http://www.anprotec.org.br/Relata/PNI_FINAL_web.pdf
Ministério de Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação (MCTI). (2015a). Parques tecnológicos e incubadoras para o desenvolvimento do Brasil: estudo de práticas de parques tecnológicos e incubadoras de empresas. Brasília: Brasil. Retrieved February 02, 2020, from http://www.anprotec.org.br/Relata/EstudoMelhoresPraticasParquesIncubadoras.pdf
Ministério de Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação (MCTI). (2015b). Parques tecnológicos e incubadoras para o desenvolvimento do Brasil: propostas de políticas públicas para parques tecnológicos e incubadoras de empresas. Brasília: Brasil. Retrieved February 02, 2020, from http://ppi.certi.org.br/4-PropostasPoliticasPublicasParquesIncubadoras.pdf
Ministério de Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação (MCTI). (2016). Estratégia nacional de ciência, tecnologia e inovação 2016-2022: : Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação para o Desenvolvimento Econômico e Social. Ministério de Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação. Brasília: Brasil. Retrieved February 02, 2020, from http://www.finep.gov.br/images/a-finep/Politica/16_03_2018_Estrategia_Nacional_de_Ciencia_Tecnologia_e_Inovacao_2016_2022.pdf
Ministério de Ciência, Tecnologia, Inovações e Comunicações (MCTIC) & Centro de Apoio ao Desenvolvimento Tecnológico (CDT/UNB). (2019). Indicadores de Parques Tecnológicos: Estudo de Projetos de Alta Complexidade - Fase 2. Brasília: Brasil. Retrieved February 02, 2020, from http://www.mctic.gov.br/mctic/export/sites/institucional/arquivos/MCTIC-UnB-ParquesTecnologicos-Portugues-final.pdf
National Academy of Sciences. (2009). Understanding Research, Science and Technology Parks: Global Best Practice: Report of a Symposium. Washington: National Academies Press. Retrieved February 15, 2016, from http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12546/understanding-research-science-and-technology-parks-global-best-practice-report
Parry, M. (Ed.). (2006). The planning, development and operation of science parks (2 ed.). Cambridge: UK Science Park Association.
Phan, P. H., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2005). Science parks and incubators: observations, synthesis and future research. Journal of Business Venturing, 20, 165-182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2003.12.001
Ribeiro, J. A., Ladeira, M. B., & Faria, A. F. (2018). Modelo de referência para a gestão estratégica do desempenho de parques tecnológicos. Revista Eletrônica de Administração REAd, 24(3), 183-216. https://doi.org/10.1590/1413-2311.232.84262
Ribeiro, J. d., Faria, A. F., Freitas, K. A., & Ladeira, M. B. (2019). A balanced scorecard model for science parks. 18(4), pp. 118-135. https://doi.org/10.21714/1984-6975FACES2019V18N4ART7232
Ribeiro, J., Higuchi, A., Bronzo, M., Veiga, R., & Faria, A. F. (2016). A Framework for the Strategic Management of Science & Technology Parks. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, 11(4), 80-90. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-27242016000400011
Sale, J. E., Lohfeld, L. H., & Brazil, K. (2002). Revisiting the quantitative-qualitative debate: implications for mixed-methods research. Quality and Quantity, 36, 43-53. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014301607592
Schmidt, S., & Balestrin, A. (2015). Brazilian incubators and science parks’ resources and R&D collaboration. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, 10(3), 32-43. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-27242015000300004
Siegel, D. S., Westhead, P., & Wright, M. (2003a). Science Parks and the performance of new technology-based firms: a review of recent U.K. evidence and an agenda for future Research. Small Business Economics, 20, 177–184. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022268100133
Siegel, D. S., Westhead, P., & Wright, M. (2003b). Assessing the impact of university science parks on research productivity: exploratory firm-level evidence from the United Kingdom. 21, pp. 1357–1369. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0167-7187(03)00086-9
Squicciarini, M. (2008). Science parks’ tenants versus out-of-park firms: who innovates more? A duration model. pp. 45-71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-007-9037-z
Tsamis, A. (2009). Science and technology parks in the less favoured regions of Europe: an evaluation of their performance and the parameters of success. 458 f. Dissertation Publishing. The London School of Economics and Political Science, London. Retrieved February 02, 2020, from http://etheses.lse.ac.uk/2543/1/U615492.pdf
Vedovello, C. (1997). Science parks and university-industry interaction: geographical proximity between the agents as a driving force. Technovation, 17(9), 491-502. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4972(97)00027-8
Vedovello, C. A., Judice, V. M., & Maculan, A.-M. D. (2006). Revisão crítica às abordagens a parques tecnológicos: alternativas interpretativas às experiências brasileiras recentes. 3(2), 103-118. Retrieved February 02, 2020, from http://www.revistas.usp.br/rai/article/view/79066 https://doi.org/10.5773/rai.v3i2.58
Vilà, P. C., & Pagès, J. L. (2008). Science and technology parks: creating new environments favourable to innovation. Strategies for innovation - paradigmes(0), 141-149. Retrieved from https://www.raco.cat/index.php/Paradigmes/article/viewFile/226082/307655
Wasim, M. U. (2014). Factors for science park planning. World Technopolis Review, 3, 97-108. 10.7 https://doi.org/165/wtr2014.3.2.97
Westhead, P. (1995). New owner-managed businesses in rural and urban areas in Great Britain: a matched pairs comparison. Regional Studies, 29(4), pp. 367-380. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343409512331349033
Westhead, P., & Cowling , M. (1995). Employment change in independent owner-managed high-technology firms in Great Britain. Small Business Economics, 7, pp. 111-140. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01108686
Westhead, P., & Storey, D. (1997). Financial constraints on the growth of high technology small firms in the United Kingdom. Applied Financial Economics, 7(2), pp. 197-201. https://doi.org/10.1080/096031097333763
Westhead, P., Storey, D., & Cowling, M. (1995). An exploratory analysis of the factors associated with the survival of independent high-technology firms in Great Britain. In F. Chittenden, M. Robertson, & I. Marshall, Small firms: partnerships for growth. London: Paul Chapman. Retrieved February 02, 2020, from https://go.gale.com/ps/anonymous?id=GALE%7CA17151204&sid=googleScholar&v=2.1&it=r&linkaccess=abs&issn=02662426&p=AONE&sw=w
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 International Journal of Innovation
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
The author(s) authorize the publication of the article in the journal.
The author(s) ensure that the contribution is original and unpublished and is not being evaluated in other journal(s).
The journal is not responsible for the opinions, ideas and concepts expressed in the texts because they are the sole responsibility of the author(s).
The publishers reserve the right to make adjustments and textual adaptation to the norms of APA.
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication, with the work after publication simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access) at http://opcit.eprints.org/oacitation-biblio.html
Authors are able to use ORCID is a system of identification for authors. An ORCID identifier is unique to an individual and acts as a persistent digital identifier to ensure that authors (particularly those with relatively common names) can be distinguished and their work properly attributed.
