Understanding the relevance of national culture in international business research: a quantitative analysis

This review is a comprehensive quantitative analysis of the International Business literature whose focus is on national culture. The analysis relies on a broad range of bibliometric techniques as productivity rankings, citation analysis (individual and cumulative), study of collaborative research patterns, and analysis of the knowledge base. It provides insights on (I) faculty and institutional research productivity and performance; (II) articles, institutions, and scholars’ influence in the contents of the field and its research agenda; and (III) national and international collaborative research trends. The study also explores the body of literature that has exerted the greatest impact on the researched set of selected articles.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Ranking Operations Management Conferences

Several publications have appeared in the field of\ud Operations Management which rank Operations\ud Management related journals. Several ranking systems\ud exist for journals based on , for example, perceived\ud relevance and quality, citation, and author affiliation.\ud Many academics also publish at conferences but we have\ud not come across publications that rank conferences.\ud Conference rankings are generally more complicated than\ud journal rankings. Journal rankings are primarily for\ud publishing purposes. Conferences on the other hand are\ud attended by people for different reasons. In this paper the\ud first attempt is made in developing an operations\ud management conference ranking based upon author\ud affiliation. Ranking based on an analysis of author\ud affiliation assumes that one important motive for\ud participants is to attend a high quality research\ud conference. With that assumption it is reasonable to use\ud the author affiliation approach. Based upon an existing\ud ranking of institutes that offer operations management\ud programs a ranking list of affiliations is developed.\ud Subsequently, we compare several operations\ud management related conferences such as POMS,\ud EurOMA, OSCM and the Operations Management\ud Division of the Academy of Management based on that\ud ranked list of institutes. The results provide information\ud for authors that help in deciding which operations\ud management oriented conferences to attend

"Needless to Say My Proposal Was Turned Down": The Early Days of Commercial Citation Indexing, an "Error-making" Activity and Its Repercussions Till Today

In today’s neoliberal audit cultures university rankings, quantitative evaluation of publications by JIF or researchers by h-index are believed to be indispensable instruments for “quality assurance” in the sciences. Yet there is increasing resistance against “impactitis” and “evaluitis”. Usually overseen: Trivial errors in Thomson Reuters’ citation indexes produce severe non-trivial effects: Their victims are authors, institutions, journals with names beyond the ASCII-code and scholars of humanities and social sciences. Analysing the “Joshua Lederberg Papers” I want to illuminate eventually successful ‘invention’ of science citation indexing is a product of contingent factors. To overcome severe resistance Eugene Garfield, the “father” of citation indexing, had to foster overoptimistic attitudes and to downplay the severe problems connected to global and multidisciplinary citation indexing. The difficulties to handle different formats of references and footnotes, non-Anglo-American names, and of publications in non-English languages were known to the pioneers of citation indexing. Nowadays the huge for-profit North-American media corporation Thomson Reuters is the owner of the citation databases founded by Garfield. Thomson Reuters’ influence on funding decisions, individual careers, departments, universities, disciplines and countries is immense and ambivalent. Huge technological systems show a heavy inertness. This insight of technology studies is applicable to the large citation indexes by Thomson Reuters, too

A Review of Theory and Practice in Scientometrics

Scientometrics is the study of the quantitative aspects of the process of science as a communication system. It is centrally, but not only, concerned with the analysis of citations in the academic literature. In recent years it has come to play a major role in the measurement and evaluation of research performance. In this review we consider: the historical development of scientometrics, sources of citation data, citation metrics and the “laws" of scientometrics, normalisation, journal impact factors and other journal metrics, visualising and mapping science, evaluation and policy, and future developments

Professional Judgment in an Era of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning

Though artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare and education now accomplishes diverse tasks, there are two features that tend to unite the information processing behind efforts to substitute it for professionals in these fields: reductionism and functionalism. True believers in substitutive automation tend to model work in human services by reducing the professional role to a set of behaviors initiated by some stimulus, which are intended to accomplish some predetermined goal, or maximize some measure of well-being. However, true professional judgment hinges on a way of knowing the world that is at odds with the epistemology of substitutive automation. Instead of reductionism, an encompassing holism is a hallmark of professional practice—an ability to integrate facts and values, the demands of the particular case and prerogatives of society, and the delicate balance between mission and margin. Any presently plausible vision of substituting AI for education and health-care professionals would necessitate a corrosive reductionism. The only way these sectors can progress is to maintain, at their core, autonomous professionals capable of carefully intermediating between technology and the patients it would help treat, or the students it would help learn

Inferring Missing Citations: A Quantitative Multi-Criteria Ranking of all Journals in Economics

This paper presents a novel ranking of economics journals. Our methodology is the following. First, we construct an index to rank the 304 journals recorded in the Thomson Reuters (JCR) database, for which citation counts exist. This index combines (sophisticated) citation indexes, field of specialization normalized indexes, and a h-index based on Google Scholar citations. Moreover this index puts forward journals in economics. Second, we extend this index to the 898 EconLit non JCR journals. We estimate a model in which the index is explained by the score of the journal's authors and its Google Scholar citations. Finally we use the estimated model to predict the value of the index for the non JCR journals. Therefore we obtain a consistent ranking index of all EconLit journals.Economics of science, Journals assessment, Research citations

Does “Evaluating Journal Quality and the Association for Information Systems Senior Scholars Journal Basket…” Support the Basket with Bibliometric Measures?

We re-examine “Evaluating Journal Quality and the Association for Information Systems Senior Scholars Journal Basket…” by Lowry et al. (2013). They sought to use bibliometric methods to validate the Basket as the eight top quality journals that are “strictly speaking, IS journals” (Lowry et al., 2013, pp. 995, 997). They examined 21 journals out of 140 journals considered as possible IS journals. We also expand the sample to 73 of the 140 journals. Our sample includes a wider range of approaches to IS, although all were suggested by IS scholars in a survey by Lowry and colleagues. We also use the same sample of 21 journals in Lowry et al. with the same methods of analysis so far as possible. With the narrow sample, we replicate Lowry et al. as closely as we can, whereas with the broader sample we employ a conceptual replication. This latter replication also employs alternative methods. For example, we consider citations (a quality measure) and centrality (a relevance measure in this context) as distinct, rather than merging them as in Lowry et al. High centrality scores from the sample of 73 journals do not necessarily indicate close connections with IS. Therefore, we determine which journals are of high quality and closely connected with the Basket and with their sample. These results support the broad purpose of Lowry et al., finding a wider set of high quality and relevant journals than just MISQ and ISR, and find a wider set of relevant, top quality journals