ReseaRch aRticle
Abstract:
0 this study measures and ranks the productivity of academic institutions and faculty members based on the number of publications appearing in the top three core international business journals between 2001 and 2009.
0 this research serves as a useful update and extension of studies by Morrison and inkpen (1991), inkpen and Beamish (1994), and Kumar and Kundu (2004), which examined the top three international business journals, namely, Management International Review, Journal of International Business Studies, and Journal of World Business.
0 copenhagen Business school, University of Miami, and University of leeds (among institu-tions), and Yadong luo, Peter J. Buckley, and alain Verbeke (among authors) occupy the top three positions.
Keywords: international business · leading journals · Publication · Ranking · authors
Ranking International Business Institutions and
Faculty Members Using Research Publication as
the Measure
Update and Extension of Prior Research Somnath Lahiri · Vikas Kumar
Received: 28.03.2010 / Revised: 23.09.2010 / Accepted: 21.12.2010 © Gabler-Verlag 2011
assist. Prof. s. lahiri
Department of Management and Quantitative Methods, college of Business, illinois state University, Normal, Usa
assoc. Prof. V. Kumar ()
Discipline of international Business, the University of sydney of Business school, University of sydney, sydney, australia
Introduction
scholarly interest in international business (iB) is evident in the increasing numbers of
(a) researchers who contribute to the field; (b) new topics and research questions that merit the attention of these scholars; (c) business schools that emphasize the inclusion of IB courses in their curricula; and (d) journals that focus on IB or international manage -ment (chan et al. 2005; Kumar and Kundu 2004; Morgan and Fai 2007). as institutions across the world continue to accord greater importance to publications in iB journals in determining faculty members’ eligibility for merit pay increases, tenure, and promotion, over the years the importance of iB research publications among business school faculty members has continued to grow (chan et al. 2005; Griffith et al. 2008).
Recognizing the mounting importance of IB-focused research, in the past several scholars have attempted to rank business schools based on how prolific their faculty
members were in publishing in top iB journals. such studies, among others, include the ranking of (a) authors and universities publishing iB articles (Morrison and inkpen 1991;
trevino et al. 2010); (b) authors, institutions and discipline content of published articles
in the Journal of International Business Studies (JiBs) between 1970 and 1994 (inkpen and Beamish 1994); (c) authors and disciplines of articles published in JIBS between
1984 and 1993 (chandy and Williams 1994); (d) international business schools based on
the measure of faculty publication (Kumar and Kundu 2004); and (e) schools based on
publication data between 1995 and 2004 for four leading international business journals (chan et al. 2006).
the role and importance of ranking studies is well documented in literature span-ning a variety of disciplinary areas, from sociology (espeland and sauder 2007; Sauder
and espeland 2009), logistics (carter et al. 2009), Strategy (Baden-Fuller et al. 2000),
Finance (Zivney and Bertin 1992), economics (Grove and Wu 2007), Management (Devinney et al. 2008; Pisani 2009; Wedlin 2007; Werner 2002), Marketing (caruana et
al. 2009; Linton 2004; Mitra and Golder 2008), information systems (Willcocks et al.
2008), Education (Sweitzer and Volkwein 2009), Research Methods (Mills et al. 2006),
to International Business (Macharzina et al. 2004; Macharzina et al. 1993). in addition to their broad disciplinary appeal, ranking studies have consistently appeared in prestigious journals for a long period of time. examples of these include allison and stewart (1974) in American Sociological Review; Graves et al. (1982) in American Economic Review;
chung and cox (1990) in Journal of Finance; Tracy and Waldfogel (1997) in Journal of Business; starbuck (2005) in Organization Science; and Mitra and Golder (2008) in
Journal of Marketing.
Following the globalization of business schools, ranking studies have also looked at specific geographical domains as a context of their analyses. Examples of these include Baden-Fuller et al. (2000) on research rankings of european business schools, lahiri
(2011) on India-focused publications in leading IB journals, Macharzina et al. (2004) on
the evaluation of German research output in business administration, and Mudambi et al.
(2008) on research rankings of Asia Pacific business schools. Globalization of business
has led to an increase in international business/management-related articles in general,
this has led to some ranking studies focusing on single journals [e.g., coudounaris et al. (2009) on Management International Review, inkpen and Beamish (1994) on Journal of International Business Studies], and others to include a broad range of business and man-agement journals that international business/manman-agement research has permeated (e.g.,
lu 2003; Pisani 2009; Trevino et al. 2010; Werner 2002; Werner and Brouthers 2002).
the plethora of studies listed above is indicative of academics’ continued interest in bibliometric studies to evaluate and assess institutions and academic disciplines as well
as individuals. Rankings are important because they (i) reflect and create reputations for schools and individuals (Baden-Fuller et al. 2000); (ii) impact the morale and earnings of
schools (Kogut 2008); and (iii) pose a threat to individuals’ perceptions of their schools’
identities (elsbach and Kramer 1996). Given the persistence of budgetary constraints to fund schools, rankings are bound to gain further importance as a performance evaluation
tool for the efficient allocation of funds (Macharzina et al. 2004).
With regard to the above considerations, we have conducted this study, which updates
previous findings by analyzing all the articles published in three core IB journals between
2001 and 2009—a period not previously examined. By adopting a timeframe of nine
years (2001–2009), this study supplements the findings of Kumar and Kundu (2004), who selected 1991–2000 as their research window. in addition to the timeframe in the
two studies being compared, they are also of a sufficient length to eliminate outliers (Macharzina et al. 2004). We do acknowledge that other journals such as the Journal of International Management, Journal of International Marketing, International Busi-ness Review, International Marketing Review, and Multinational BusiBusi-ness Review have entered the iB research space and have been increasing in prominence and impact over the years, and including them for our analysis would have been useful in providing a more general picture of iB research productivity. however, they would have been of little value
for the purposes of comparison with previous findings. Further, the three selected journals have been in existence for over thirty years, which is significantly longer than the average
lifespan of the newer iB journals mentioned above.
Apart from updating prior findings, this study extends the research by measuring and
ranking the adjusted appearances of institutions and authors, in addition to calculating and ranking the total appearances of institutions and authors. that is, this study not only anal-yses and ranks the appearance of various institutions (universities or business schools), it also examines and ranks the appearance of faculty members representing the institutions that appear in the sampled publications. By including institutions and faculty members within the research scope, this study both updates and extends previous ranking-based research focusing on core iB journals. Updating previous ranking studies is useful for comparative purposes across time periods, especially in verifying consistency in research
productivity. For example, Macharzina et al. (2004), in their update of the Macharzina
et al. (1993) study, did not find much change in the ranking of German business schools.
On the other hand, in an update of productivity in transportation and logistics journals, carter et al. (2009) identified the presence of non-North American universities in the top five rankings for the first time. Our findings with regards to school rankings in this update study are substantially different from previous findings, indicating the increased global
Research Methodology
consistent with the work of Kumar and Kundu (2004), this study considers three core
journals in the field of international business: Management International Review (MiR),
Journal of International Business Studies (JiBs) and Journal of World Business (JWB) (known as Columbia Journal of World Business until 1996). the rationale for selecting these particular journals has been explained by the authors (Kumar and Kundu 2004,
pp. 216–217). Specifically, the relevant journals have now been in existence for almost
thirty years and they publish articles focusing on a wide variety of business topics that
are international or global in nature. For example, in a study of the diffusion of interna -tional management research in the top 20 management journals, Pisani (2009) notes that during 2002–2006 over 70% of the articles published in MiR and JiBs focused on inter-national dimensions (12 distinct categories) of management. Moreover, all three journals have been suggested as core iB journals in prior research (acedo and casillas 2005;
DuBois and Reeb 2000). the inclusion of these three established journals would enable
better representation of IB research publications and thereby assist in generalizing vari
-ous findings. Since the publication of study by Kumar and Kundu (2004), several studies have considered these three journals together when conducting ranking-based research of
publications appearing in leading IB journals (Griffith et al. 2008; Lahiri 2011; Quer et al.
2007; Xu et al. 2008). We acknowledge that iB research has permeated many other
jour-nals in addition to MiR, JiBs, and JWB and recent studies (e.g., trevino et al. 2010) have adopted the approach of focusing on iB articles published in a range of premier business and management journals in their ranking of institutions and scholars. Given that our aim
in this paper is to extend and update previous findings in Kumar and Kundu (2004), we have refrained from adding new journals in this study.
to initiate our research, every article published between 2001 and 2009 (9-year widow) in the three core iB journals was downloaded using the bibliographic database ‘ProQuest’. as the focus was on research articles only, certain categories of publication were not con-sidered. these included editorials, obituaries, errata, biblio services, book reviews, and thank you notes to reviewers. however, research notes and guest editors’ introduction of special issues were included. a total of 1098 articles (318 in MiR, 498 in JiBs, 282 in
JWB) formed the final sample. The number of authors contributing to each article mostly
ranged between 1 and 3 (total 991 articles). however, 107 articles were co-authored by more than three authors. the maximum number of authors for any single article was 49 (Ralston et al. 2009), followed by Waldman et al. (2006), which had 41 authors. hofstede et al. (2002) was co-authored by 17 authors, and Fu et al. (2004) had 15 authors. For each
article, we reviewed the names of contributing faculty members and their institutional
affiliation(s). After all the publications had been tabulated, the number of times any par -ticular author or institution appeared in each of the three journals was recorded.
Absolute Productivity of Institutions
For assessing and ranking institutional productivity, a procedure for computing absolute
acade-mic or non-acadeacade-mic institutions of which the contributing authors were members at the time of publication. total appearance refers to the number of times an institution appeared in the research sample. each time the appearance was observed, a credit of 1 (one) was accorded to the institution. if any article was co-authored by more than one author from the same institution, the institution was credited with more than one appearance (i.e., 2 or
more, as the case may be). Following prior research (Coudounaris et al. 2009; Kumar and
Kundu 2004; Quer et al. 2007), no distinction was made regarding the order of appearance
of institutions—each appearance counted as one credit. Further, no distinction was made based on the journal name—all the three journals were assumed to be equally important.
individual appearance scores resulting from publications within a particular journal (say MiR) were added to represent the summated score for that journal. the total appearance score for a particular institution in the sample was calculated by aggregating the summa-ted scores for all three journals1.
table 1 highlights and ranks the total appearance of the top 25 institutions during 2001–2009 in JiBs, MiR, and JWB.
as seen in table 1, the Chinese University of Hong Kong ranks first, followed by the
University of leeds, copenhagen Business school, and Rutgers University. total appear-ance of institutions ranges from 17–57 (i.e., 40), with the maximum range in JiBs (32), followed by MiR (24) and JWB (15). salient differences are observed with respect to results in the previous study by Kumar and Kundu (2004). in the previous study, which used 1991–2000 as the timeframe, the four top-ranked universities were the University of Western Ontario, University of south carolina, University of texas at austin, and Michi-gan state University. the chinese University of hong Kong (ranked 1st in the current study) was ranked 12th in Kumar and Kundu (2004). similarly, the University of leeds (currently 2nd) ranked 29th, and Rutgers University (currently 4th) ranked 17th in the earlier study. copenhagen Business school, ranked 3rd in the current study, did not merit in the list of top 50 schools in Kumar and Kundu (2004). Further, in Kumar and Kundu
(2004), total appearance ranged from 7–34 (i.e., a difference of 27). the average total appearance of the top four institutions in this study is 48.75, a 75.67% rise over 27.75—
the average total appearance in the earlier study. From a geographic standpoint, the top
four ranked institutions in the current study are from hong Kong, the UK, Denmark and the Usa, whereas in the earlier study the top-ranked institution was canada based and the remaining three were from the Usa.
in updating table 2 of Kumar and Kundu (2004, p. 220), table 2 compares the top ten Universities based on publications in JiBs after the study by Morrison and inkpen (1991).
as is evident in the above table, the chinese University of hong Kong made the maxi-mum contribution to JiBs during 2001–2009 (34 total appearances), compared to the University of Western Ontario in 1991–2000, which made 25 total appearances. three institutions that immediately follow the chinese University of hong Kong in this study are Rutgers University, University of leeds, and indiana University. the comparison in table 2 of Kumar and Kundu (2004) with the current study indicates that institutional
rep-resentation in JIBS has undergone significant change from 1991–2000 and 2001–2009. Specifically, with the exception of two universities (University of South Carolina and
interest-ingly, the University of south carolina and Michigan state University are the only two
institutions that have featured in the top ten lists in all four ranking-based studies; Inkpen
and Beamish (1994), Morrison and inkpen (1991), Kumar and Kundu (2004) and the
cur-rent study. It is also noteworthy that five universities out of the top ten in the curcur-rent study
(2001–2009 time frame) are from outside North america (three from hong Kong and two
from Europe), a significant increase from just one from Hong Kong in the top ten during the 1991–2000 timeframe. This finding of increased focus on IB research in Hong Kong Universities is in line with the rankings of Asia Pacific business schools in Mudambi et al.
(2008, pp. 177–178), where four and five of the top ten schools for the 1990–2006 period
are from hong Kong, based on raw publication counts in the top 24 leading business journals and top seven management journals, respectively.
Table 1: total appearance of institutions during 2001–2009 in JiBs, MiR, and JWB
Name of the university Rank total appearance JiBs MiR JWB
chinese University of hong Kong 1 57 34 8 15
University of leeds 2 51 23 23 5
copenhagen Business school 3 49 17 24 8
Rutgers University 4 38 23 9 6
University of south carolina 4 38 19 8 11
University of london 4 38 16 15 7
University of Western Ontario 7 33 10 16 7
Michigan state University 8 32 21 1 10
University of Miami, Usa 9 30 19 6 5
University of hong Kong 10 28 20 6 2
indiana University 11 27 22 5 0
city University of hong Kong 12 25 21 2 2
University of Reading 12 25 12 13 0
Northeastern University 14 23 6 3 14
University of Queensland 15 21 2 9 10
texas (a&M) University 15 21 13 6 2
York University 15 21 10 9 2
University of calgary 18 20 8 9 3
Simon Fraser University 18 20 8 3 9
Ohio state University 20 19 13 2 4
temple University 20 19 10 8 1
National University of singapore 22 18 9 7 2
University of Oklahoma 22 18 11 0 7
tilburg University 22 18 15 3 0
Absolute Productivity of Authors
to assess faculty (i.e., author) productivity, a similar procedure for computing the total appearance of each author was adopted. each time an appearance was observed, a credit
Table �:able �: comparison of the top ten universities in journal of international business studies across four studies
study by inkpen and
Beamish (1994) study by Morrison and inkpen (1991) study by Kumar and Kundu (2004) Present study (2010) 1970–1982 total appear-ance 1980–1989 total appear-ance 1991–2000 total appear-ance 2001–2009 total appear-ance columbia
University 14 Univer-sity of south carolinaa 31 University of Western Ontario 25 chinese University of hong Kong 34 Univer-sity of south carolinaa 13 Pennsylvania 18 Univer-sity of south carolinaa 23 Rutgers University 23 Georgia state
University 12 New York University 15 Georgetown University 15 University of leeds 23
Michi-gan state Universitya
11 Rutgers
University 14 University of texas at austin
14 indiana
University 22 University of
Wisconsin 11 McGill University 11 Michi-gan state Universitya 14 city Univer-sity of hong Kong 21 New York
University 10 Michi-gan state Universitya
11 University of
Pennsylvania 10 Michi-gan state Universitya
21
harvard
University 9 columbia University 11 University of hawaii 9 University of hong Kong 20 Ohio state
University 9 Western Ontario 10 thunder-bird- the american Graduate school of international Management 9 University of Miami 19
Pennsylvania 9 Ohio state
University 8 chinese University of hong Kong 9 Univer-sity of south carolinaa 19 University of texas at austin 8 University of southern california 5 temple
University 9 copenhagen Business school
17
of 1 (one) was accorded to the author, even if several authors contributed to a particular article. this procedure was followed for all the three journals. No distinction was made
regarding the order of appearance of authors—each appearance counted as one credit. Fur -ther, no distinction was made based on the journal name—all three journals were assumed
to be equally important. Individual total appearance scores from the three journals were
summed to calculate the aggregate score for each author. as with institutions, faculty
mem-bers affiliated to different campuses of the same university were considered separately.
table 3 highlights and ranks the top 25 individual authors during 2001–2009 in JiBs, MiR, and JWB.
table 3 indicates that Yadong luo contributed the most by making the maximum number of appearances (24), followed by Peter Buckley (21), Paul Beamish (16), alain
Table 3: total appearance of authors during 2001–2009 in JiBs, MiR, and JWB
Name of the author Rank total appearance JiBs MiR JWB
Yadong luo 1 24 13 6 5 Peter J. Buckley 2 21 12 7 2 Paul W. Beamish 3 16 3 9 4 alain Verbeke 4 14 7 7 0 David A. Griffith 5 12 7 0 5 Igor Filatotchev 6 11 6 2 3 Klaus e. Meyer 7 10 6 2 2 alan M. Rugman 7 10 5 4 1 s. tamer cavusgil 7 10 7 1 2 torben Pedersen 7 10 5 4 1 trevor Buck 7 10 5 2 3 Oded shenkar 12 9 8 1 0 Jonathan P Doh 12 9 3 2 4 Jeremy clegg 12 9 3 5 1 lorraine eden 15 8 6 2 0 sumit K. Kundu 15 8 3 4 1 Bent Petersen 15 8 2 5 1 John h. Dunning 18 7 6 1 0 Mike Peng 18 7 4 0 3 Marjorie a. lyles 18 7 6 1 0 Masaaki Kotabe 18 7 5 1 1 Yigang Pan 18 7 3 3 1 andrew Delios 18 7 3 4 0 Ram Mudambi 18 7 3 4 0 Pervez N. Ghauri 18 7 2 2 3
Verbeke (14) and others. the range of total appearances is 17 (7–24), with JiBs, MiR and JWB exhibiting individual ranges of 11, 9, and 5, respectively. author Yadong luo was
most prolific in appearance both in JIBS and JWB, whereas in MIR it was Peter Buckley
who made the maximum contribution, appearing 9 times. the average total appearance score of the top four authors is 18.75. as of January 2010, the four top authors were
affiliated to the University of Miami, University of Leeds, University of Western Ontario,
and University of calgary, respectively. since Kumar and Kundu (2004) did not consider
author contribution in their research, we cannot compare the current findings with similar results of their study. However, our findings support and confirm rankings for the most prolific authors in MIR conducted by Coudounaris et al. (2009). Our top four authors rank
in the top five in terms of publishing articles in MIR during the 1993–2007 period. This is
indicative of these authors’ continued productivity, as well as their interest in simultane-ously publishing in all three core iB journals.
Adjusted Productivity of Institutions
in addition to total, raw or absolute counts, most recent ranking-based studies employ adjusted measures or counts that take into account over-crediting contributions by institu-tions and authors (coudounaris et al. 2009; Lahiri 2011; Quer et al. 2007; Xu et al. 2008).
For example, if two faculty members from the same institution contribute to a particular
article, then the procedure for attaining total count would credit two points to the same institution. however, in order to be accurate and fair, each appearance should give the institution a half point, thereby totaling one point in all, as opposed to two. similarly, if two authors contribute to a particular article, then they should be eligible for a half point each, based on the assumption that each of them contributed to half of the total effort nee-ded to produce the publication. the procedure for attaining total count would grant one point to each author (as opposed to a half point), which would amount to over-crediting.
to keep abreast of recent research trends and to overcome one limitation of Kumar and Kundu (2004), we calculated adjusted appearance relating to each article to assess
the adjusted productivity of the contributing institutions. For adjusted appearance, a sole-authored article resulted in a score of 1 for the affiliated institution. An article by two authors fetched an adjusted score of 0.5 for each affiliated institution, a triauthorship
resulted in a score of 0.33, and so on. this methodology to calculate adjusted appearances
is similar to that adopted by Macharzina et al. (2004, p. 342) in their study2. adjusted
appearance scores from three journals were summed to calculate the aggregate score for each institution in the research sample.
table 4 shows the adjusted appearance of the top 25 institutions during 2001–2009 in JiBs, MiR, and JWB.
table 4 indicates that the adjusted appearances range from 7.49–24.79, with the top four institutions being copenhagen Business school, University of Miami, University of leeds and chinese University of hong Kong. these four institutions also rank in the top ten based on absolute counts of publications in JiBs, MiR and JWB (see table 3), with three of them occupying the top three ranks based on absolute counts. this shows that there is some degree of correlation between adjusted and absolute counts. the range of
adjusted appearance in JiBs is 10.92 (0.66–11.58), while in MiR it is 12.14 (0–12.14) and 6.08 (0–6.08) in JWB. the University of Miami achieved the maximum adjusted appearance score (11.58) in JiBs, while copenhagen Business school obtained the high-est score (12.14) in MiR. Northeastern University, with a score of 6.08, made the highhigh-est contribution in JWB. the average adjusted appearance score of the top four institutions in the overall sample is 20.53.
to aid simultaneous comparison of total and adjusted appearances of institutions and their relative ranking, table 5 highlights and ranks the top 25 institutions across the three
journals. The ranking is ordered first by the number of adjusted appearances, followed by
the number of total appearances, as has been done in prior research (coudounaris et al.
2009; Lahiri 2011; Xu et al. 2008).
Table 4: adjusted appearance of institutions during 2001–2009 in JiBs, MiR, and JWB
Name of institution Rank adjusted
appearance JiBs MiR JWB
copenhagen Business school 1 24.79 7.65 12.14 5
University of Miami 2 19.91 11.58 3.83 4.5
University of leeds 3 18.85 8.66 7.86 2.33
chinese University of hong Kong 4 18.56 10.57 2.66 5.33
University of south carolina 5 17.98 9.16 3.66 5.16
Rutgers University 6 16.16 9.5 4.16 2.5
University of Western Ontario 7 14.42 4.68 6.83 2.91
University of london 8 12.9 4.71 4.69 3.5
Simon Fraser University 9 10.97 4.52 2.2 4.25
Northeastern University 10 10.83 3.25 1.5 6.08
University of Reading 11 10.81 5.83 4.98 0
University of hong Kong 12 10.33 7.75 2.17 0.41
indiana University 13 9.9 7.82 2.08 0
Ohio state University 14 9.66 6.83 1.5 1.33
University of cambridge 15 9.19 1.33 6.11 1.75
University of Melbourne 16 9.16 4.66 2.5 2
erasmus University 17 9.11 5.95 1.66 1.5
Michigan state University 18 9.01 5.1 0.5 3.41
tilburg University 19 8.68 6.18 2.5 0
National University of singapore 20 8.21 3.72 3.16 1.33
city University of hong Kong 21 7.87 6.21 0.83 0.83
University of Queensland 22 7.67 0.66 3.91 3.1
hong Kong Baptist University 23 7.66 1.41 3.25 3
York University 24 7.58 3.75 3.08 0.75
Ji B s M iR JWB Name of institution Rank total appearance a djusted appearance Name of institution Rank total appearance a djusted appearance Name of institution Rank total appearance a djusted appearance University of Miami 1 19 11.58 c
openhagen Business school
1 24 12.14 Northeastern University 1 14 6.08 c hinese Universi -ty of h ong Kong 2 34 10.57 University of leeds 2 23 7.86 c
hinese University of hong Kong
2 15 5.33 Rutgers University 3 23 9.5 Univer -sity of W estern Ontario 3 16 6.83 University of south c arolina 3 11 5.16 University of south c arolina 4 19 9.16 University of cambridge 4 9 6.1 1 c
openhagen Business school
4 8 5 University of leeds 5 23 8.66 University of Reading 5 13 4.98 University of Miami 5 5 4.5 indiana University 6 22 7.82 University of london 6 15 4.69
Simon Fraser University
6
9
4.25
University of hong Kong
7 20 7.75 University of hohenheim 7 6 4.33
Katholieke Universiteit, Belgium
7 8 3.66 c openhagen Business school 8 17 7.65 Rutgers University 8 9 4.16 University of london 8 7 3.5 Ohio state University 9 13 6.83 University of Queensland 9 9 3.91 Michigan state University 9 10 3.41 h
arvard Business school
10 12 6.56 University of Miami 10 6 3.83 University of Queensland 10 10 3.1 Table 5: t
otal and adjusted appearance of institutions during 2001–2009 in J
iB
s, M
Ji B s M iR JWB Name of institution Rank total appearance a djusted appearance Name of institution Rank total appearance a djusted appearance Name of institution Rank total appearance a djusted appearance c
ity University of hong Kong
11 21 6.21 University of south c arolina 11 8 3.66 Yonsei University 11 6 3.08 tilbur g University 12 15 6.18 University of Bath 12 7 3.5 h ong Kong Baptist University 12 4 3 University of Pennsylvania 13 10 6.05
Nanyang technological University
13 5 3.42 Univer -sity of W estern Ontario 13 7 2.91 erasmus University 14 12 5.95 h ong Kong Baptist University 14 6 3.25 Bradford University 14 5 2.86 University of Reading 15 12 5.83
National University of singapore
15 7 3.16 Boğaziçi University 15 8 2.5 University of Oklahoma 16 11 5.26 York University 16 9 3.08 University of Mississippi 16 7 2.5 University of Minnesota 17 12 5.2 thunderbird 17 6 3 Rutgers University 17 6 2.5 Michigan state University 18 21 5.1 temple University 18 8 2.96 University of Nebraska-lin -coln 17 6 2.5 texas ( a & M) University 19 13 5.03 saint louis University 19 7 2.83 h ong Kong Polytechnic University 19 5 2.33 Table 5: (continued)
Ji B s M iR JWB Name of institution Rank total appearance a djusted appearance Name of institution Rank total appearance a djusted appearance Name of institution Rank total appearance a djusted appearance New York University 20 10 4.85 University of New south W ales 20 6 2.75 University of leeds 19 5 2.33 University of london 21 16 4.71 c
hinese Uni- versity of
h ong Kong 21 8 2.66 University of Manchester 19 5 2.33
University of Western Ontario
22
10
4.68
Florida international University
21
7
2.66
loyola Marymount University
22 4 2.33 University of Melbourne 23 9 4.66 University of Portland 21 4 2.66 University of Oklahoma 23 7 2.23 iN sea D, singapore 24 8 4.66 University of calgary 24 9 2.56 Geor getown University 24 4 2.125
Simon Fraser University
25 8 4.52 Yonsei University 25 6 2.5 University of North c arolina at c hapel h ill 25 5 2 h
ong Kong Polytechnic University
26 8 4.33 Florida Atlantic University 26 5 2.5 V illanova University 25 5 2 University of Melbourne 26 5 2.5 Table 5: (continued)
table 5 indicates that the four top-ranked institutions in JiBs are the University of Miami, chinese University of hong Kong, Rutgers University, and University of south carolina, whereas the top four in MiR are copenhagen Business school, University of leeds, Uni-versity of Western Ontario, and UniUni-versity of cambridge. the four top-ranked instituti-ons in JWB are Northeastern University, chinese University of hong Kong, University of south carolina and copenhagen Business school. there was not a single institution that
was consistently present in the top five in all three journals. This shows that the editorial home base of a journal may have an influence in attracting submissions from institutions in their region. For example, three out of the top four institutions publishing in JIBS (edi -torial home base in the Usa) are Us institutions, while three out of the top four instituti-ons publishing in MiR (editorial home base in Germany) are european institutiinstituti-ons. JWB presents a more balanced picture in this regard.
Adjusted Productivity of Authors
to assess the adjusted productivity of authors, the adjusted appearance of each faculty member was computed, as was done for the institutions. any author who published an article as a single author was accorded a score of 1. an article co-authored by two authors
counted as 0.5 for each author; an article co-authored by three authors counted as 0.33 for each author, and so on [see Macharzina et al. (2004, p. 342)]. individual adjusted appearance scores from respective publications were summed to calculate the aggregate adjusted score for each author. table 6 shows the adjusted appearance of the top 25 aut-hors during 2001–2009 in JiBs, MiR, and JWB.
according to table 6, total adjusted appearances range from 17.24–3.08, with the top four authors being Yadong luo (17.24), Peter J. Buckley (9.55), alain Verbeke (7.33), and Klaus e Meyer (6.58). the range of adjusted appearance in JiBs is 8.74 (8.74–0), in MiR is 4.0 (4.0–0) and in JWB is 4.50 (4.50–0). Yadong luo attained the maximum adjusted appearance score in all the three journals—8.74 in JiBs, 4.0 in MiR, and 4.5 in JWB. the average score of the top four authors is 10.153. as was the case for institutions,
the author rankings based on adjusted and absolute scores exhibit relatively high correla-tion. three of the top four authors based on adjusted scores (table 6) are in the top four positions based on the absolute scores (table 3).
to aid a simultaneous comparison of the total and adjusted appearance of authors and their relative ranking, table 7 highlights and ranks the top 25 authors across the
three journals. As with institutions, the ranking is ordered first by the number of adjusted
appearances, followed by the number of total appearances.
table 7 suggests that the four top-ranked authors in JiBs are Yadong luo, Peter J. Buckley, John h. Dunning, and Klaus e. Meyer, whereas the top four in MiR include Yadong luo, Paul W. Beamish, alain Verbeke, and hemant Merchant. the four top-ranked authors in JWB are Yadong luo, eunmi chang, snejina Michailova, and David
A. Griffith. The most consistent author is Yadong Luo, who ranked first in each of the three journals. It is more difficult to clearly identify any regional association between the author’s home and the journal they have been publishing in; at an institutional level, this
Consistency of Institutions Across Journals
to exhibit the consistency of institutional appearances, table 8 highlights institutions that featured in the top ten in all three journals.
The table suggests there only two such institutions; Copenhagen Business School (total
and adjusted appearance 49 and 24.79, respectively) and University of Miami (total and adjusted appearance 30 and 19.91, respectively). table 8 also highlights four institutions that feature in any two of the three journals’ top ten list. the names of the institutions as well as their total appearance and adjusted appearance are as follows: University of
Leeds (51, 18.85); Chinese University of Hong Kong (57, 18.56); University of South Carolina (38, 17.98); Rutgers University (38, 16.16); and University of Queensland (21, Table 6: adjusted appearance of authors during 2001–2009 in JiBs, MiR, and JWB
Name of author Rank total adjusted
appearance JiBs MiR JWB
Yadong luo 1 17.24 8.74 4 4.5 Peter J. Buckley 2 9.30 5.66 2.31 1.33 alain Verbeke 3 7.33 4 3.33 0 Klaus e. Meyer 4 6.75 4.5 0.75 1.5 Paul W. Beamish 5 6.14 1.16 3.65 1.33 John h. Dunning 6 5.83 4.83 1.0 0 alan M. Rugman 7 5 2.5 2 0.5 David A. Griffith 8 4.64 2.23 0 2.41 Oded shenkar 9 4.49 3.99 0.5 0 hemant Merchant 10 4 0 3 1 Michael J. enright 11 3.7 1.2 2.5 0 trevor Buck 12 3.66 1.58 0.5 1.58 torben Pedersen 13 3.53 1.7 1.5 0.33 Shih-Fen S. Chen 14 3.5 3.5 0 0 Paul D. ellis 14 3.5 2.5 0.5 0.5 Jean-François Hennart 14 3.5 2.5 1 0 Bent Petersen 17 3.49 0.66 2.5 0.33 Jonathan P. Doh 18 3.41 1 0.75 1.66 Mike W. Peng 19 3.33 2.33 0 1 Alvaro Cuervo-Cazurra 19 3.33 2.83 0.5 0 andrew Delios 21 3.16 1.33 1.83 0 sumit K. Kundu 22 3.15 1.16 1.66 0.33 Igor Filatotchev 23 3.11 1.83 0.5 0.78 Ram Mudambi 24 3.08 1.33 1.75 0 Pervez N. Ghauri 24 3.08 0.75 0.83 1.5
Ji B s M iR JWB Name of author Rank total appe ar an ce a djusted appearance Name of author Rank total appe ar an ce a djusted appearance Name of author Rank total appe ar an ce a djusted appear an ce Yadong luo 1 13 8.74 Yadong luo 1 6 4 Yadong luo 1 5 4.5 Peter J. Buckley 2 12 5.66 Paul W . Beamish 2 9 3.65 eunmi c hang 2 3 2.5 John h . Dunning 3 6 4.83 a lain Verbeke 3 7 3.33 snejina Michailova 2 3 2.5 Klaus e Meyer 4 6 4.5 h emant Merchant 4 4 3 David A. Griffith 4 5 2.41 a lain Verbeke 5 7 4 lei li 5 4 2.66 Maddy Janssens 5 4 2.16 Oded shenkar 6 8 3.99 Bent Petersen 6 5 2.5 Daniel J. Mcc arthy 6 4 2 Shih-Fen S Chen 7 4 3.5 c hristos N. Pitelis 6 3 2.5 sheila M. Puf fer 6 4 2 a lvaro Cuervo-Cazurra 8 4 2.83 Michael J. enright 6 3 2.5 c hris Rowley 8 4 1.75 David a Ralston 9 5 2.77 Peter J. Buckley 9 7 2.31 Michael R. Czinkota 9 3 1.75 Bernard Yeung 10 5 2.66 a lan M. Rugman 10 4 2 Jonathan P . Doh 10 4 1.66 a lan M. Rugman 11 5 2.5 a lfredo J. Mauri 11 3 2 Michael G. h arvey 11 4 1.58 Jean-François hennart 12 4 2.5 eric W . K. tsang 12 2 2 trevor Buck 12 3 1.58 Paul D ellis 13 3 2.5 Jan h endrik Fisch 12 2 2 Pervez Ghauri 13 3 1.5 Table 7: t
otal and adjusted appearance of authors during 2001–2009 in J
iB
s, M
Ji B s M iR JWB Name of author Rank total appe ar an ce a djusted appearance Name of author Rank total appe ar an ce a djusted appearance Name of author Rank total appe ar an ce a djusted appear an ce lorraine eden 14 6 2.33 lilach Nachum 12 2 2 Klaus e. Meyer 14 2 1.5 c huck c Y Kwok 15 5 2.33 a ndrew Delios 15 4 1.83 Richard B. Peterson 14 2 1.5 Mike Peng 16 4 2.33 Volker Mahnke 15 4 1.83 thang V. Nguyen 14 2 1.5 a noop Madhok 17 3 2.33 Hongxin Zhao 15 4 1.83 Paul W . Beamish 17 4 1.33 David A Griffith 18 7 2.22 Denice e. W elch 18 3 1.83 David M. schweiger 18 3 1.33 W illiam Newburry 19 4 2.16 Farok J. contractor 18 3 1.83 Mila B. Lazarova 18 3 1.33 Marjorie a . lyles 20 6 2.1 1 Robert Pearce 18 3 1.83 Paula c aligiuri 18 3 1.33 c hung-Ming lau 21 5 2 Ram Mudambi 21 4 1.75 Rosalie l. tung 18 3 1.33 Michael a W itt 22 3 2 Markus Venzin 22 4 1.66 Yongsun Paik 18 3 1.33 W itold J. Henisz 22 3 2 sumit K. Kundu 22 4 1.66 Deli Yang 23 2 1.33 Ravi Ramamurty 24 2 2 torben Pedersen 24 4 1.5 Peter J. Buckley 23 2 1.33 tamir a gmon 24 2 2 Julian Birkinshaw 25 3 1.5 Pawan Budhwar 25 3 1.16 ingmar Bjorkman 26 6 1.94 Nicholas a . a thanassiou 25 3 1.5 seung-h yun lee 26 3 1.08 Table 7: (continued)
7.67). in the study by Kumar and Kundu (2004, p. 223) only one institution (University of texas at austin) was consistent across the three journals. the institutions that featured in two of the three journals included the University of Western Ontario, Michigan state University, University of south carolina and University of hawaii. it is noteworthy that only one university—the University of south carolina—has consistently maintained its position in the top ten during 1991–2000 (Kumar and Kundu 2004) and 2001–2009
(cur-rent study). Such volatility in rankings is difficult to explain. However, the movement of
key productive faculty, funding criteria more directly linked with iB journal publications, and changes in overall focus of the department or school are some, among many, factors that offer limited explanation.
Consistency of Authors Across Journals
to exhibit consistency of author appearances, table 9 highlights those members who featured in the top ten in all three journals.
the table indicates that only one author, Yadong luo, featured in all three journals. his total and adjusted appearance scores are 24 and 17.24, respectively. two authors, Peter J. Buckley (scores 21 and 9.55) and alain Verbeke (scores 14 and 7.33), featured in the top 10 of two of the three journals. the journals in which they featured in the top ten are JiBs and MiR. since Kumar and Kundu (2004) did not consider the contribution of authors,
we cannot compare our findings with their study. However, our rankings are quite con -sistent with those based on publications in only MiR from 1993–2007, as presented in coudounaris et al. (2009).
Table 8: consistency of institutions across the top three international business journals institutions ranked in top ten in three journals 2001–2009
copenhagen Business school JiBs, MiR,JWB
University of Miami JiBs, MiR,JWB
institutions Ranked in top ten in two Journals
University of leeds JiBs, MiR
chinese University of hong Kong JiBs, JWB
University of south carolina JiBs, JWB
Rutgers University JiBs, MiR
University of Queensland MiR, JWB
Table 9: consistency of authors across the top three international business journals authors ranked in top ten in three journals 2001–2009
Yadong luo JiBs, MiR,JWB
authors Ranked in top ten in two Journals
Peter J. Buckley JiBs, MiR
to depict a comprehensive picture of how rankings have changed since the publication of the study by Kumar and Kundu (2004), we present below table 10, which highlights a
change in the rank of institutions identified in the current study as top 25 based on abso -lute appearance.
From the table it is evident that the rankings of 10 universities have improved after
1991–2000, while the rankings of 6 institutions have diminished. there are 9 universities that did not feature in the top 50 list of Kumar and Kundu (2004) and hence their change
Table 10: comparison of institutional ranking across two studies
2001–2009 time period 1999–2000 time period change in rank
between the time periods
Name of university Rank No. of
articles Rank No. of articles
chinese University of hong Kong 1 57 12 14 + 11
University of leeds 2 51 29 9 + 27
copenhagen Business school 3 49 Not in top 50
Rutgers University 4 38 17 11 + 13
University of south carolina 4 38 2 31 − 2
University of london 4 38 Not in top 50
University of Western Ontario 7 33 1 34 − 6
Michigan state University 8 32 4 22 − 4
University of Miami 9 30 Not in top 50
University of hong Kong 10 28 14 13 + 4
indiana University 11 27 23 10 + 12
city University of hong Kong 12 25 Not in top 50
University of Reading 12 25 17 11 + 5
Northeastern University 14 23 10 15 − 4
University of Queensland 15 21 Not in top 50
texas (a&M) University 15 21 29 9 + 14
York University 15 21 Not in top 50
University of calgary 18 20 Not in top 50
Simon Fraser University 18 20 23 10 + 5
Ohio state University 20 19 43 7 + 23
temple University 20 19 14 13 − 4
National University of singapore 22 18 43 7 + 21
University of Oklahoma 22 18 9 16 − 13
tilburg University 22 18 Not in top 50
University of cambridge 25 17 Not in top 50
in ranking cannot be ascertained; however, clearly, these universities have made a sub -stantial scholarly contribution by securing a rank in the current top 25 list.
Conclusion
this study has updated and extended prior research by measuring and ranking the produc-tivity of academic institutions and faculty members based on their number of publications appearing in top three core international business journals between 2001 and 2009. By covering a nine-year timeframe, this study has extended the research initiated by Mor-rison and inkpen (1991). In particular, this study has updated the findings of Kumar and
Kundu (2004), which built on earlier research, including that of Morrison and inkpen (1991) and inkpen and Beamish (1994). By comparing the current findings with those of
two earlier time periods, this study has continued with the ranking-based research lineage initiated about two decades ago. in measuring and ranking the contributions of individual
faculty members, this study has extended previous research. Specifically, the inclusion of
total and adjusted scores of faculty members as authors of iB publications has enabled providing a relatively more complete picture of scholarly productivity across numerous institutions around the world (lahiri 2011; Quer et al. 2007; Xu et al. 2008).
In comparing the current findings with those of previous similar research, this study found that top-ranked institutions in 2001–2009 are quite different from those of 1991–
2000, While the four top institutions of 1991–2000 are the University of Western Ontario, University of south carolina, University of texas at austin, and Michigan state Univer-sity, those of the current study include the chinese University of hong Kong, University of leeds, copenhagen Business school, and Rutgers University. however, this compari-son is based on the total count of appearances. according to this study, the top-ranked institutions based on adjusted counts are copenhagen Business school, University of Miami, University of leeds and chinese University of hong Kong. One may surmise that these universities are poised to make leading contributions to iB in the future.
the top authors during the 2001–2009 period, based on total counts, are Yadong luo, Peter J. Buckley, and Paul W Beamish, whereas based on adjusted counts the top authors for that period are Yadong luo, Peter J. Buckley, and alain Verbeke.
Utmost care should be taken in deriving any implications or forming any opinion regarding the institution and author rankings that we have presented in this paper. how-ever, some general trends are worthy of mentioning. the rankings clearly show the grow-ing importance of publishgrow-ing in iB journals outside of North america, especially in asia. Given the nature of the discipline, such a shift in rankings towards non-North american universities is only natural. With increasing global trade and investment across the globe, more nation states and private enterprises would be interested in funding iB-related research, which will lead to greater research publications. in addition, the success of the Us business school model (publish or perish), with a heavy emphasis on research output, has also attracted many european and asian schools to adopt a model somewhat
simi-lar to their US counterparts. This growing simisimi-larity in terms of research requirements
and funding support has aided in the movement of iB scholars to erstwhile non-conven-tional schools in europe, asia and australia. all of these changes are resulting in a much stronger community of iB schools and scholars located across different geographies.
as is the case with ranking studies in general, there are limitations associated with our rankings. One of the limitations of this study is the non-inclusion of other leading iB or iM journals such as Journal of International Management, International Busi-ness Review, Journal of International Marketing, and the like. also, more recently there has been an increase in iB or iM-related articles in general business, manage-ment and strategy journals such as Organization Science, Strategic Management Jour-nal, and Academy of Management Review, among others (Pisani 2009; Trevino et al. 2010), which we do not include in our analyses. however, such exclusion was deliber-ate, as we wanted to focus on three core iB journals so as to extend previous research
and enable comparison of findings across different time periods in a focused manner. We do realize that recent studies (e.g., Trevino et al. 2000) that have included a large number of journals to establish ranking of IB institutions and scholars criticize the use
of only a select number of iB journals in attempting to understand iB productivity. While we appreciate and commend the tremendous effort involved in investigating iB research in non-iB journals, for the purposes of our study we believe a core set of iB
journals is sufficient. Including non-IB journals creates issues of appropriate selection criteria for IB research, accommodating for the significant differences in background,
the preferred theoretical and methodological orientation of the different journals (that
go beyond differences in impact factor scores), assessing the significance of their impact in influencing ultimate findings, and finally problems comparing findings with prior studies. Our current study aimed to compare findings particularly with those
of Kumar and Kundu (2004), and as such the sample of three core iB journals was
the most appropriate. The other limitation lies in the inability to identify the specific
department or college of faculty members. although some publications do mention
the specific schools with which the authors are affiliated (e.g., Copenhagen Business
school), most publications mention only the name of the respective university. We hope this research will encourage scholars to conduct similar update studies in the future.
Endnotes
1 The faculty members of each campus of a university were separated. For example, an article written by a faculty member affiliated to the University of Texas at Arlington was credited to the University of texas at arlington and not to the University of texas at Dallas. Publications often mention the affiliation of authors in different forms. For example, while the affiliation of authors William Newburry and liuba Belkin is shown as Rutgers Business school in Newburry et al. (2006), that of author Farok J. Contractor is shown as the Department of Management and Global business, Rutgers University, in contractor et al. (2005). Similarly, the affiliation of Mike Wright is mentioned as Business school, Nottingham University in strange et al.
2009, while that of Chengqi Wang is Nottingham University Business School, University of Nottingham in Wang et al. (2009). in this research, no distinction was made between (a) Uni-versity of leeds and leeds UniUni-versity, (b) Rutgers Business school and Rutgers UniUni-versity, (c) University of Nottingham and Nottingham University (d) Bocconi University and Universita luigi Bocconi, and so on. to be accurate, the appearance of institutions such as University of london, london Business school, london school of economics and Political science, and King’s College were classified under one common institution—University of London.
2 If any publication mentioned that a particular author was affiliated to more than one institu-tion (e.g., John Cantwell’s affiliainstitu-tion to Rutgers Business School and University of Reading in cantwell et al. 2004), then necessary deductions were made to compute each institution’s adjusted appearance.
3 As of December 2010, author Klaus E. Meyer is affiliated with the University of Bath, UK. The affiliation of other top authors has been mentioned previously.
References
Acedo, F. J., & Casillas, J. C. (2005). Current paradigms in the international management field: An author co-citation analysis. International Business Review, 14(5), 616–639.
allison, P. D., & stewart, J. a. (1974). Productivity differences among scientists: evidence for accumulative advantage. American Sociological Review, 39(4), 596–606.
Baden-Fuller, C., Ravazzolo, F., & Schweizer, T. (2000). Making and measuring reputations: The research ranking of european business schools. Long Range Planning, 33(5), 621–650. Cantwell, J., Glac, K., & Harding, R. (2004). The Internationalization of R&D—the Swiss Case.
Management International Review, 44(3), 57–82.
Carter, C. R., Liane, E. P., Vellenga, D. B., & Allen, B. (2009). Affiliation of authors in transporta-tion and logistics academic journals: a reevaluatransporta-tion. Transportatransporta-tion Journal, 48(1), 42–52. Caruana, A., Pitt, L. F., Berthon, P. R., & Page, M. J. (2009). Differentiation and silver medal
win-ner effects. European Journal of Marketing, 43(11/12), 1365–1377.
Chan, K. C., Fung, H-G., & Lai, P. (2005). Membership of editorial boards and rankings of schools with international business orientation. Journal of International Business Studies, 36(4), 452–469.
Chan, K. C., Fung, H-G, & Leung, W. K. (2006). International business research: Trends and school rankings. International Business Review, 15(4), 317–338.
chandy, P. R., & Williams, t. (1994). the impact of journals & authors on international business research: a citation analysis of JiBs articles. Journal of International Business Studies, 25(4), 715–728.
Chung, K. H., & Cox, R. A. (1990). Patterns of productivity in the finance literature: A study of the bibliometric distributions. Journal of Finance, 45(1), 301–309.
Contractor, F. J., Hsu, C-C., & Kundu, S. K. (2005). Explaining export performance: A comparative study of international new ventures in indian and taiwanese software industry. Management International Review, 45(3), 83–110.
coudounaris, D., Kvasova, O., Leonidou, L. C., Pitt, L. F., & Nel, D. (2009). Fifteen good years: an analysis of publications in management international review. Management International Review, 49(5), 671–684.
Devinney, T., Dowling, G. R., Nidthida Perm-ajchariyawong, N. (2008). The Financial Times busi-ness schools ranking: What quality is this signal of quality? European Management Review, 5(4), 195–208.
DuBois, F. L., & Reeb, D. M. (2000). Ranking the international business journals. Journal of Inter-national Business Studies, 31(4), 689–704.
Elsbach, K. D., & Kramer, R. M. (1996). Members’ responses to organizational identity threats: encountering and countering the business week rankings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(3), 442–476.
espeland, W. N., & sauder, M. (2007). Rankings and reactivity: how public measures recreate social worlds. American Journal of Sociology, 113(1), 1–40.
Fu, P., Kennedy, J., Tata, J., Yukl, G., et al. (2004). The impact of societal cultural values and indi-vidual social beliefs on the perceived effectiveness of managerial influence strategies: A Meso approach. Journal of International Business Studies, 35(4), 284–305.
Graves, P. e., Marchand, J. R., & thompson, R. (1982). economics departmental rankings: Research incentives, constraints, and efficiency. The American Economic Review, 72(5), 1131–1141. Griffith, D. A., Cavusgil, S. T., & Xu, S. (2008). Emerging themes in international business research.
Journal of International Business Studies, 39(7), 1220–1235.
Grove, W. a., & Wu, s. (2007). the search for economics talent: Doctoral completion and research productivity. The American Economic Review, 97(2), 506–511.
hofstede, G., Van Deusen, c. a., Mueller, c. B., & charles, t. a. (2002). What goals do business leaders pursue? A study in fifteen countries. Journal of International Business Studies, 33(4), 785–803.
inkpen, A. C., & Beamish, P. W. (1994). An analysis of twenty-five years of research in the journal. Journal of International Business Studies, 25(4), 703–713.
Kogut, B. (2008). Rankings, schools, and final reflections on ideas and taste. European Manage-ment Review, 5(4), 191–194.
Kumar, V., & Kundu, s. (2004). Ranking the international business schools: Faculty publication as the measure. Management International Review, 44(2), 213–228.
lahiri, s. (2011). india-focused publications in leading international business journals. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 28(2), 427–447.
linton, J. D. (2004). Research-technology management ranked No. 3 in citation study. Research Technology Management, 47(3), 5–6.
lu, J. W. (2003). the evolving contributions in international strategic management research. Jour-nal of InternatioJour-nal Management, 9(2), 193–213.
Macharzina, K., Wolf, J., & Oesterle, M.-J. (1993). Quantitative evaluation of German research output in business administration. Management International Review, 33(1), 65–83.
Macharzina, K., Wolf, J., & Rohn, A. (2004). Quantitative evaluation of German research output in business administration: 1992–2001. Management International Review, 44(3), 335–359. Mills, J. h., Weatherbee, t. G., & colwell, s. R. (2006). ethnostatistics and sensemaking: Making
sense of university and business school rankings. Organizational Research Methods, 9(4), 491–515.
Mitra, D., & Golder, P. N. (2008). Does academic research help or hurt MBA programs? Journal of Marketing, 72(5), 31–49.
Morgan, E. J., & Fai, F. M. (2007). Innovation, competition and change in international business: emergent research trajectories. Management International Review, 47(5), 631–638.
Morrison, A., & Inkpen, A. (1991). An analysis of significant contributions to the international busi-ness literature. Journal of International Busibusi-ness Studies, 22(1), 143–153.
Mudambi, R., Peng, M. W., & Weng, D. H. (2008). Research rankings of Asia Pacific business schools: Global versus local knowledge strategies. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 25(2), 171–188.
Newburry, W., Gardberg, N. A., & Belkin, L. Y. (2006). Organizational attractiveness is in the eye of the beholder: the interaction of demographic characteristics with foreignness. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(5), 666–686.
Pisani, N. (2009). international management research: investigating its recent diffusion in top man-agement journals. Journal of Manman-agement, 35(2), 199–218.
Quer, D., Enrique, C., & Rienda, L. (2007). Business and management in China: A review of empir-ical research in leading international journals. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 24(3), 359–384.
Ralston, D. A., Egri, C. P., De La Garza Carranza, M. T., Ramburuth, P., et al. (2009). Ethical preferences for influencing superiors: A 41-society study. Journal of International Business Studies, 40(6), 1022–1045.
Sauder, M., & Espeland, W. N. (2009). The discipline of rankings: Tight coupling and organiza-tional change. American Sociological Review, 74(1), 63–82.
Starbuck, W. H. (2005). How much better are the most-prestigious journals? The statistics of aca-demic publication. Organization Science, 16(2), 180–200.
Strange, R., Filatotchev, I., Buck, T., & Wright, M. (2009). Corporate governance and international business. Management International Review, 49(4), 395–407.
Sweitzer, K., & Volkwein, J. F. (2009). Prestige among graduate and professional schools: Compar-ing the Us News’ graduate school reputation ratCompar-ings between disciplines. Research in Higher Education, 50(8), 812–836.
tracy, J., & Waldfogel, J. (1997). the best business schools: a market-based approach. Journal of Business, 70(1), 1–31.
Trevino, L. J., Mixon Jr., F. G., Funk, C. A., & Inkpen, A. C. (2010). A perspective on the state of the field: International business publications in the elite journals as a measure of institutional and faculty productivity. International Business Review, 19(4), 378–387.
Waldman, D. A., de Luque, M. S., Washburn, N., House, R. J., et al. (2006). Cultural and leadership predictors of corporate social responsibility values of top management: a GlOBe study of 15 countries. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(6), 823–837.
Wang, c., clegg, J., & Kafouros, M. (2009). country-of-origin effects of foreign direct investment: an industry level analysis. Management International Review, 49(2), 179–198.
Wedlin, L. (2007). The role of rankings in codifying a business school template: Classifications, diffusion and mediated isomorphism in organizational fields. European Management Review, 4(1), 24–39.
Werner, s. (2002). Recent developments in international management research: a review of 20 top management journals. Journal of Management, 28(3), 277–305.
Werner, S., & Brouthers, L. E. (2002). How international is management? Journal of International Business Studies, 33(3), 583–591.
Willcocks, l, Whitley, e. a., & avgerou, c. (2008). the ranking of top is journals: a perspec-tive from the london school of economics. European Journal of Information Systems, 17(2), 163–168.
Xu, S., Yalcinkaya, G., & Seggie, S. (2008). Prolific authors and institutions in leading international business journals. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 25(2), 189–207.
Zivney, T. L., & Bertin, W. J. (1992). Publish or perish: What the competition is really doing. The Journal of Finance, 47(1), 295–329.
