The Gatekeepers of Business Education Research: An Institutional Analysis

Urbancic, Frank R.

doi:10.1080/08832323.2010.520757

Cited by 9 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The process of determining which journals should be included in this study followed several steps. First, we examined a compilation of journals from previous author and institution studies as a possible starting point for the sample (Mixon Jr. & Upadhyaya, ; Urbancic, ; Currie & Pandher, ). The examination of these studies led us to focus on Currie and Pandher's () work, supplemented by journals included in the BME Influence Index (Arbaugh & Bielinska‐Kwapisz, ), because this approach provided recent and comprehensive listings and ratings of BME research journals based upon both expert assessments and scholarly metrics.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We selected the ten BME journals with the highest hg ‐index scores (Arbaugh & Bielinska‐Kwapisz, ) as the base of our final journal pool. To address critiques offered by previous studies about insufficient journal or disciplinary area representation (Rynes & Brown, ; Urbancic, ; Kruck et al., ), we then included additional journals to ensure that our sampling pool encompassed at least two of the top BME journals for each of the seven major disciplinary areas (accounting, economics, finance, information systems, management, marketing, and operations/ supply chain management). These additional journals were determined by their ranking metrics in their respective disciplinary areas: Marketing Education Review ( MER ), the Journal of Financial Education ( JFEd ), International Review of Economics Education ( IREE ), the Journal of Economics and Finance Education ( JEFE ), and the International Journal of Information and Operations Management Education ( IJIOME ).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Key Authors in Business and Management Education Research: Productivity, Topics, and Future Directions

Arbaugh

Asarta

Hwang

et al. 2017

Decision Sci J Innov Edu

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous studies of author productivity in business and management education (BME) research have focused on single disciplinary areas, and even single journals. This study is the first to examine the productivity of BME scholars across multiple disciplinary areas (i.e., accounting, economics, finance, information systems, management, marketing, and operations/supply chain management). We analyzed a pool of 17 BME journals with the highest hg‐index, by including the top three journals in the accounting and information systems areas, the top two journals in each of the other disciplinary areas, and an interdisciplinary BME journal. This examination covered a 10‐year period (2005‐2014), 4,464 articles and 9,617 article co‐authors. We identified 7,209 unique authors in this pool and ranked their productivity to create a “Key Authors” list. Each of the top 99 authors had five or more articles in our database. Our findings indicate the potential for cross‐disciplinary dissemination of research ideas and opportunities for scholars to enhance their research profile, because even a small increase in productivity can lead to substantial movement in the BME rankings of authors.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Key Authors in Business and Management Education Research: Productivity, Topics, and Future Directions

Arbaugh

Asarta

Hwang

et al. 2017

Decision Sci J Innov Edu

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Prior studies use bibliometric methods to investigate editorial board diversity (Brinn & Jones, 2008;Burgess & Shaw, 2010;Hodgson & Rothman, 1999;Pan & Zhang, 2014), journal acceptance rates (Björk, 2021;Conley, 2012;Krueger & Shorter, 2011;Lamb & Adams, 2015;Randall & Gibson, 1990;Wardle, 2012), and even to rank institutions and countries by their representation on the editorial boards of reputable journals (Braun et al, 2007;Chan & Fok, 2003;Kaufman, 1984;Urbancic, 2011;Wu et al, 2018). Others investigate scholarly output of editorial board members in accounting, finance, and economics journals (Bedeian et al, 2009;Hardin III et al, 2008;Lowe & Van Fleet, 2009;Walters, 2015;Zdenek, 2018) and demonstrate a significant linkage between editorial board membership and faculty research productivity (Wang, 2018).…”

Section: Literature and Hypothesis Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Editorial board publication strategy and acceptance rates in Turkish national journals

Tutuncu

2023

Journal of Data and Information Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose This study takes advantage of newly released journal metrics to investigate whether local journals with more qualified boards have lower acceptance rates, based on data from 219 Turkish national journals and 2,367 editorial board members. Design/methodology/approach This study argues that journal editors can signal their scholarly quality by publishing in reputable journals. Conversely, editors publishing inside articles in affiliated national journals would send negative signals. The research predicts that high (low) quality editorial boards will conduct more (less) selective evaluation and their journals will have lower (higher) acceptance rates. Based on the publication strategy of editors, four measures of board quality are defined: Number of board inside publications per editor (INSIDER), number of board Social Sciences Citation Index publications per editor (SSCI), inside-to-SSCI article ratio (ISRA), and board citation per editor (CITATION). Predictions are tested by correlation and regression analysis. Findings Low-quality board proxies (INSIDER, ISRA) are positively, and high-quality board proxies (SSCI, CITATION) are negatively associated with acceptance rates. Further, we find that receiving a larger number of submissions, greater women representation on boards, and Web of Science and Scopus (WOSS) coverage are associated with lower acceptance rates. Acceptance rates for journals range from 12% to 91%, with an average of 54% and a median of 53%. Law journals have significantly higher average acceptance rate (68%) than other journals, while WOSS journals have the lowest (43%). Findings indicate some of the highest acceptance rates in Social Sciences literature, including competitive Business and Economics journals that traditionally have low acceptance rates. Limitations Research relies on local context to define publication strategy of editors. Findings may not be generalizable to mainstream journals and core science countries where emphasis on research quality is stronger and editorial selection is based on scientific merit. Practical implications Results offer useful insights into editorial management of national journals and allow us to make sense of local editorial practices. The importance of scientific merit for selection to national journal editorial boards is particularly highlighted for sound editorial evaluation of submitted manuscripts. Originality/value This is the first attempt to document a significant relation between acceptance rates and editorial board publication behavior.

show abstract

“…Using the number of editorial board members as an indicator of university ranking is expanding. In fact, an increasing number of sub-disciplines of economics and management, including marketing, international business, and tourism management have introduced university ranking based on number of editorial board members (Chan, Fung and Lai 2005;Frey and Rost 2010;Law, Leung and Buhalis 2010;Urbancic 2005;Urbancic 2011). However, similar studies on disciplines such as science, engineering, agriculture, and medicine remain relatively scarce ).…”

Section: The Relationship Between University Ranking Based On the Nummentioning

confidence: 99%

The relationship between SCI editorial board representation and university research output in the field of computer science: A quantile regression approach

Wang

2018

MJLIS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study uses the quantile regression models to explore the relationship between SCI (Science Citation Index) editorial board representation and research output of universities in the field of computer science. Quantile regression allows the investigation of the variation of the relationship between editorial board representation and research output. A total of 447 journals and 14,442 editorial board members were analysed. The results suggest that the number of editorial board members is positively and significantly related to the quantity (number of articles) and impact (total number of citations and citations per paper) of the research output from their respective universities. A deeper analysis using quantile regression, indicates that the relationship between the number of editorial board members and the research output is stronger when the university is at the higher quartile of the conditional research output distribution. In addition, to speculate on possible mechanisms behind the relationship between editorial board representation and research output, two exploratory studies based on two small samples were conducted at the individual and journal level, respectively.

show abstract

The Gatekeepers of Business Education Research: An Institutional Analysis

Cited by 9 publications

References 17 publications

Key Authors in Business and Management Education Research: Productivity, Topics, and Future Directions

Key Authors in Business and Management Education Research: Productivity, Topics, and Future Directions

Editorial board publication strategy and acceptance rates in Turkish national journals

The relationship between SCI editorial board representation and university research output in the field of computer science: A quantile regression approach

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About