Author and institution rankings in retail research: an analysis of the four retail journals from 1994–2008

An Analysis of Individual and Institutional Contributions to the Fashion Marketing Forum From 2004 to 2014

“…Another purpose of this study was to analyze the contributions of individuals and institutions to the fashion marketing forum. This was addressed by adopting Shane’s (1997) method which has been used and found to be effective in similar studies from other disciplines such as marketing (Bakir, Vitell, & Rose, 2000) and retailing (Runyan & Hyun, 2009). Shane (1997) examined the contributions of individuals and institutions to the entrepreneurship forum by reviewing entrepreneurship articles published in journals rated as 2 or higher in MacMillan’s (1993) study.…”

“…Citation analysis may resolve this issue, but the method was not utilized for this study due to the following reasons. First, citation analyses tend to be biased toward older articles that had more time to accumulate citations (Morrison & Inkpen, 1991; Runyan & Hyun, 2009) and second, assessing fashion marketing studies published in journals from other disciplines (e.g., JBR) is challenging. More specifically, it is debatable whether such articles have contributed to the fashion marketing field or the primary field associated with that individual journal.…”

“…Over the past few decades, scholars have shown considerable interest in examining the contributions of individuals and institutions to a discipline’s core journals. The interest is reflected by numerous publication assessment studies found in various academic fields such as accounting (Guffey & Harp, 2014), entrepreneurship (Shane, 1997), finance (Heck & Cooley, 1988), international business (Morrison & Inkpen, 1991), retailing (Runyan & Hyun, 2009), and tourism (Ryan, 2005). The prevalence of such studies is motivated by the important role that publication records play in funding agencies’ decision making, faculty career advancement, and the need to provide information to potential graduate students (Morrison & Inkpen, 1991; Xu, Poon, & Chan, 2014).…”

Prominent retailing authors and institutions: 2009-2015

“…A less-frequent line of review is that of the productivity of actively publishing scholars and their institutions. As Runyan and Hyun (2009) argue, reviews of author and institution information are important for evaluative reasons, especially for organizations seeking to fund retailing research. Appraising the concentration (or lack thereof) of research productivity by scholar and institution also is important as a field of knowledge matures (Swan et al , 1999).…”

The UK Research Assessment Exercise (RAE 2008) and retail research output

“…This paper therefore aims to comment on the results of the UK RAE (2008) with regard to our previous commentary on the RAE (2001). It also considers the data in the light of intervening publications and particularly the retail specific work of Runyan, who has produced three articles on various aspects of the publication process, outcome and 'quality' in retailing (Runyan 2008, Runyan and Droge 2008, Runyan and Hyun 2009-see also Sparks 2007). This commentary is structured to first outline the process of the RAE (2008) and then to reflect on the results in terms of a comparison with the RAE (2001) and on the conclusions that have been drawn by Dawson et al (2004) within the emerging context as exemplified by the work of Runyan.…”