ror.org/017c6at71
Résumés
Abstract
How were paper bastions added to the walls of academic citadels? By mapping the evolution of the coauthorship network in 180 management journals from 1991 to 2009, we identify an elite league of business schools that retained dominance despite the research community’s significant growth. The elite universities maintain their prominence through a loop of reinforcement involving the peer review process and third-party ranking bodies, though the perceived quality of the papers published was declining as measured by the percentage of overall citations. Leading U.S. universities dominate top journal publications, while new local poles of management research among European and Asian universiteis emerged.
Keywords:
- Business school ranking,
- business research,
- coauthorship,
- citation analysis,
- social network analysis
Résumé
Comment les citadelles académiques se construisent-elles ? En décrivant l’évolution des réseaux de co-autorat de 180 journaux en management entre 1991 et 2009, nous identifions la formation d’une ligue « élite » dont les acteurs restent dominants malgré une forte croissance de la communauté de recherché en gestion. Cette élite maintient sa domination en s’appuyant sur des mécanismes d’auto-renforcement entre le système de revue par les pairs dans les journaux scientifiques et de classement par des tiers influents et cela malgré la diminution progressive du nombre de citation reçue. Les universités américaines qui forment l’élite dominent les journaux scientifiques les mieux cotés, même si de nouveaux poles émergent en Asie et en Europe.
Mots-clés :
- classement des business school,
- Recherche en gestion,
- co-autorat,
- analyse des citations,
- analyse des réseaux
Resumen
¿Cómo se incorporaron los bastiones de la investigación a las principales instituciones académicas? Cartografiando la evolución de la red de coautorías de 180 publicaciones sobre gestión y dirección de 1991 a 2009, hemos identificado una liga de élite de escuelas de negocios que se mantuvo dominante a pesar del significativo crecimiento de la comunidad investigadora. Las universidades de élite mantienen su prominencia utilizando un circuito de refuerzo que implica procesos de revisión entre pares y organismos exteriores de clasificación, aunque la calidad percibida de los artículos publicados fue declinando según las mediciones del porcentaje de citas globales. Las universidades estadounidenses líderes dominan los primeros puestos de las publicaciones, al tiempo que emergen nuevas áreas locales de investigación en gestión en Europa y Asia.
Palabras clave:
- clasificación de escuelas de negocios,
- investigación empresarial,
- coautoría,
- análisis de citas,
- red social de análisis
Parties annexes
Bibliography
- Aguinis, H.; Suárez-Gonzáles, I.; Lannelongue, G.; Joo, H. (2012). “Scholarly impact revisited,” Academy of Management Perspectives, Vol. 26, No 2, p. 105-132.
- Ahuja, G.; Polidoro, F.; Mitchell, W. (2009). “Structural homophily or social asymmetry? The formation of alliances by poorly embedded firms,” Strategic Management Journal, Vol.30, No9, p.941-958.
- Alexander, J.; Mabry, R. (1994). “Relative significance of journals, authors, and articles cited in financial research,” Journal of Finance, Vol.49, No2, p.697-712.
- Alvarez-Hamelin, I.; Dall’Asta, L.; Barrat, A.; Vespignani, A. (2006). “K-core decomposition: A tool for the visualization of large scale networks,” https://arxiv.org/abs/cs/0504107
- Baden-Fuller, C.; Ravazzolo, F.; Schweizer, T. (2000). “Making and measuring reputations,” Long Range Planning, Vol.33, No5, p.621-650.
- Baum, J. (2011). “Free-riding on power laws: Questioning the validity of the Impact Factor as a measure of research quality in organization studies,” Organization, Vol.18, No4, p.449-466.
- Baum J. (2012). “The skewed few: Does ‘skew’ signal quality among journals, articles, and academics?” Journal of Management Inquiry, Vol. 21, No 3, p. 349-354.
- Biehl, M.; Kim, H.; Wade, M. (2006). “Relationship among academic business disciplines: A multi-method citations analysis,” Omega, Vol. 34, No 4, p. 359-371.
- Borgatti, S. P.; Everett, M. G; Freeman, L. C. (2002). Ucinet 6 for Windows: Software for social network analysis. Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies.
- Burgess, T. F.; Shaw, N. E. (2010). “Editorial board membership of management and business journals: A social network analysis study of the Financial Times 40,” British Journal of Management, Vol.21, No3, p.627-648.
- Chung, S.; Singh, H.; Lee, K. (2000). “Complementarity, status similarity and social capital as drivers of alliance formation,” Strategic Management Journal, Vol.21, No1, p.1–22.
- Garfield, E. (2006). “The history and meaning of the journal impact factor,” Journal of the American Medical Society, Vol.295, No1, p.90-93.
- Gordon, R. A.; Howell, J. E. (1959). Higher education for business, New York: Columbia University Press.
- Gulati, R.; Gargiulo, M. (1999). “Where do inter-organizational networks come from?” American Journal of Sociology, Vol.104, No5, p.1439-1493.
- Lariviere,V.; Gingras,Y. (2010). “The impact factor’s Matthew effect: A natural experiment in bibliometrics,” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Vol.61, No2, p.424-427.
- Lazarsfeld, P. F.; Merton, R. K. (1954). “Friendship as a social process: A substantive and methodological analysis,” in M. Berger, T. Abel and C. H. Page (Eds), Freedom and control in modern society, New York: Van Nostrand, p.18-66.
- Macdonald, S.; Kam, J. (2007). “Ring a ring o’ roses: Quality journals and gamesmanship in management studies,” Journal of Management Studies, Vol.44, No4, p.640-655.
- Macdonald, S.; Kam, J. (2011). “The skewed few: People and papers of quality in management studies,” Organization, Vol.18, No4, p.467-475.
- Mangematin, V.; C. Baden-Fuller (2008). “Global contests in the production of business knowledge: Regional centres and individual business schools,” Long Range Planning, Vol.41, No1, p.117-139.
- Mowery, D. C.; Oxley, J. E.; Silverman, B. S. (1996). “Strategic alliances and interfirm knowledge transfer,” Strategic Management Journal, Vol.17, No2, p.77-91.
- Newman, M. E. J. (2001). “The structure of scientific collaboration networks,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol.98, No2, p.404-409.
- Ozbilgin, M. (2004) International human resource management: Academic parochialism in editorial boards of the top 22 journals on international human resource management, Personnel Review, Vol.33, No 2, p.205-221.
- Podolny, J. (1993). “A status-based model of market competition,” American Journal of Sociology, Vol.98, No4, p.829-872.
- Podolny, J. (1994). “Market uncertainty and the social character of economic exchange,” Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol.39, No3, p.458-483.
- Podolny, J.; Phillips, D. (1996). “The dynamics of organizational status,” Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol.5, No2, p.453-471.
- Podsakoff, P.; MacKenzie, S.; Podsakoff, N.; Bachrach, D. (2008). “Scholarly influence in the field of management: A bibliometric analysis of the determinants of university and author impact in the management literature in the past quarter century,” Journal of Management, Vol.34, No4, p.641-720.
- Rindova, V.; Williamson, I. O.; Petkova, A. P.; Sever, J. M. (2005). “Being good or being known: An empirical examination of the dimensions, antecendents and consequences of organizational reputation,”.Academy of Management Journal, Vol.48, No6, p.1033-1049.
- Shane, S. (1997). “Who is publishing in entrepreneurship research?” Journal of Management, Vol.23, No1, p.83-95.
- Starbuck, W. H. (2005). “How much better are the most prestigious journals? The statistics of academic publication,” Organization Science, Vol.16, No2, p.180-200.
- Wang, J. (2014). “Unpacking the Matthew effect in citations,” Journal of Informetrics, Vol.8, No2, p.329-339.
- Wasserman, S.; Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.