Purpose: The purpose of this research is to analyze the characteristics of entrepreneurship in influential people in Romania, given that entrepreneurship is what guarantees the success of any business. -/- Methodology: There are five indicators that show that a certain person has the entrepreneurial spirit: passion, optimism, continuous improvement, take calculated risks and achieve their goals. -/- Results: Entrepreneurship is not learned, but is formed over time and is formed from within the person. So entrepreneurship becomes part of what people (...) really are. Entrepreneurship develops in people, when they feel motivated, empowered, take risks, show passion and are willing to achieve great goals. In other words, to exceed their own limits. Also, the entrepreneurial spirit is always looking for change, because here it is a mentality that is constantly looking for innovation, in seeing the big picture, always looking for constructive feedback, always looking for new opportunities and in to always have a critical spirit. In addition, due to the entrepreneurial spirit that a person manifests, their employees will embrace this entrepreneurial mentality and will come up with new ideas, solutions and opportunities to problems, and this makes organizations grow and develop. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:130 Feminist Studies 46, no. 1. © 2020 by Feminist Studies, Inc. Laura Bisaillon, Alana Cattapan, Annelieke Driessen, Esther van Duin, Shannon Spruit, Lorena Anton, and Nancy S. Jecker Doing Academia Differently: “I Needed Self-Help Less Than I Needed a Fair Society” A great deal of harm is being done by belief in the virtuousness of work. — Bertrand Russell, “In Praise of Idleness” We are committed to (...) doing academia in particular ways, and not in others. — Brocher Foundation Feminist Collective I had decided that becoming a university professor might be a good fit; friends and colleagues had suggested that I would be valuable to a university, so I prepared for a restructuring of my family life.1 I read Tokarczyk and Fay’s Working-Class Women in the Academy and Babcock and Laschever’s Women Don’t Ask to gather understandings of the milieu I was entering. I now see that my preparations had not shined sufficient light on the social and structural factors that organize the contemporary university.... As it turns out, the restructuring of our lives within the working conditions, priorities, and rationalities of this professional milieu triggered unanticipated and painful effects.... Had Mountz published her article “Women on the Edge” before I decided on a career migration into the university system and, had I been fortunate enough to discover it, I would have made other career choices.2 1. The authors, who describe themselves as the Brocher Foundation Feminist Collective, indicate their personal narratives in this text using italics. 2. Michelle M. Tokarczyk and Elizabeth A. Fay, eds., Working-Class Women in the Academy: Laborers in the Knowledge Factory (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1993); Linda Babcock and Sara Laschever, Women Don’t Ask: Negotiation and the Gender Divide (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Bisaillon et al. 131 Introduction: Personal, Professional, and Political We are seven women who met at the Brocher Foundation in Hermance, Switzerland, in July 2017, where we had been selected to spend a few months as research fellows. This competitively awarded opportunity is open to persons fluent in English, from graduate students to senior scholars, with or without academic appointment, whose scholarship advances knowledge about the ethical, legal, and social implications of health and biotechnologies.3 When we found ourselves on the shores of Lake Leman with the gift of time, we began opening up to each other in unexpected, compelling ways. Whatever our vantage point in the hierarchy of the university system, we discovered that there was remarkable overlap in our experiences as women in academia. When we began writing, our authoring team was composed of two graduate students, four faculty members at the assistant professor rank, and one full professor, residing in Canada, the Netherlands, Romania, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Our plural subject position led us to underexplored and imaginative responses to broader social issues, which we share in this article as the “Brocher Foundation Feminist Collective.” We analyze our experiences from our standpoint as women health researchers laboring in the academy. Our similarities and differences were exciting entry points for discussion and analysis: we are all of eastern or western European descent. We have different countries of birth, mother tongues, ages, disciplinary training and career trajectories, relationships to chronic illness and disability, marital status, and experiences with parenthood. We bring the troubles and contradictions we experience as academics into conversation with each other. We seek to productively illustrate and emphasize that the tensions we see around us, and also feel within us, arise as a result of how the academic system is organized, produced, and sustained across time, place, and space. Press, 2003); Alison Mountz, “Women on the Edge: Workplace Stress at Universities in North America,” The Canadian Geographer 60, no. 2 (2016): 205–18. 3. We experienced this fellowship as a valuable opportunity. But we also recognized that our access to it was mediated by social, economic, or other obligations. As countries in the global north continue to tighten their national border regimes, marginalized academics, especially those from the global South, were less likely to succeed in getting a Swiss visa or securing relevant temporal and economic resources. 132 Bisaillon et al. The promise here, we posit... (shrink)

El propósito de este artículo es explorar la respuesta editorial de las revistas ante artículos de investigación que puedan contener errores metodológicos o ser casos de fraude. 17.244 artículos comentados en PubPeer, una web de revisión post-publicación, fueron procesados y clasificados de acuerdo a diferentes errores y categorías de fraude. Luego, la respuesta editorial (i.e., notas editoriales) a estas publicaciones fueron extraídas de PubPeer, Retraction Watch and PubMed para obtener la imagen más amplia. Los resultados muestran que solo 21,5% de (...) los artículos que merecen una nota editorial (i.e., errores honestos, fallos metodológicos, fraude en la publicación, manipulación) fueron corregidos por la revista. Este porcentaje podría subir a 34% para las publicaciones de 2019. Esta respuesta es muy diferente entre revistas, pero similar entre disciplinas. Otro resultado interesante es que las revistas de alto impacto sufren más de manipulación de imágenes, mientras que el fraude en la publicación es más frecuente en revistas de bajo impacto. El estudio concluye con la observación de que las revistas deben mejorar su respuesta a artículos problemáticos. (shrink)

Invited papers from PT-AI 2011. - Vincent C. Müller: Introduction: Theory and Philosophy of Artificial Intelligence - Nick Bostrom: The Superintelligent Will: Motivation and Instrumental Rationality in Advanced Artificial Agents - Hubert L. Dreyfus: A History of First Step Fallacies - Antoni Gomila, David Travieso and Lorena Lobo: Wherein is Human Cognition Systematic - J. Kevin O'Regan: How to Build a Robot that Is Conscious and Feels - Oron Shagrir: Computation, Implementation, Cognition.