Why and how does shared language affect subsidiary knowledge inflows? A social identity perspective

We draw on social identity theory to conceptualize a moderated mediation model that examines the relationship between shared language among subsidiary and HQ managers, and subsidiaries’ knowledge inflows from HQ. Specifically, we study (1) whether this relationship is mediated by the extent to which subsidiary managers share HQ goals and vision, and the extent to which HR decisions are centralized; and (2) whether subsidiary type moderates these mediated relationships. Building on a sample of 817 subsidiaries in nine countries/regions, we find support for our model. Implications for research on HQ-subsidiary knowledge flows, social identity theory and international HRM are discussed

Google Scholar Metrics evolution: an analysis according to languages

The final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1164-8In November 2012 the Google Scholar Metrics (GSM) journal rankings were updated, making it possible to compare bibliometric indicators in the ten languages indexed—and their stability—with the April 2012 version. The h-index and h-5 median of 1,000 journals were analysed, comparing their averages, maximum and minimum values and the correlation coefficient within rankings. The bibliometric figures grew significantly. In just seven and a half months the h-index of the journals increased by 15 % and the median h-index by 17 %. This growth was observed for all the bibliometric indicators analysed and for practically every journal. However, we found significant differences in growth rates depending on the language in which the journal is published. Moreover, the journal rankings seem to be stable between April and November, reinforcing the credibility of the data held by Google Scholar and the reliability of the GSM journal rankings, despite the uncontrolled growth of Google Scholar. Based on the findings of this study we suggest, firstly, that Google should upgrade its rankings at least semi-annually and, secondly, that the results should be displayed in each ranking proportionally to the number of journals indexed by language.Orduña Malea, E.; Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2014). Google Scholar Metrics evolution: an analysis according to languages. Scientometrics. 98(3):2353-2367. doi:10.1007/s11192-013-1164-8S23532367983Aguillo, & Isidro, F. (2012). Is Google Scholar useful for bibliometrics? A webometric analysis. Scientometrics, 91(2), 343–351.Brewington, B. E., & Cybenko, G. (2000). How dynamic is the Web? Computer Networks, 33(1–6), 257–276.Chen, X. (2010). Google Scholar’s dramatic coverage improvement five years after debut. Serials Review, 36(4), 221–226.Cho, Y. & Garcia-Molina, H. (2000). The evolution of the web and implications for an incremental crawler. Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on very large data bases, 200–209.Costas, R., & Bordons, M. (2007). The h-index: advantages, limitations and its relation with other bibliometric indicators at the micro level. Journal of Informetrics, 1(3), 193–203.de Winter, J. C. F., Zadpoor, A. A., & Dodou, D. (2013). The expansion of Google Scholar versus Web of Science: a longitudinal study. Scientometrics. doi: 10.1007/s11192-013-1089-2 .Delgado López-Cózar, E., & Cabezas-Clavijo, A. (2012). Google Scholar Metrics: an unreliable tool for assessing scientific journals. El profesional de la información, 21(4), 419–427.Delgado López-Cózar, E., & Cabezas-Clavijo, A. (2013). Ranking journals: could Google Scholar metrics be an alternative to journal citation reports and Scimago journal ranks. Learned publishing, 26(2), 101–114.Fetterly, D., Manasse, M., Najork, M. & Wiener, J. (2003). A large scale study of the evolution of web pages. Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference on World Wide Web, 669–678.Harzing, A.-W. (2013). A preliminary test of Google Scholar as a source for citation data: a longitudinal study of Nobel prize winners. Scientometrics, 94(3), 1057–1075.Jacsó, P. (2012). Google Scholar Metrics for Publications—The software and content feature of a new open access bibliometric service. Online Information Review, 36(4), 604–619.Koehler, W. (2002). Web page change and persistence-4-year longitudinal web study. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(2), 162–171.Koehler, W (2004). A longitudinal study of Web pages continued a consideration of document persistence. Information Research, 9(2). http://informationr.net/ir/9-2/paper174.html . Accessed 1 Sep 2013.Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2007). Google Scholar Citations and Google Web/URL citations: a multidiscipline exploratory analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(7), 1055–1065.Leydesdorff, L. (2012). World shares of publications of the USA, EU-27, and China compared and predicted using the new Web of Science interface versus Scopus. El profesional de la información, 21(1), 43–49.Neuhaus, C., Neuhaus, E., Asher, A., & Wrede, C. (2006). The depth and breadth of Google Scholar: An empirical study. Libraries and the Academy, 6(2), 127–141.Orduña-Malea, E., Serrano-Cobos, J., & Lloret-Romero, N. (2009). Las universidades públicas españolas en Google Scholar: presencia y evolución de su publicación académica web. El profesional de la información, 18(5), 493–500.Orduña-Malea, E., Serrano-Cobos, J., Ontalba-Ruipérez, J.-A., & Lloret-Romero, N. (2010). Presencia y visibilidad web de las universidades públicas españolas. Revista española de documentación científica, 33(2), 246–278.Ortega, J. L., Aguillo, I. F., & Prieto, J. A. (2006). Longitudinal study of contents and elements in the scientific Web environment. Journal of Information Science, 32(4), 344–351.Payne, N., & Thelwall, M. (2007). A longitudinal study of academic webs: growth and stabilization. Scientometrics, 71(3), 523–539

COVID-19 publications: Database coverage, citations, readers, tweets, news, Facebook walls, Reddit posts

© 2020 The Authors. Published by MIT Press. This is an open access article available under a Creative Commons licence. The published version can be accessed at the following link on the publisher’s website: https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00066The COVID-19 pandemic requires a fast response from researchers to help address biological, medical and public health issues to minimize its impact. In this rapidly evolving context, scholars, professionals and the public may need to quickly identify important new studies. In response, this paper assesses the coverage of scholarly databases and impact indicators during 21 March to 18 April 2020. The rapidly increasing volume of research, is particularly accessible through Dimensions, and less through Scopus, the Web of Science, and PubMed. Google Scholar’s results included many false matches. A few COVID-19 papers from the 21,395 in Dimensions were already highly cited, with substantial news and social media attention. For this topic, in contrast to previous studies, there seems to be a high degree of convergence between articles shared in the social web and citation counts, at least in the short term. In particular, articles that are extensively tweeted on the day first indexed are likely to be highly read and relatively highly cited three weeks later. Researchers needing wide scope literature searches (rather than health focused PubMed or medRxiv searches) should start with Dimensions (or Google Scholar) and can use tweet and Mendeley reader counts as indicators of likely importance

Rules versus Discretion in Committee Decision Making: An Application to the 2001 RAE for UK Economics Departments

The question of rules versus discretion has generated a great deal of debate in many areas of the social sciences. Recently, much of the discussion among academics and stakeholders about the assessment of research in UK higher education institutions has focused on the means that should be used to determine research quality. We present a model of committee decision-making when both rules and discretion are available. Some of the predictions of the model are tested empirically using the UK RAE 2001 results

Building professional discourse in emerging markets: Language, context and the challenge of sensemaking

Using ethnographic evidence from the former Soviet republics, this article examines a relatively new and mainly unobserved in the International Business (IB) literature phenomenon of communication disengagement that manifests itself in many emerging markets. We link it to the deficiencies of the local professional business discourse rooted in language limitations reflecting lack of experience with the market economy. This hampers cognitive coherence between foreign and local business entities, adding to the liability of foreignness as certain instances of professional experience fail to find adequate linguistic expression, and complicates cross-cultural adjustments causing multi-national companies (MNCs) financial losses. We contribute to the IB literature by examining cross-border semantic sensemaking through a retrospectively constructed observational study. We argue that a relative inadequacy of the national professional idiom is likely to remain a feature of business environment in post-communist economies for some time and therefore should be factored into business strategies of MNCs. Consequently, we recommend including discursive hazards in the risk evaluation of international projects

The impact of language barriers on trust formation in multinational teams

This study systematically investigates how language barriers influence trust formation in multinational teams (MNTs). Based on 90 interviews with team members, team leaders, and senior managers in 15 MNTs in three German automotive corporations, we show how MNT members’ cognitive and emotional reactions to language barriers influence their perceived trustworthiness and intention to trust, which in turn affect trust formation. We contribute to diversity research by distinguishing the exclusively negative language effects from the more ambivalent effects of other diversity dimensions. Our findings also illustrate how surface-level language diversity may create perceptions of deep-level diversity. Furthermore, our study advances MNT research by revealing the specific influences of language barriers on team trust, an important mediator between team inputs and performance outcomes. It thereby encourages the examination of other team processes through a language lens. Finally, our study suggests that multilingual settings necessitate a reexamination and modification of the seminal trust theories by Mayer, Davis and Schoorman (1995) and McAllister (1995). In terms of practical implications, we outline how MNT leaders can manage their subordinates’ problematic reactions to language barriers and how MNT members can enhance their perceived trustworthiness in multilingual settings

Language in international business: a review and agenda for future research

A fast growing number of studies demonstrates that language diversity influences almost all management decisions in modern multinational corporations. Whereas no doubt remains about the practical importance of language, the empirical investigation and theoretical conceptualization of its complex and multifaceted effects still presents a substantial challenge. To summarize and evaluate the current state of the literature in a coherent picture informing future research, we systematically review 264 articles on language in international business. We scrutinize the geographic distributions of data, evaluate the field’s achievements to date in terms of theories and methodologies, and summarize core findings by individual, group, firm, and country levels of analysis. For each of these dimensions, we then put forward a future research agenda. We encourage scholars to transcend disciplinary boundaries and to draw on, integrate, and test a variety of theories from disciplines such as psychology, linguistics, and neuroscience to gain a more profound understanding of language in international business. We advocate more multi-level studies and cross-national research collaborations and suggest greater attention to potential new data sources and means of analysis

Publication Records of Faculty Promoted to Professor: Evidence from the UK Accounting and Finance Academic Community

This study investigates the publication profiles of 140 accounting and finance faculty promoted to the senior rank of professor at UK and Irish universities during the period 1992 to 2007. On average, approximately 9 papers in Association of Business Schools (ABS) (2008)-listed journals, with 5 at the highest 3*/4* quality levels in a portfolio of 20 outputs are required for promotion to professor. Multivariate analysis provides evidence that publication requirements in terms of ABS ranked journal papers have increased over time, an effect attributed to the government research assessment exercise. There is no evidence that requirements differ for: internal versus external promotion, male versus female candidates; accounting versus finance professors, research intensity of institution peer group; or government research ranking of unit. There is also no evidence of a substitution effect in relation to increased recent publication history, quantity of non-ABS outputs or sole-authorship, all of which show a significant complementary effect. It is noted that there is very limited overlap in the UK and US publication journal sets, suggesting underlying geographically-based paradigm differences. The benchmarks provided in this study are informative in a range of decision settings: recruitment; those considering making an application for promotion to a chair and those involved in promotion panels; cross-disciplinary comparisons; and resource allocation. The evidence presented also contributes to the emerging policy debates concerning the aging demographic profile of accounting faculty, the management of academic labour and the Research Excellence Framework