Search results

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.

In this chapter, we conduct a metadata analysis of articles published in accounting, business and finance journals ranked by Australian Business Dean Council (ABDC), and benchmarked against the Chartered Association of Business Schools (ABS) ranking, that discuss firm- and country-level greenhouse gas (GHG) emission practices and reporting. Number of publications on GHG research, research methods, number of citations and ratio, across countries and continents are some of the topics we cover. We employ a list of articles on accounting, business and finance journals ranked A* and A in the ABDC journal rankings from 2015 to 2022. The study uses a structured literature review to analyse 74 papers on GHG reporting practices at the firm- and country level. Although this line of enquiry is still nascent and developing, the study found underrepresentation of Africa and the Middle East in GHG literature generally. In addition, majority of the articles examined also concentrate on quantitative methods. Most of the articles on GHG research are A-ranked in the ABDC ranking scheme. It was also found that few studies focus on the countries and companies with the highest emissions. While there has been some progress in interrogating GHG across the globe, there is still much room for further research. A key area of future research is exploring the GHG reporting practices in the African and the Middle Eastern sub-regions. There is also a need to examine countries and companies with high emissions. A further study needs to explore the benefits of other research methods in addition to quantitative methods, as different research methods could yield different insights that would enhance research-based conclusions.

This study aims to verify empirically that when a group of isomorphic organisations is subjected to institutional pressure that conflicts with their technical efficiency or interests, this group will embrace opaqueness and decoupling.

This is a multiple case study of 16 Brazilian academic journals. The authors analyse whether the editorial boards of these journals play an effective or merely ceremonial role in the administration of the journals.

The authors find indications that isomorphic organisations revert to decoupling when the pressures they are subjected to are in conflict with their technical efficiency or interests. The authors also find indications of an inverted U-shaped relationship between the collaboration recruiting power of a journal in an academic field and decoupling. This collaboration recruiting power is closely related to the journal’s position in academic rankings.

The authors have shown that, although some scientific journals can deal with internationalisation pressures, for others, this is difficult and leads to decoupling and opaqueness. This is not a desirable situation. It can be counterproductive and draw attention to bureaucratic procedures.

This relation between opaqueness and institutional pressure for a group of organisations within the context of neo-institutional theory has not yet been verified empirically. This study’s results show how institutional pressure and organisational opaqueness are related in an organisational field. This theoretical contribution has practical implications because of decoupling’s potentially negative effects.

This paper explores who among the AACSB categorization of academics conducts the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) research within business schools and how AACSB-accredited business schools capture SoTL research as part of their portfolio of intellectual contributions.

This study adopts a qualitative-method research design by collecting primary data through surveys, semi-structured interviews and secondary data in policy documents focused on AACSB-accredited business schools in Canada and the United States.

The findings establish that scholarly and practice academics who possess rigorously acquired research skills due to their terminal degrees are most likely to conduct SoTL research. The results also reveal an even split among respondents regarding whether their AACSB-accredited business school captures SoTL with their journal ranking frameworks.

Based on the findings, two recommendations are offered to foster more SoTL research at AACSB-accredited schools. First, higher education leaders (e.g. business school deans) can further inculcate a culture of SoTL research at the department and institutional levels by creating communities of practice (CoPs). Second, AACSB-accredited business schools could adopt more inclusive journal ranking frameworks to capture better and incentivize SoTL research.

This is the first known study to explore how AACSB Standards 3 and 8 are implemented and operationalized regarding SoTL research. Understanding how these standards are adopted and implemented could help institutional leaders, standard setters and administrators better facilitate SoTL research.

The purpose of this paper is to develop insight into the scholarly communications trends in hospitality and tourism management by looking at the practice of publishing Special Issues (SIs) in top-ranked hospitality and tourism management (HTM) academic journals: examining the relationship of SIs to journal impact as a measurement of quality, identifying some principal topics of SI and the trend of publishing SI as monographs.

This paper consists of an analysis of 22 top-ranked HTM journals from 1995 to 2020, in-depth case studies reviewing studies in two top-ranked HTM journals and an examination of which publishers supplement their revenue by selling their special issues as monographs. This paper includes a substantial review of literature regarding special issue publishing within business academic journals.

There was growth in the publication of HTM SI from 1995 to 2020, both in numbers and as a percentage of total issues. There is no evidence that SI are reducing impact within HTM journals; impact has grown exponentially since the mid-1990s. In one case, there was a significant increase in SI publication as well as in impact. The number of Regular Issues (RI) published increased during the same period but at a marginally lower rate. There is no evidence that SI are negatively affecting RI. The in-depth analysis of the two journals concurred with the above findings and suggested that SI studies discuss topics of the highest impact. SI increased the revenue of the publisher through monograph publishing. This practice also furthered the field by making SI available to be purchased as a monograph by nonsubscribers.

This study provides a deeper understanding of scholarly publishing in top-ranking HTM journals and provides a foundation for future research on HTM publishing practices. Its practical implications extend to practitioners who rely on HTM scholarship for dissemination of vital research that can guide or drive decision-making. This study also informs the critical question as to whether such research is compromised by publishing practices. Other practical implications include providing reassuring information to editors who publish SI that these issues do not appear to contribute to lower journal impact. For researchers who are considering submitting manuscripts to SIs, this study similarly implies that their paper should not be considered of lower value and that there is no indication that its impact will be lessened. Furthermore, the authors hope that this study encourages would-be guest editors to publish SI if they have held back because of quality/impact concerns. Finally, this paper may provide evidence to journal editors who do not regularly publish SI because of quality and impact concerns that they may reconsider this choice. Implications for HTM journal editors and guest editors include adding or increasing SI in their publishing practice will not decrease the journal’s quality, while SI publishing also could contribute to the goals of their publication and increase revenues for the publishers. Researchers who may have been reluctant to publish in SI should be more inclined to submit to them or endeavor to become guest editors to explore avenues of developing their field.

SI publication and impact within the field of hospitality and tourism scholarly communications are rarely discussed. Literature reviews on SI publication in business are also limited. Investigation into publication practices of focused/special issues can help inform researchers, publishers and editors and provide a state of the industry.

This paper aims to conduct a comprehensive analysis to evaluate the current situation of journals, examine the factors that influence their development, and establish an evaluation index system and model. The objective is to enhance the theory and methodologies used for journal evaluation and provide guidance for their positive development.

This study uses empirical data from economics journals to analyse their evaluation dimensions, methods, index system and evaluation framework. This study then assigns weights to journal data using single and combined evaluations in three dimensions: influence, communication and novelty. It calculates several evaluation metrics, including the explanation rate, information entropy value, difference coefficient and novelty degree. Finally, this study applies the concept of fuzzy mathematics to measure the final results.

The use of affiliation degree and fuzzy Borda number can synthesize ranking and score differences among evaluation methods. It combines internal objective information and improves model accuracy. The novelty of journal topics positively correlates with both the journal impact factor and social media mentions. In addition, journal communication power indicators compensate for the shortcomings of traditional citation analysis. Finally, the three-dimensional representative evaluation index serves as a reminder to academic journals to avoid the vortex of the Matthew effect.

This paper proposes a journal evaluation model comprising academic influence, communication power and novelty dimensions. It uses fuzzy Borda evaluation to address issues related to the weighing of single evaluation methods. This study also analyses the relationship of the three dimensions and offers insights for journal development in the new media era.

The authors examine how performance measurement systems (PMSs) and academic agency influence the meaning of research quality in practice. The worries are that the notion of research quality is becoming too simplistically and narrowly determined by research quality's measurable proxies and that academics, especially manager-academics, do not sufficiently realise this risk. Whilst prior literature has covered the effects of performance measurement in the university sector broadly and how PMSs are mobilised locally, there is only little understanding of whether and how PMSs affect the meaning of research quality in practice.

The study is designed as a comparative case study of two university faculties in Finland. The role of conceptual analysis plays a notable role in the study, too.

The authors find that manager-academics of the two examined faculties have rather similar conceptual understandings of research quality. However, there were differences in the degree of slippage between the “espoused-meaning” of research quality and “meaning-in-practice” of research quality. The authors traced these differences to how the local PMS and manager-academics’ agency relate to one another within the context of increasing global and national performance pressures. The authors developed a tentative framework for the various “styles of agency”. This suggests how the relationship between the local PMS and manager-academics’ exerted agency shapes the “degrees of freedom” of the meaning of research quality in practice.

Given that research quality lies at the heart of academic work, the authors' paper indicates that exploring the three matters – performance measurement, the agency of manager-academics and the meaning of research quality in practice – in combination is crucial for the sustainability of the academe. The authors contribute to the literature by detailing the way in which local PMS and manager-academics' agency have material impacts on what research quality means in practice. The authors conclude by highlighting the pressing need for manager-academics to exercise the agency in efforts to safeguard a broad and pluralistic understanding of research quality in practice.

This paper aims to define a hierarchical and multi-criteria framework based on pillars of the Modernization of Higher Education to evaluate European Accounting Doctoral Programmes (EADE-Model).

The authors applied a quali-quantitative methodology based on the analytic hierarchy process and the survey approach. The authors conducted an extensive literature and regulation review to identify the dimensions affecting the quality of Doctoral Programmes, choosing accounting as the relevant and pivotal field. The authors also used the survey to select the most critical quality dimensions and derive their weight to build EADE Model. The validity of the proposed model has been tested through the application to the Italian scenario.

The findings provide a critical extension of accounting ranking studies constructing a multi-criteria, hierarchical and updated evaluation model recognizing the role of doctoral training in the knowledge-based society. The results shed new light on weak areas apt to be improved and propose potential amendments to enhance the quality standard of ADE.

Theoretical and practical implications of this paper are directed to academics, policymakers and PhD programmes administrators.

The research is original in drafting a hierarchical multi-criteria framework for evaluating ADE in the Higher Education System. This model may be extended to other fields.

This paper aims to examine and compare extant literature on the application of multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) techniques in humanitarian operations (HOs) and humanitarian supply chains (HSCs). It identifies the status of existing research in the field and suggests a roadmap for academicians to undertake further research in HOs and HSCs using MCDM techniques.

The paper systematically reviews the research on MCDM applications in HO and HSC domains from 2011 to 2022, as the field gained traction post-2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami phenomena. In the first step, an exhaustive search for journal articles is conducted using 48 keyword searches. To ensure quality, only those articles published in journals featuring in the first quartile of the Scimago Journal Ranking were selected. A total of 103 peer-reviewed articles were selected for the review and then segregated into different categories for analysis.

The paper highlights insufficient high-quality research in HOs that utilizes MCDM methods. It proposes a roadmap for scholars to enhance the research outcomes by advocating adopting mixed methods. The analysis of various studies revealed a notable absence of contextual reference. A contextual mind map specific to HOs has been developed to assist future research endeavors. This resource can guide researchers in determining the appropriate contextual framework for their studies.

This paper will help practitioners understand the research carried out in the field. The aspiring researchers will identify the gap in the extant research and work on future research directions.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first literature review on applying MCDM in HOs and HSCs. It summarises the current status and proposes future research directions.

This study aims to sketch a bibliometric portrait of the International Journal of Innovation Science (IJIS) and attempts to evaluate its publication patterns from 2011 to 2020 by unfolding the key aspects of its publication trends for the audience of the journal and scholars of bibliometric studies as well.

This study analyzes papers published in the IJIS from 2011 to 2020 by using the required bibliometric measures to analyze the key aspects of the publishing trends of IJIS.

This study finds that a total of 487 authors published 271 articles in IJIS during 2011–2020. The USA leads the table with 89 papers followed by India (29 papers) and China (26 papers). The degree of collaboration in IJIS ranged from 0.36 to 0.94. Moreover, this study finds that the keyword “design/methodology/approach” is the central theme of research in IJIS around which all other keywords revolve.

This study focuses on the publication patterns of the IJIS over a period of ten years. Patterns of research output in 271 publications are comprehended and analyzed. For making a ten-year bibliometric study, the papers published before 2011 were excluded from the purview of research.

Readers of the IJIS, teachers and research scholars interested in bibliometric studies can benefit from insights into the scholarly papers published in IJIS from 2011 to 2020.

This study would provide the readers of IJIS to ascertain significant contributions, top cited papers, the most prolific authors, geographical distribution of papers, keyword co-occurrence and bibliographic coupling.