Search results

The region's universities are “riding a tiger” of university rankings in East Asian higher education, in a race to gain in the list of the world's top 100 universities. While this race impacts universities throughout the world, it takes on particular importance in East Asia due to the stage of university development and the needs of regional societies. The purposes of this paper are to: To examine the emergent global emphasis on world university ranking as a driver of change in higher education, To discuss how the world university rankings are impacting East Asian universities, To assess consequences for higher education in the region, To explore options for leading universities in a more meaningful direction in East Asia.

This paper examines research and commentary on the impact of world university rankings on universities in East Asia.

This paper proposes that the world university rankings have, over a relatively short period of time, had unanticipated but potentially insidious effects on higher education in East Asia. This paper proposes that the “tiger” is carrying most East Asian universities towards goals that may not reflect the aspirations of their societies, or the people that work and study in them. Yet, climbing off the “tiger” often feels just as risky as hanging on to its back. Instead of seeking to lay blame at any one party, the paper suggests that the problem is systemic in nature. Multiple parts of the system need to change in order to achieve effects in the distal parts (e.g. faculty, students, and society). Only leadership can bring about this type of change. The scholarly community must gain some degree of input and monitoring over the rules of the rankings game. Only by joining hands can university leaders in the region change the “Ranking Game” to reflect the reality and needs of university development and social contribution in East Asia. Only by cooperation can the region's university leaders create reciprocal pressure on other parts of the system. In response to systemic problems, “I” may be powerless, but “we” are not.

The originality and value of this paper lie in its aim to elevate underlying dissatisfaction with the rankings into a broader and more explicit debate over the direction in which East Asian universities are riding on the back of the tiger.

The purpose of this paper is to explore relative deprivation and implicit bias in library and information science research publications of Africa and other continents.

Research design used for this study is descriptive survey research. Specifically, the study will adopt both web content analysis and survey to collect data. The content analysis covers the whole continents of the world: Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe, Latin America, Middle East, Northern America, Pacific Region and Western Europe; using the Webometrics World Ranking of Universities and the SCImago/Scopus Journal Ranking. Library and information science was used as the search and control parameter. The scopes covered by the research are: 1. Ascertaining the visible publishing and assessment standards of top library and information science (LIS) journals, which was evaluated using Kleinert and Wager (2010)'s study.

It was found out among others that editors making fair and unbiased decisions as policy is seen in 33% of the journals, which is very poor. All the structural disparities, such as presence ranking, impact ranking, excellence ranking, etc. were favouring Europe and the Americas mainly. As much as rejection is getting to these respondents, research generally is also suffering by missing out on some untapped knowledge and ideas from these deprived populations. Many authors are losing faith in their capabilities and are now afraid of venturing into tedious research exercises because it will most likely be rejected either ways.

It is an established fact that social media gains research impact and attracts international collaborations. In support, studies such as Hassan et al. (2019) reported the fact that tweet mentions of articles with positive sentiment to more visibility and citations. They claim that cited articles in either positive or neutral tweets have a more significant impact than those not cited at all or cited in negative tweets. In addition, Hassan et al. (2020) equally highlighted tweet coupling as a social media methodology useful for clustering scientific publications. Despite the fact that social media have these influences on research and publications visibility and presence, the context of the present research did cover this scope of study. The study focused mainly on sources from Scopus as well as results from responses. Further studies can be carried out on this area.

Research studies linking “Black Articles Matter” to relative deprivation and implicit bias in research publications, especially in library and information discipline, are very rare. Also, the scope of approach of the study is quite different and interesting.

This study aims to establish the use of active scholar assessment (ASA) in the field of education leadership as a new methodology in ranking administration and leadership journals. The secondary purpose of this study is to respond to the paucity of research on journal ranking in educational administration and leadership.

This empirical study uses on‐line survey research methods with analysis of variance (ANOVA) statistical analysis.

The main findings of this study are: ASA minimizes noted limitations in peer assessment studies; publishing rates and years of service do not significantly influence quality assessment bias; ASA provides a comprehensive and fair assessment of journals; and ASA responds to established criteria as a new, independent system for journal ranking. This study also provides current rankings of educational administration and leadership journals.

This study points to the importance of continued research using ASA in journal assessment in education and other social sciences.

This study provides a new methodology in assessing journal quality, awareness, and importance to the field for journals in educational administration and leadership.

Prior studies in citation-based journal rankings tend to be static to compare across journals. One journal may be judged better in citations than other journals at some points in time but not at the others. The assumption that the citation distribution is normally distributed and that the citation observations are independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) may not be appropriate. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

This study uses a stochastic dominance (SD) analysis, which overcomes the dynamic nature of changes in citation over time. The SD method proposed by Linton, Maasoumi, and Whang (hereafter LMW, 2005) does not require the data to be i.i.d. We use the LMW method to compare the relative ranking of 23 finance journals using citations for all articles from them during 1990-2010.

The study indicates that the citation distribution changes over time. Thus a SD analysis is a better approach for a comparison of journal ranking. The findings unambiguously place JF, JFE, RFS, JFQA, and JFI in the top five spots of the finance journal ranking. The “near-top” journals, such as JBF, JCF, and FM, are not clear cut in the SD analysis.

The results confirm that ranking for the lower ranked journals may change over time especially, but the top three journals appear to be robust across methods and over time.

The results of SD analysis provides more convincing evidence on finance journal ranking and could be useful to rank academic institutions, faculty research quality, and help the authors to decide what to read and which journals are influential.

The objective of this paper is to simultaneously identify influential articles, journals, institutions, and researchers in marketing research in recent years using a threshold citation analysis.

The threshold citation analysis counts the number of times a research work is cited by articles published in a set of elite marketing journals. In order to be included in the analysis, the research work must be cited 18 or more times. This threshold is used to measure influence and is unique in the ranking of marketing research. The threshold citation analysis incorporates the quality, the importance, and the influence of research works in the ranking criteria and is not limited to a set of journals nor confined by the year a research work is published.

The three frequently cited articles in marketing research are Fornell and Larcker, Baron and Kenny, and Anderson and Gerbing. Journal of Marketing, Journal of Marketing Research, and Journal of Consumer Research are the three marketing journals having the greatest influence in marketing research. As for the ranking of institutions, the three most influential institutions in marketing research are Northwestern University, the University of Pennsylvania, and the University of Michigan while the three frequently cited authors in marketing research are Richard Oliver, Valarie Zeithaml, and James Anderson.

First, this study identifies influential research works, journals, institutions, and researchers in marketing simultaneously and is in sharp contrast to the traditional approaches that identify influential research works, journals, institutions, and researchers separately. Second, this analysis mitigates the limitations that have plagued the quantity oriented publication‐based approach and the quality oriented citation‐based approach, making these findings more robust and inclusive. Finally, this paper identifies non‐marketing journals, non‐marketing articles, and scholarly books that have significant impact on contemporary marketing research. Consequently, this study offers new and comprehensive insights to the rankings research in marketing that were neglected by previous studies.

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.

Several published studies have ranked journals based on perceived quality according to operations management (OM) researchers. The purpose of this paper is to examine the ranking of journals for OM research using meta analysis.

The study begins by using a meta‐analysis approach to combine results of five recent OM journal ranking studies. A new citation analysis using OM research articles published in International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Journal of Operations Management, and Production and Operations Management between 1999 and 2005 is presented.

Results of the meta‐analysis and the citation analysis have many similarities, but there are some striking differences suggesting the evolution of OM research away from operations research and engineering. The results also illustrate the diversity of OM research ranging from analytical modeling to empirical studies influenced by other business disciplines and the behavioral sciences.

This is the first time meta‐analysis has been used to examine the ranking of journals for OM research. This research also provides a current citation analysis of the OM field for the first time in over a decade. While the results of these two analyses show some similarities with many of the same journals, there are some marked differences that may support the notion of an evolving OM field.

Bradford distributions describe the relationship between ‘journal productivities’ and ‘journal rankings by productivity’. However, different ranking conventions exist, implying some ambiguity as to what the Bradford distribution ‘is’. A need accordingly arises for a standard ranking convention to assist comparisons between empirical data, and also comparisons between empirical data and theoretical models. Five ranking conventions are described including the one used originally by Bradford, along with suggested distinctions between ‘Bradford data set’, ‘Bradford distribution’, ‘Bradford graph’, ‘Bradford log graph’, ‘Bradford model’ and ‘Bradford’s Law‘. Constructions such as the Lotka distribution, Groos droop (generalised to accommodate growth as well as fall‐off in the Bradford log graph), Brookes hooks, and the slope and intercept of the Bradford log graph are clarified on this basis. Concepts or procedures questioned include: (1) ‘core journal’, from the Bradfordian viewpoint; (2) the use of traditional statistical inferential procedures applied to Bradford data; and (3) R(n) as a maximum (rather than median or mean) value at tied‐rank values.

This paper presents rankings of economics journals taken from a recent survey of economics department heads. Different rankings were derived for those with different research areas and those associated with different types of academic institutions. It was found that rankings were quite similar for all respondents.

University rankings and metrics have become an increasingly prominent basis of student decisions, generalized university reputation, and the resources university’s attract. We review the history of metrics in higher education and scholarship about the influence of ranking on the position and strategic behavior of universities and students. Most quantitative analyses on this topic estimate the influence of change in university rank on performance. These studies consistently identify a small, short-lived influence of rank shift on selectivity (e.g., one rank position corresponds to ≤1% more student applicants), comparable to ranking effects documented in other domains. This understates the larger system-level impact of metrification on universities, students, and the professions that surround them. We explore one system-level transformation likely influenced by the rise of rankings. Recent years have witnessed the rise of enrollment management and independent educational consultation. We illustrate a plausible pathway from ranking to this transformation: In an effort to improve rankings, universities solicit more applications from students to reduce their acceptance rate. Lower acceptance rates lead to more uncertainty for students about acceptance, leading them to apply to more schools, which decreases the probability that accepted students will attend. This leads to greater uncertainty about enrollment for students and universities and generates demand for new services to manage it. Because these and other system-level transformations are not as cleanly measured as rank position and performance, they have not received the same treatment or modeling attention in higher education scholarship, despite their importance for understanding and influencing education policy.