No abstract

<p>Pilot selection is a form of high-stakes selection due to the massive costs of training, high trainee ability requirements and costly repercussions of poor selection decisions. This criterion-related validation study investigated the predictive ability of fluid intelligence and spatial reasoning in predicting three criteria of pilot training performance, using an accumulated sample of South African Air Force pilots (<em>N </em>= 108). Hierarchical multiple regression analyses with training grade achieved as criterion were performed for each of the phases of training, namely practical flight training, ground school training, and officers’ formative training. Multiple correlations of 0.35 (<em>p </em>< 0.01), 0.20 (<em>p </em>> 0.05) and 0.23 (<em>p </em>> 0.05) were obtained for flight, ground school and formative training results, respectively. Spatial ability had incremental validity over fluid intelligence for predicting flight training performance.</p><p><strong>How to cite this article:</strong><br />De Kock, F., & Schlechter, A. (2009) Fluid intellingence and spatial reasoning as predictors of pilot training performance in the South African Air Force (SAAF). <em>SA Journal of Industrial Psychology/SA Tydskrif vir Bedryfsielkunde, 35</em>(1), Art. #753, 8 pages. DOI: 10.4102/sajip.v35i1.753</p>

This study investigates the prevalence and characteristics of papers published in popular predatory journals by South African academics in economic and management sciences. Our aim is to raise awareness and to deepen understanding of the predatory publishing phenomenon. We collected 728 recent (2013 to mid-2016) articles with South African authors in five popular in the field journals classified as ‘potential, possible, or probable predatory’ according to Beall’s list. Our data shows that publishing in these predatory journals is widespread across authors and universities. However, the data also shows that most of the authors only published once in these journals, suggesting that they perhaps mistakenly perceived the journals as being legitimate research outlets. We found evidence of low-quality publishing by the journals in our data, consistent with deficient peer review and copy editing processes. Thus, low-quality publishing was evident from spelling and grammar mistakes in the titles of articles, publishing the same paper twice in the same journal, so-called ‘salami slicing’, and the publishing of an article already published in another journal.

No abstract

No abstract