Search results

Academic rankings are facing various issues, including the use of data sources that are not publicly verifiable, subjective parameters, a narrow focus on research productivity and regional biases and so forth. This research work is intended to enhance creditability of the ranking process by using the objective indicators based on publicly verifiable data sources.

The proposed ranking methodology – OpenRank – drives the objective indicators from two well-known publicly verifiable data repositories: the ArnetMiner and DBpedia.

The resultant academic ranking reflects common tendencies of the international academic rankings published by the Shanghai Ranking Consultancy (SRC), Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) and Times Higher Education (THE). Evaluation of the proposed methodology advocates its effectiveness and quick reproducibility with low cost of data collection.

Implementation of the OpenRank methodology faced the issue of availability of the quality data. In future, accuracy of the academic rankings can be improved further by employing more relevant public data sources like the Microsoft Academic Graph, millions of graduate's profiles available in the LinkedIn repositories and the bibliographic data maintained by Association for Computing Machinery and Scopus and so forth.

The suggested use of open data sources would offer new dimensions to evaluate academic performance of the higher education institutions (HEIs) and having comprehensive understanding of the catalyst factors in the higher education.

The research work highlighted the need of a purposely built, publicly verifiable electronic data source for performance evaluation of the global HEIs. Availability of such a global database would help in better academic planning, monitoring and analysis. Definitely, more transparent, reliable and less controversial academic rankings can be generated by employing the aspired data source.

We suggested a satisfying solution for improvement of the HEIs' ranking process by making the following contributions: (1) enhancing creditability of the ranking results by merely employing the objective performance indicators extracted from the publicly verifiable data sources, (2) developing an academic ranking methodology based on the objective indicators using two well-known data repositories, the DBpedia and ArnetMiner and (3) demonstrating effectiveness of the proposed ranking methodology on the real data sources.

The purpose of this paper is to propose and examine streams in the literature related to academic publishing, with a focus on works in marketing. The content of the works within each theme are then explored to identify what issues have been examined and their implications.

The paper is a literature review, drawing on 30 years of research on academic publishing in marketing. The review is designed to cover the underlying issues examined, but is not designed to be comprehensive in terms of all the works exploring each stream of research.

There are five main streams in the literature focusing on: rankings; theory and knowledge development; how to publish;, criticisms of publishing; and other issues. Within each stream, a number of sub‐areas are explored. The works tend to be fragmented and there is generally limited in‐depth qualitative research within streams exploring the underlying assumptions on which publishing is based.

The focus of the research is on the streams of works, rather than the findings within each stream and future research could explore each of these streams and sub‐streams in more detail. Generally, the works appear to becoming increasingly sophisticated in terms of their analysis, which is only possible with the new technologies available. New metrics proposed in the literature that can be used to better understand publishing and additional qualitative research exploring some of the basic assumptions could also be explored.

The research suggests that some streams with regard to academic publishing may have reached saturation and future publishing in these areas will need to be innovative in its approach and analysis, if these works are to be published.

This paper is the first attempt to develop streams within the literature on academic publishing in marketing and thus draws together a diverse cross‐section of works. It provides suggestions for directions for future research in the various streams.

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.

The purpose of this paper is to develop a global ranking of knowledge management and intellectual capital academic journals.

An online questionnaire was completed by 233 active knowledge management and intellectual capital researchers from 41 countries. Two different approaches: journal rank‐order and journal scoring method were utilized and produced similar results.

It was found that the top five academic journals in the field are: Journal of Knowledge Management, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Knowledge Management Research and Practice, International Journal of Knowledge Management, and The Learning Organization. It was also concluded that the major factors affecting perceptions of quality of academic journals are editor and review board reputation, inclusion in citation indexes, opinion of leading researchers, appearance in ranking lists, and citation impact.

This study was the first of its kind to develop a ranking system for academic journals in the field. Such a list will be very useful for academic recruitment, as well as tenure and promotion decisions.

The findings from this study may be utilized by various practitioners including knowledge management professionals, university administrators, review committees and corporate librarians.

This paper represents the first documented attempt to develop a ranking of knowledge management and intellectual capital academic journals through a survey of field contributors.

The purpose of this study is to compare of the way intellectual capital (IC) is disclosed in the websites of the universities in three European countries to assess the way universities decide to communicate IC to their stakeholders and identify potential patterns and trends. In addition, the relation between the level and the type of IC Web disclosure in universities and academic rankings as a proxy of performance is explored to reveal interrelations.

The study is based on a sample of 128 universities coming from Greece (22), Italy (58) and Spain (48). The websites of the universities are content-analysed to measure the level of IC disclosure. The IC disclosure metrics are then correlated with the academic rankings of the World Ranking.

While the level of IC disclosure among universities and among countries is not homogeneous, human capital and internal capital items are more heavily disclosed compared to external capital items in all three countries. In addition, larger universities in terms of number of students tend to disclose more on IC. Moreover, there is a positive correlation between the level of IC Web disclosure and the academic ranking that challenges the IC disclosure strategies followed by the universities.

The paper represents an innovative contribution to the existing literature as it investigates websites to assess the level of IC disclosure provided by universities in a comparative perspective. Furthermore, it analyses the relationship between the online IC disclosure and European universities’ academic rankings and provides evidence on the interaction between the IC disclosure and the ecosystem in which the universities operate contributing to the fourth stage of IC research.

Much has been analyzed regarding the origins and the impact of rankings and metrics on policies, behaviors, and missions of universities. Surprisingly, little attention has been allocated to describing and analyzing the emergence of metrics as a new action field. This industry, fueled by the “new public management” policy perspectives that operate at the backstage of the contemporary pervasive “regime of excellence,” still remains a black box worth exploring in depth. This paper intends to fill this loophole. It first sets the stage for this new action field by stressing the differences between the policy fields of higher education in the United States and Europe, as a way to understand the specificities of the use of metrics and rankings on both continents. The second part describes the actors of the field, which productive organizations they build, what skills they combine, which products they put on the market, and their shared norms and audiences.

The purpose of this paper is to assess the use of journal‐ranking lists for academic librarian promotion and tenure (P&T) decision.

Using a case study, the researchers analyzed a proposed journal‐ranking list created for P&T decisions. A quantitative analysis of peer‐reviewed journal articles was performed to support this analysis.

The paper shows that the use of journal‐ranking lists for P&T decisions inadequately conflates academic librarians with teaching faculty members.

The study relied primarily on a single case study, so it may not be scientifically generalized.

This study identifies journal‐ranking lists as an inadequate tool for the evaluation of academic librarians and encourages action to divorce the valuation of intellectual achievement from quantitative structures.

The analysis of the quantitative/metric underpinnings of intellectual labor in higher education is necessary for academic freedom.

The purpose of this paper is to develop a ranking of knowledge management and intellectual capital academic journals.

A revealed preference, also referred to as citation impact, method was utilized. Citation data were obtained from Google Scholar by using Harzing's Publish or Perish tool. The h‐index and the g‐index were employed to develop a ranking list. The revealed preference method was compared to the stated preference approach, also referred to as an expert survey. A comprehensive journal ranking based on the combination of both approaches is presented.

Manual re‐calculation of the indices reported by Publish or Perish had no impact on the ranking list. The revealed preference and stated preference methods correlated very strongly (0.8 on average). According to the final aggregate journal list that combined stated and revealed preference methods, Journal of Knowledge Management and Journal of Intellectual Capital are ranked A+, and The Learning Organization, Knowledge and Process Management, and Knowledge Management Research & Practice are ranked A.

This study was the first of its kind to develop a ranking system for academic journals in the field based on the journals' citation impact metrics. This list is vital for knowledge management and intellectual capital academics for tenure, merit, and promotion decisions. It may also help them achieve recognition among their peers and colleagues from other disciplines.

The proposed ranking list may be fruitfully employed by knowledge management and intellectual capital practitioners, librarians making journal subscription decisions, academics looking for best outlets, and various academic committees.

This paper represents the first documented attempt to develop a ranking of knowledge management and intellectual capital academic journals by using the h‐index and the g‐index that reflect journal citation impact.

The purpose of this paper is to generate an understanding of the value-added to students enrolled in selected undergraduate business programs from an academic and market perspectives. Although there are numerous studies that rank undergraduate colleges and universities, the selection of the “best value” undergraduate business program is a formidable task for prospective students. This study uses data envelopment analysis (DEA), a linear programming-based tool, to evaluate undergraduate business administration programs. The DEA model connects costs (inputs) with benefits (outputs) to evaluate the value-added to students by undergraduate business programs from a market as well as academic perspectives. The study’s findings should assist prospective students in selecting business programs that provide the best value from their individual perspectives. The results can also help schools to identify their corresponding market niche and allocate their recourses more effectively.

Use DEA method. DEA was developed by Charnes et al. (1979) to evaluate the performance of multi-input and -output production operations. The analytical and computational capacities of DEA are firmly based on mathematical theory.

This study takes a different approach toward the ranking of college programs. Most studies rank-order programs (universities) based on arbitrary weightings of attributes of quality and provide a general ranking of programs that is said meet the needs of many different constituencies including students, parents, donors, administrators’ faculty and alumni.

This is an original research using DEA and The Bloomberg/Businessweek online data for business school ranking.

The purpose of this study is to update a global ranking of knowledge management and intellectual capital (KM/IC) academic journals.

Two different approaches were utilized: a survey of 379 active KM/IC researchers; and the journal citation impact method. Scores produced by the application of these methods were combined to develop the final ranking.

Twenty‐five KM/IC‐centric journals were identified and ranked. The top six journals are: Journal of Knowledge Management, Journal of Intellectual Capital, The Learning Organization, Knowledge Management Research & Practice, Knowledge and Process Management and International Journal of Knowledge Management. Knowledge Management Research & Practice has substantially improved its reputation. The Learning Organization and Journal of Intellectual Capital retained their previous positions due to their strong citation impact. The number of KM/IC‐centric and KM/IC‐relevant journals has been growing at the pace of one new journal launch per year. This demonstrates that KM/IC is not a scientific fad; instead, the discipline is progressing towards academic maturity and recognition.

The developed ranking may be used by various stakeholders, including journal editors, publishers, reviewers, researchers, new scholars, students, policymakers, university administrators, librarians and practitioners. It is a useful tool to further promote the KM/IC discipline and develop its unique identity. It is important for all KM/IC journals to become included in Thomson Reuters' Journal Citation Reports.

This is the most up‐to‐date ranking of KM/IC journals.