Search results

With over 3,000 academic journals in the fields of Business and Economics, most academics face a hard time selecting an adequate journal to submit their work to. In today's demanding academic environment and with the presence of different journal ranking lists (JRLs), the selection becomes more difficult when considering employment, promotion and funding. The purpose of this paper is to explore key differences among multiple JRLs pertinent to the latter common objectives. An extensive analysis is conducted to compare the content of journals in the Australian Business Deans Council (ABDC) Journal Quality list, Scopus and Web of Science (WoS) in the fields of Business and Economics. Then, a case of a university with medium research output is considered where scholarly performance evaluation is based on the ABDC Journal Quality List.

After ranking journals in the fields of Business and Economics based on SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) indicator, JCR's Journal Impact Factor (JIF) and JCR's Eigenfactor (EF), a methodology is proposed to categorize journals in the three JRLs into the same categorization adopted by ABDC. The latter establishes a way to compare the four JRLs under consideration and serves as a basis to compare and analyze the content of journals in the ABDC Journal Quality list, Scopus and WoS. As a proxy impact metric, a normalized citation count is associated with each article based on Google Scholar. The publications of the considered university are then evaluated from the perspective of the four JRLs in terms of citation-based impact and quality while considering the exposure to popular world university ranking tables.

For journals classified under fourth tier by ABDC, over 53 and 59% are not indexed by Scopus and WoS, respectively. In this case study, over 42% of the publications appear in journals that are not listed in JCR despite the fact that over 94% of them are listed by the SJR list. Generally, publications that appear in journals listed by JCR achieve, on a yearly average, significantly higher citation rates when compared to those that appear in journals listed in ABDC and SJR Lists.

A four-tier mapping is proposed for consistent comparison among JRLs. Normalized citation count associated with each article based on Google Scholar is employed for evaluation. The findings provide recommendations for scholars, administrators and global universities, including Euro-Med Universities, on which JRL can be more influential for both faculty development and positioning of the university.

The purpose of this paper is to reflect upon the focus and changing nature of measuring academic accounting research quality. The paper addresses contemporary changes in academic publishing, metrics for determining research quality and the possible impacts on accounting scholars. These are considered in relation to the core values of interdisciplinary accounting research ‒ that is, the pursuit of novel, rigorous, significant and authentic research motivated by a passion for scholarship, curiosity and solving wicked problems. The impact of changing journal rankings and research citation metrics on the traditional and highly valued role of the accounting academic is further considered. In this setting, the paper also provides a summary of the journal’s activities for 2018, and in the future.

Drawing on contemporary data sets, the paper illustrates the increasingly diverse and confusing array of “evidence” brought to bear on the question of the relative quality of accounting research. Commercial products used to rate and rank journals, and judge the academic impact of individual scholars and their papers not only offer insight and visibility, but also have the potential to misinform scholars and their assessors.

In the move from simple journal ranking lists to big data and citations, and increasingly to concerns with impact and engagement, the authors identify several challenges facing academics and administrators alike. The individual academic and his or her contribution to scholarship are increasingly marginalised in the name of discipline, faculty and institutional performance. A growing university performance management culture within, for example, the UK and Australasia, has reached a stage in the past decade where publication and citation metrics are driving allocations of travel grants, research grants, promotions and appointments. With an expanded range of available metrics and products to judge their worth, or have it judged for them, scholars need to be increasingly informed of the nuanced or not-so-nuanced uses to which these measurement systems will be put. Narrow, restricted and opaque peer-based sources such as journal ranking lists are now being challenged by more transparent citation-based sources.

The issues addressed in this commentary offer a critical understanding of contemporary metrics and measurement in determining the quality of interdisciplinary accounting research. Scholars are urged to reflect upon the challenges they face in a rapidly moving context. Individuals are increasingly under pressure to seek out preferred publication outlets, developing and curating a personal citation profile. Yet such extrinsic outcomes may come at the cost of the core values that motivate the interdisciplinary scholar and research.

This paper provides a forward-looking focus on the critical role of academics in interdisciplinary accounting research.

This study explores the use and perceptions of scholarly journal ranking lists in the management field based on stakeholders’ lived experience.

The results are based on a survey of 463 active knowledge management and intellectual capital researchers.

Journal ranking lists have become an integral part of contemporary management academia: 33% and 37% of institutions and individual scholars employ journal ranking lists, respectively. The Australian Business Deans Council (ABDC) Journal Quality List and the UK Academic Journal Guide (AJG) by the Chartered Association of Business Schools (CABS) are the most frequently used national lists, and their influence has spread far beyond the national borders. Some institutions and individuals create their own journal rankings.

Management researchers employ journal ranking lists under two conditions: mandatory and voluntary. The forced mode of use is necessary to comply with institutional pressure that restrains the choice of target outlets. At the same time, researchers willingly consult ranking lists to advance their personal career, maximize their research exposure, learn about the relative standing of unfamiliar journals, and direct their students. Scholars, academic administrators, and policymakers should realize that journal ranking lists may serve as a useful tool when used appropriately, in particular when individuals themselves decide how and for what purpose to employ them to inform their research practices.

The findings reveal a journal ranking lists paradox: management researchers are aware of the limitations of ranking lists and their deleterious impact on scientific progress; however, they generally find journal ranking lists to be useful and employ them.

This paper charts the development of diversity research in hospitality and tourism (H&T) as a field of study. The authors are interested in how diversity has been studied, where diversity scholarship has been published, who are the leading diversity scholars and whether the scholars work has been influential. In addition, the authors identified the institutions and countries that contribute significantly to diversity scholarship in H&T.

The authors draw from the Web of Science (WoS) Core Collection, Scopus and Australian Business Dean's Council (ABDC) Journal Quality List covering 109 journals to identify the relevant articles on workplace diversity in H&T. The authors conducted evaluative and relational bibliometric techniques to assess the prominence of diversity scholarship in the field.

Diversity research in H&T did not gain traction until 2005. Using Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal as a benchmark, the authors found that diversity research in H&T closely tracked the diversity topics in general organization and management literature. However, H&T lagged in race and ethnic, as well as gender identity research. A majority of diversity research is published in leading (top-ranked) journals, signifying the value of diversity scholarship in H&T. Hospitality journals published the most articles, while tourism journals reported the highest impact. Scholars based in the USA, China and the United Kingdom (UK) contributed the most diversity articles, but one researcher, Osman M. Karatepe (Turkey), stood out as the most productive and influential diversity scholar in H&T.

The insights from this study aid H&T scholars in identifying trends and opportunities in diversity research, assessing the productivity and impact of various journals and databases, locating collaborative opportunities (through co-citations and highly productive and influential institutions and scholars) and benchmarking the scholars’ own work.

Given an absence of prior review and diversity research has only gained ground in the H&T literature since 2005, this bibliometric study offers a fossil record and documents the trajectory of diversity scholarship in H&T, identifies the scholars who are active in this area of research and highlights institutions and countries where diversity research is conducted.

There is no particularly efficient way to measure research output, but effectual assessment of research output is necessary to motivate and encourage researchers to enhance their research performance and disseminate knowledge. The purpose of this paper is to highlight the exacerbating pressure on Indian academics to deliver incessantly in terms of research output and identify an agreeable way to increase research output. The metric explores trends in management publications by Indian academics and presents an overview of collaborative practices by Indian management researchers that could shine a light on the trends of collaborative publishing future.

The study focuses on publications in the area of Business and Management. Scopus was used with advanced filters to draw relevant research papers. Data were then sorted and filtered on the basis of quality determined through Australian Business Deans Council rankings and diverse bibliometric information to understand the pattern of research output of Indian academics.

The research found that the rate of collaboration with researchers from the home country is low for top rated publications. Majority of publications were listed in Scopus indexed journals, whereas a handful featured in A and A* journals. A and A* journals were predominantly co-authored with academics from universities outside the country. Tradeoff was achieved by majority of authors by getting published in B, followed by C category journals to achieve research outputs.

The study is limited to publications in the area of Business and Management and may be extended to other disciplines such as economics, engineering, law, medical sciences, etc., to understand publishing trends at universities in the country. The study can also be conducted in understanding a similar dilemma with academics at other countries that are evolving in research culture.

The study would help management researchers to dig deep into the root cause and understand why and how collaborations within and outside the country impact the quality of publications. The results would further encourage ranking agencies to award suitable grades to colleges that promote collaboration within the country as well as international collaboration. The study also conducts a benchmarking exercise of the institutions in the country that would be useful for researchers, journals and colleges.

While earlier studies have highlighted the importance of foreign collaborations in academic publishing, there are a handful of studies that have focused on the role of collaboration within the home country. The practice of Indian authors collaborating with Indian counterparts at other universities would help understand the expertise of researchers at different universities and encourage the collaboration process and quality of publications in the country.

In this paper, the authors use a new methodology, called paper affiliation index, to create finance journal ranking using expert judgment and research impact, both of which are based on secondary, objective measures, thus making it possible to produce lists every year without human manipulation at virtually no cost.

Bibliometrics. Python implementation.

A new ranking with 65 finance journals.

This procedure helps to reduce bias and to deal with known problems associated with current methodologies. The data used in the methodology comes from public sources; the procedure is therefore easily replicable. This methodology is not subject-dependent and thus can be transferred to other realms of knowledge. Once the bibliometric institutional data has been gathered, the procedure is not computationally costly: a Python implementation of the algorithm executes the whole computation in a few seconds. Results seem to correct the pernicious Matthew effect which is so evident in citation-based methods.

The institutional classification created includes all institutions that have contributed papers to the field of finance. The procedure helps to reduce bias and to deal with known problems associated with current methodologies. The data used in the methodology comes from public sources, the procedure is therefore easily replicable. The methodology is not subject-dependent and thus can be transferred to other realms of knowledge. Once the bibliometric institutional data has been gathered, the procedure is not computationally costly.

This study aims to provide insights into different aspects of the extant literature on the effects of dividend announcements. Along with other outputs of a bibliometric study, this study provides deeper insights into the concentration of the extant literature and suggest future research agendas.

This study uses the bibliometric, network and content analysis of the dividend announcement literature indexed in Scopus. This study presents the temporal analysis, the network of authors, countries, author citations and the co-occurrence of author keywords. This study provides the concentration of the extant literature in three clusters and unearth some key future research areas. This study uses the latent Dirichlet allocation method for robustness.

A total of 54 documents examining the US sample have received 1,804 citations. Interestingly, the first article on emerging markets was published in 2002, when at least 34 articles on developed markets had already been published from 1982 to 2001. The content analysis of top-cited literature unveils diverse insights into dividend announcements’ effects on financial markets. Contagion effects negatively impact non-announcing banks, particularly larger ones. Dividend maintenance affects stock market momentum, influencing loser returns. While current dividend/earnings news may not predict future company performance, information content dominates bond market reactions to post-dividend announcements. Concomitantly, while financially constrained firms exhibit short-term gains but worse long-term performance following dividend increases, larger stock dividends send stronger market signals in China.

This study significantly contributes to the bibliometric and content analysis literature by analyzing the sample documents based on the sample examined. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, no previous bibliometric study in this domain has been conducted to explore the markets (developed and emerging) to which the samples examined belong and the quality of publications from developed and emerging markets.

This paper aims to organize the existing empirical research on women entrepreneurs (WEs) in India, highlight the research areas that have not received attention and present opportunities for future research.

A systematic literature review (SLR) was performed on 74 scholarly articles focusing on WEs in India and published between 1993 and 2020. This review is structured around the 4W framework used in previous SLRs. The review is directed by the following foci: what do we know about academic research on WEs in India? How were these studies conducted? Where were these studies conducted? Why should academicians and practitioners consider WE research?

The authors arrived at four main themes underlying the empirical research on WEs: success factors for WEs, challenges faced by WEs, factors that attract and motivate WEs and performance measures for WEs. While challenges and success factors have received attention from researchers, there is a distinct lack of papers on factors that attract or motivate WE and performance measures. The main gaps identified were a lack of theoretical basis in studies, reliance on interview and survey-based methodology and a lack of context-specific studies.

The findings of this review are limited to WEs operating in India. Only Scopus-indexed journals listed in the Australian Business Dean's Council Journal Quality List (ABDC JQL) were included in the final SLR list.

This is one of the first studies to use a systematic approach to provide a detailed account of the state of the literature on women's entrepreneurship research in India.

This study aims to conduct a systematic literature review and bibliometric analysis on the topic of digital labour. The study also identifies the future research directions for the topic.

In total, 118 research papers were identified and reviewed from 11 established research databases and A*, A and B category journals from the ABDC journal list. The papers covered a timespan between 2006 and 2023. Bibliometric analysis was conducted to identify key research hotspots.

The emergent themes and associated sub-themes related to digital labour were identified from the literature. The paper found three significant themes that include digital labour platform, gig economy and productivity. This study also acts as a platform to initiate further research in this field for academicians, scholars, industry practitioners and policymakers. The future research scope in the topic is also presented.

The present study is unique in its nature as it approaches the topic of digital labour from all relevant perspectives.

The agglomeration of specialist health-care facilities has often been restricted to metropolitan areas. This study aims to understand how health-care professionals with transformational leadership behaviors and entrepreneurial aims with a similar vision and expertise play pertinent roles in providing essential specialized health care in rural and semi-urban areas and achieving the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UNSDGs).

Qualitative synthesis using focused-group discussions and interviews was conducted in a phased manner. For this, this study has used stakeholder-theory, and dynamic-capabilities approaches.

This study explores the intricacies of collaborative entrepreneurship (CE)-based health-care ventures in developing regions and reveals five pertinent attributes: strategic control, synergy, commitment, empathy and satisfaction. This study recommends that entrepreneurial collaboration, especially by transformational health-care leaders, can significantly contribute to creating an endogenous health-care ecosystem with advanced facilities and technology-enabled modern infrastructure and augmenting regional development.

This study was conducted in semi-urban settings in India. Future research should include other sectors and regions to generalize the findings.

This study benefits health-care professionals having an analogous vision, skills and entrepreneurial aims.

Collaboration of health-care professionals and using transformational leadership behaviors can considerably contribute to providing specialist health care in developing areas and enhance patient satisfaction.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study to discuss the importance of CE in health care in developing areas. In addition, it discusses the benefits of the CE model in achieving the UNSDGs and offers valuable suggestions for health-care professionals and administrators.