Revisiting the standing of international business journals in the competitive landscape

Research performance as a quality signal in international labor markets: Visibility of business schools worldwide through a global research performance system

“…In an attempt to bring together these two approaches, meta-rankings, such as those developed by Tüselmann, Sinkovics, and Pishchulov (2015) and Tüselmann et al (2016), used both JCR data and expert opinion-based rankings, which were combined through Data Envelopment Analysis, complemented by CARD and random forests methods to deal with the missing data, as well as Nash bargaining model to define the rank discrimination threshold. This level of methodological complexity is likely beyond the capability of many users to competently assess and replicate.…”

“…To provide additional insights into the field of IB research, we identified seven IB journals in our list of 149. Our selection heuristic was based on three sources: Harzing's JQL (59th edition), CABS (2015) list and the list of IB journals compiled by Tüselmann et al (2016). We started by comparing the lists of IB journals provided in three sources and identifying the journals present in all of them.…”

“…2 We focus on the field of IB specifically because, for the IB scholarly community, the visibility challenge is particularly acute. The field of IB is often considered a sub-field within the field of general management (Adler & Harzing, 2009) and most IB journals are relatively young compared to many management journals (Tüselmann, Sinkovics, & Pishchulov, 2016). This has resulted in their slow inclusion in global research rankings.…”

“…Recently, there has been an increase in the number of visible IB journals in prominent journal rankings (e.g., Tüselmann et al, 2016). However, the research rankings of IB institutions have not as of yet mirrored this positive trend, maintaining the practice of focusing exclusively on a few top institutions only.…”

“…However, the research rankings of IB institutions have not as of yet mirrored this positive trend, maintaining the practice of focusing exclusively on a few top institutions only. As argued by Tüselmann et al (2016), IB researchers' best work cannot be captured by observing a narrow range of journals. Equally, the diversity of contributions to IB research cannot be captured by focusing on a narrow range of institutions, which are often geographically bounded.…”