Somnath Lahiri . Vikas Kumar
[Forthcoming in Management International Review] Abstract and Key Results
• 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.
• 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.
• Copenhagen Business School, University of Miami, and University of Leeds (among institutions), and Yadong Luo, Peter J. Buckley, and Alain Verbeke (among authors) occupy the top three positions.
Key Words International Business, Leading Journals, Publication, Ranking, Authors.
Somnath Lahiri, Assistant Professor
College of Business, Illinois State University, USA e-mail: slahiri@ilstu.edu
Vikas Kumar, Senior Lecturer
Discipline of International Business, University of Sydney School of Business, Australia. e-mail: vikas.kumar@sydney.edu.au
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 (c) journals that focus on IB or international management (Chan, Fung & Lai 2005; Kumar & Kundu 2004; Morgan & 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, Cavusgil & Xu 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 & 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 & Beamish 1994); (c) authors and disciplines of
articles published in JIBS between 1984 and 1993 (Chandy & Williams 1994); (e) international business schools based on the measure of faculty publication (Kumar & Kundu 2004); and (f) schools based on publication data between 1995 and 2004 for four leading international business journals (Chan, Fung & Leung 2006).
The role and importance of ranking studies is well documented in literature spanning a variety of disciplinary areas, from Sociology (Espeland & Sauder 2007; Sauder & Espeland 2009), Logistics (Carter, Easton, Vellenga & Allen 2009), Strategy (Baden-Fuller, Ravazzolo &
Schweizer 2000), Finance (Zivney & Bertin 1992), Economics (Grove & Wu 2007),
Management (Devinney, Dowling & Perm-Achariyawong 2008; Pisani 2009; Wedlin 2007; Werner 2002), Marketing (Caruana, Pitt, Berthon & Page 2007; Linton 2004; Mitra & Golder 2008; ), Information Systems (Willocks, Whitley & Avgerou 2008), Education (Sweitzer & Volkwein 2009), Research Methods (Mills, Weatherbee & Colwell 2006), to International Business (Macharzina, Wolf & Rohn 2004; Macharzina, Wolf & Osterle 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, Marchand and Thompson (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 (2010) on India-focused publications in leading IB journals, Macharzina et al. (2004) on the evaluation of German research output in business administration, and Mudambi, Peng and Weng (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, across business and management journals, and in specialized IB journals in particular. This has led to some ranking studies focusing on single journals [e.g. Coudounaris, Kvasova, Leonidou, Pitt and Nel (2009) on
Management International Review, Inkpen and Beamish (1994) on Journal of International
international business/management research has permeated [e.g. Lu (2003), Pisani (2009), Trevino et. al. (2010), Werner (2002), and 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 & 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 Business Review, International Marketing Review, and
Multinational Business 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 analyses 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 interest in and the importance of core international business publications. 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
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 international 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 international dimensions (12 distinct categories) of management. Moreover, all three journals have been suggested as core IB journals in prior research (Acedo & Casillas 2005; DuBois & Reeb 2000). The inclusion of these three
established journals would enable better representation of IB research publications and thereby assist in generalizing various 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 2010; Quer, Enrique & Rienda 2007; Xu, Yalcinkaya & Seggie 2008). We acknowledge that IB
research has permeated many other journals 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 considered. 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
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 and colleagues (2006), which had 41 authors. Hofstede and others (2002) was co-authored by 17 authors, and Fu and associates (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 particular 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 (i.e., total or raw) appearance for each institution was applied. We considered the academic or non-academic 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 & 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 summated 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.
--- Insert Table 1 about here ---
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 appearance of institutions ranges from 17 to 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 Michigan 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 to 34 (i.e. a difference of 27). The
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 in Gardberg & Belkin (2006), that of author Farok J. Contractor is shown as the Department of Management and Global business, Rutgers University, in Contractor, Hsu & Kundu (2006). 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) University of Leeds and Leeds University, (b) Rutgers Business School and Rutgers University, (c) University of Nottingham and Nottingham University (c) 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.
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).
--- Insert Table 2 about here ---
As is evident in the above table, the Chinese University of Hong Kong made the maximum 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 representation in JIBS has undergone significant change from 1991–2000 and 2001-2009. Specifically, with the exception of two universities (University of South Carolina and Michigan State University), the two lists feature entirely different institutions. Interestingly, 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 current study. It is also noteworthy that five universities out of the top ten in the current 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, p. 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.
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 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. Further, 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 members 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.
--- Insert Table 3 about here ---
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 Verbeke (14) and others. The range of total appearances is 17 (7 to 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, andUniversity 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 simultaneously 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 institutions and authors (Coudounaris et al. 2009; Lahiri 2010; 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 needed 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 study 2. 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.
--- Insert Table 4 about here ---
Table 4 indicates that the adjusted appearances range from 7.49 to 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 to 11.58), while in MIR it is 12.14 (0 to12.14) and 6.08 (0 to 6.08) in JWB. The University of Miami achieved the maximum adjusted appearance score (11.58) in JIBS, while Copenhagen Business School obtained the highest score (12.14) in MIR. Northeastern
University, with a score of 6.08, made the highest contribution in JWB. The average adjusted appearance score of the top four institutions in the overall sample is 20.53.
2
If any publication mentioned that a particular author was affiliated to more than one institution (e.g., John Cantwell’s affiliation to Rutgers Business School and University of Reading in Cantwell, Glac and Harding, 2004), then necessary deductions were made to compute each institution’s adjusted appearance.
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 2010; Xu et al. 2008).
--- Insert Table 5 about here ---
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, University of Western Ontario, and University of Cambridge. The four top-ranked institutions 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 (editorial home base in the USA) are US institutions, while three out of the top four institutions publishing in MIR (editorial home base in Germany) are European institutions. 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 authors during 2001–2009 in JIBS, MIR, and JWB.
--- Insert Table 6 about here ---
According to Table 6, total adjusted appearances range from 17.24 to 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 to 0), in MIR is 4.0 (4.0 to 0) and in JWB is 4.50 (4.50 to 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 correlation. 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.
--- Insert Table 7 about here ---
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
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.
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 association was more readily
noticeable.
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.
--- Insert Table 8 about here ---
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, 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 & Kundu 2004) and 2001–2009 (current 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.
--- Insert Table 9 about here ---
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 consistent with those based on publications in only MIR from 1993–2007, as presented in Coudounaris et al. (2009).
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 absolute appearance.
--- Insert Table 10 about here ---
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 in ranking cannot be
ascertained; however, clearly, these universities have made a substantial 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
productivity 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 Morrison 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 2010; 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 University, those of the current study include the Chinese University of Hong Kong, University of Leeds, Copenhagen Business School, and Rutgers University. However, this comparison 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. However, some general trends are worthy of mentioning. The rankings clearly show the growing
importance of publishing 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 similar to their US counterparts. This growing similarity in terms of research requirements and funding support has aided in the movement of IB scholars to erstwhile non-conventional 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 Business 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, management and strategy journals such as Organization
Science, Strategic Management Journal, and Academy of Management Review, among others
(Pisani 2009; Trevino et al. 2000), which we do not include in our analyses. However, such exclusion was deliberate, 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.
References
Acedo, F. J., & Casillas, J. C. (2005). Current paradigms in the international management field: An author co-citation analysis. International Business Review, 14, 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 transportation and logistics academic journals: A reevaluation.Transportation
Journal, 48(1), 42–52.
Caruana, A., Pitt, L.F., Berthon, P.R., & Page, M.J. (2009). Differentiation and silver medal winner 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, 452–469.
Chan, K.C., Fung, H-G, & Leung, W.K. (2006). International business research: Trends and school rankings. International Business Review, 15, 317–338.
Chandy, P.R., & Williams, T. (1994). The impact of journals and authors on international business research: A citation analysis of JIBS articles. Journal of International Business
Studies, 25, 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
Devinney, T., Dowling, G.R., Nidthida Perm-ajchariyawong, N. (2008). The Financial Times business 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
International 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 individual 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.
Kumar, V., & Kundu, S. (2004). Ranking the international business schools: Faculty publication as the measure, Management International Review, 44(2), 213–228.
Lahiri, S. (2010). India-focused publications in leading international business journals. Asia
Pacific Journal of Management, in press.
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. Journal of International 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?
Journalof 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
business literature, Journal of International Business 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 management journals. Journal of Management, 35(2), 199–218.
Quer, D., Enrique, C., & Rienda, L. (2007). Business and management in China: A review of empirical 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 organizational change. American Sociological Review, 74(1), 63–82.
Starbuck, W.H. (2005). How much better are the most-prestigious journals? The statistics of academic 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: Comparing the US News' graduate school reputation ratings 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
perspective from the London School of Economics. European Journal of Information
Systems, 17, 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.
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
T ab le 2 . C om p ar is o n of t he T o p T en U ni ve rs it ie s i n J our na l of I nt er na ti ona l B us ine ss S tudi es a cr os s F our S tudi es S tud y b y I nk p en and B ea m is h (1994) S tud y b y M o rr is on a nd Ink p en (1991) S tud y b y K um ar a nd K u ndu (2004) P re se nt S tud y ( 20 10 ) 1970 -1 982 T ot al A p p ear an ce 1980 -1 9 89 T ot al A p p ear an ce 1991 -20 00 T ot al A p p ear an ce 2001-20 09 T ot al A p p ear an C ol um b ia U ni ve rs it y 14 U ni ve rs it y o f S out h C ar ol ina * 31 U ni ve rs it y o f W es te rn O nt ar io 25 C hi ne se U ni ve rs it y of H on g K on g U ni ve rs it y o f S out h C ar ol ina * 13 P enns y lva ni a 18 U ni ve rs it y o f S out h C ar ol ina * 23 R ut g er s U ni v er si ty G eor g ia S ta te U ni ve rs it y 12 N ew Y or k U ni ve rs it y 15 G eor g et ow n U ni ve rs it y 15 U ni ve rs it y o f L ee ds M ic hi g an S ta te U ni ve rs it y * 11 R ut g er s U ni v er si ty 14 U ni ve rs it y o f T ex as at A us ti n 14 Indi an a U ni ve rs it y U ni ve rs it y o f W is cons in 11 M cG il l U ni ve rs it y 11 M ic hi g an S ta te U ni ve rs it y * 14 C it y U ni ve rs it y o f H ong K on g N ew Y or k U ni ve rs it y 10 M ic hi g an S ta te U ni ve rs it y * 11 U ni ve rs it y o f P enns y lva ni a 10 M ic hi g an S ta te U ni ve rs it y * H ar va rd U ni ve rs it y 9 C ol um b ia U ni ve rs it y 11 U ni ve rs it y o f H aw ai i 9 U ni ve rs it y o f H on g K ong O hi o S ta te U ni ve rs it y 9 W es te rn O nt ar io 10 T hunde rb ir T h e A m er ic an G ra du at e S chool of Int er na ti ona l M ana g em ent 9 U ni ve rs it y o f M ia m i P enns y lva ni a 9 O hi o S ta te U ni ve rs it y 8 C hi ne se U ni ve rs it y of H on g K on g 9 U ni ve rs it y o f S out h C ar ol ina * U ni ve rs it y o f T ex as at A us ti n 8 U ni ve rs it y o f S out he rn C al if or ni a 5 T em p le U ni ve rs it y 9 C o p enha g en B us ine ss S chool * Ins ti tut ions r ank ed in th e to p t en in ea ch of t he f ou r s tudi es
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
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
T ab le 5 . T ot al a nd A d jus te d A pp ea ra nc e of I ns ti tu ti ons dur ing 2001 –2009 i n J IB S , M IR , and J W B JI B S M IR JWB N a m e o f In st it u ti o n R a n k T o ta l A p p ea ra n ce A d ju st ed A p p ea ra n ce N a m e o f In st it u ti o n R a n k T o ta l A p p ea ra n ce A d ju st ed A p p ea ra n ce N a m e o f In st it u ti o n R a n k T o ta l A p p ea ra n ce A d ju st A p p ea ra U ni ve rs it y of M ia m i 1 19 11.58 C o p enha g en B us ine ss S chool 1 24 12.14 N or the as te rn U ni ve rs it y 1 14 6.08 C hi ne se U ni ve rs it y of H on g K ong 2 34 10.57 U ni ve rs it y o f L ee ds 2 23 7.86 C hi ne se U ni ve rs it y o f H ong K on g 2 15 5.33 R ut g er s U ni ve rs it y 3 23 9.5 U ni ve rs it y o f W es te rn O nt ar io 3 16 6.8 3 U ni ve rs it y o f S out h C ar ol ina 3 11 5.16 U ni ve rs it y of S out h C ar ol ina 4 19 9.16 U ni ve rs it y o f C am b ri dg e 4 9 6 .11 C o p enha g en B us ine ss S chool 4 8 5 U ni ve rs it y of L ee ds 5 23 8.66 U ni ve rs it y o f R ea di ng 5 13 4.98 U ni ve rs it y o f M ia m i 5 5 4.5 Indi an a U ni ve rs it y 6 22 7.82 U ni ve rs it y o f L ondon 6 15 4.69 S im on F ra se r U ni ve rs it y 6 9 4.25 U ni ve rs it y of H on g K ong 7 20 7.7 5 U ni ve rs it y o f H ohe nhe im 7 6 4.33 K at hol ie ke U ni ve rs it ei t, B el g ium 7 8 3.66 C o p enha g en B us ine ss S chool 8 17 7.65 R ut g er s U ni ve rs it y 8 9 4.16 U ni ve rs it y o f L ondon 8 7 3.5 O hi o S ta te U ni ve rs it y 9 13 6.83 U ni ve rs it y o f Q ue ens la nd 9 9 3.91 M ic hi g an S ta te U ni ve rs it y 9 10 3.41 H ar va rd 10 12 6.56 U ni ve rs it y o f 10 6 3.83 U ni ve rs it y o f 10 10 3.1
29 B us ine ss sc hool M ia m i Q ue ens la nd C it y U ni ve rs it y of H on g K ong 11 21 6.21 U ni ve rs it y o f S out h C ar ol ina 11 8 3.66 Y ons ei U ni ve rs it y 11 6 T il b ur g U ni ve rs it y 12 15 6.18 U ni ve rs it y o f B at h 12 7 3.5 H ong K on g B ap ti st U ni ve rs it y 12 4 U ni ve rs it y of P enns y lva ni a 13 10 6.05 N an y an g T ec hnol o g ic al U ni ve rs it y 13 5 3.42 U ni ve rs it y o f W es te rn O nt ar io 13 7 E ra sm us U ni ve rs it y 14 12 5.95 H ong K on g B ap ti st U ni ve rs it y 14 6 3.25 B ra d for d U ni ve rs it y 14 5 U ni ve rs it y of R ea di n g 15 12 5.83 N at iona l U ni ve rs it y o f S ing ap or e 15 7 3.16 B o ğ az iç i U ni ve rs it y 15 8 U ni ve rs it y of O kl ahom a 16 11 5.26 Y or k U ni ve rs it y 16 9 3 .08 U ni ve rs it y o f M is si ss ipp i 16 7 U ni ve rs it y of M inne sot a 17 12 5.2 T hunde rb ir d 17 6 3 R ut g er s U ni ve rs it y 17 6 M ic hi g an S ta te U ni ve rs it y 18 21 5.1 T em p le U ni ve rs it y 18 8 2.96 U ni ve rs it y o f N eb ra sk a-L inc ol n 17 6 T ex as ( A & M ) U ni ve rs it y 19 13 5.03 S ai nt L oui s U ni ve rs it y 19 7 2.83 H ong K on g P ol y te chni c U ni ve rs it y 19 5 N ew Y or k U ni ve rs it y 20 10 4.85 U ni ve rs it y o f N ew S out h 20 6 2.75 U ni ve rs it y o f L ee ds 19 5
30 W al es U ni ve rs it y of L ondon 21 16 4.71 C hi ne se U ni ve rs it y o f H ong K on g 21 8 2.66 U ni ve rs it y o f M anc he st er 19 5 2.33 U ni ve rs it y of W es te rn O nt ar io 22 10 4.68 F lor ida Int er na ti ona l U ni ve rs it y 21 7 2.66 L o y ol a M ar y m ount U ni ve rs it y 22 4 2.33 U ni ve rs it y of M el b our ne 23 9 4.66 U ni ve rs it y o f P or tl and 21 4 2.66 U ni ve rs it y o f O kl ahom a 23 7 2.23 IN S E A D , S ing ap or e 24 8 4.66 U ni ve rs it y o f C al g ar y 24 9 2.56 G eor g et ow n U ni ve rs it y 24 4 2.125 S im on F ra se r U ni ve rs it y 25 8 4.52 Y ons ei U ni ve rs it y 25 6 2.5 U ni ve rs it y o f N or th C ar ol ina a t C ha p el H il l 25 5 H ong K on g P ol y te chni c U ni ve rs it y 26 8 4.33 F lor ida A tl ant ic U ni ve rs it y 26 5 2.5 V il la nova U ni ve rs it y 25 5 U ni ve rs it y o f M el b our ne 26 5 2.5
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
T ab le 7 . T ot al a nd A d jus te d A pp ea ra nc e of A ut ho rs dur ing 2001 –2009 i n J IB S , M IR , a nd J W B JI B S M IR JW B N a m e o f A u th o r R a n k T o ta l A p p ea ra n ce A d ju st ed A p p ea ra n ce N a m e o f A u th o r R a n k T o ta l A p p ea ra n ce A d ju st ed A p p ea ra n ce N a m e o f A u th o r R a n k T o ta l A p p ea ra n ce A d ju st A p p ea ra Y adon g L uo 1 13 8.74 Y adon g L uo 1 6 4 Y adon g L uo 1 5 4.5 P et er J . B uc kl e y 2 12 5.66 P aul W . B ea m is h 2 9 3.65 E unm i C ha ng 2 3 2.5 John H . D unni ng 3 6 4.83 A la in V er b ek e 3 7 3.33 S ne ji na M ic ha il ova 2 3 2.5 K la us E M ey er 4 6 4.5 H em ant M er cha nt 4 4 3 D avi d A . G ri ff it h 4 5 2.41 A la in V er b ek e 5 7 4 L ei L i 5 4 2.66 M add y J ans se ns 5 4 2.16 O de d S he nka r 6 8 3.99 B ent P et er se n 6 5 2.5 D ani el J . M cC ar th y 6 4 2 S hi h -F en S C he n 7 4 3.5 C hr is tos N . P it el is 6 3 2.5 S he il a M . P uf fe r 6 4 2 A lva ro C ue rv o-C az ur ra 8 4 2.83 M ic ha el J . E nr ig ht 6 3 2.5 C hr is R ow le y 8 4 1.75 D avi d A R al st on 9 5 2.77 P et er J . B uc kl e y 9 7 2.31 M ic ha el R . C zi nkot a 9 3 1.75 B er n ar d Y eun g 10 5 2.66 A la n M . R ug m an 10 4 2 Jona tha n P . D oh 10 4 1.66 A la n M . R ug m an 11 5 2.5 A lf re do J . M aur i 11 3 2 M ic ha el G . H ar ve y 11 4 1.58 Je an -F ra n çoi s H en na rt 12 4 2.5 E ri c W . K . T sa ng 12 2 2 T re vor B uc k 12 3 1.58 P aul D E ll is 13 3 2.5 Ja n H endr ik F is ch 12 2 2 P er ve z G ha ur i 13 3 1.5 L or ra ine E d en 14 6 2.33 L il ac h N ac hum 12 2 2 K la us E . M e y er 14 2 1.5 C huc k C Y 15 5 2.33 A ndr ew 15 4 1.83 R ic ha rd B . 14 2 1.5
33 K w ok D el ios P et er son M ike P eng 16 4 2.33 V ol ke r M ahnke 15 4 1.83 T ha ng V . N g u y en 14 2 A noo p M adhok 17 3 2.33 H ong x in Z h ao 15 4 1.83 P aul W . B ea m is h 17 4 D avi d A G ri ff it h 18 7 2.22 D eni ce E . W el ch 18 3 1.83 D avi d M . S chw ei ge r 18 3 W il li am N ew b ur ry 19 4 2.16 F ar ok J . C ont ra ct or 18 3 1.83 M il a B . L az ar ova 18 3 M ar jor ie A . L y le s 20 6 2.11 R o b er t P ea rc e 18 3 1.83 P aul a C al ig iur i 18 3 C hung -M in g L au 21 5 2 R am M uda m b i 21 4 1.75 R os al ie L . T un g 18 3 M ic ha el A W it t 22 3 2 M ar kus V enz in 22 4 1.66 Y ong sun P ai k 18 3 W it ol d J. H eni sz 22 3 2 S um it K . K undu 22 4 1.66 D el i Y an g 23 2 R avi R am am ur ty 24 2 2 T or b en P ede rs en 24 4 1.5 P et er J . B uc kl e y 23 2 T am ir A g m on 24 2 2 Jul ia n B ir ki ns ha w 25 3 1.5 P aw an B udh w ar 25 3 I n g m ar B jor km an 26 6 1.94 N ic hol as A . A tha na ss iou 25 3 1.5 S eung -H y un L ee 26 3
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
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
