Returns to networking in academia

This paper examines effects of academic networks in a Stackelberg differential game between journal editors and authors. Authors choose research papers to maximize satisfaction, while editors determine research quality to maximize journal reputation. Verifying the system for stability, results show that academic networks neither affect the number of publications nor the quality of an author’s papers. Networks only affect the number of an author’s citations. Editors’ preferences for publishing an author because of her network membership seem irrelevant. This happens because editors compete to increase their journal’s reputation by publishing high quality papers. Consequently, there is little room for editorial bias. Further, increased journal competition has the potential to erode the citation gains. The equilibrium research quality is below the maximum possible quality. Increases in publication benefits are shown to leave citations unaffected, increase the number of publications, and decrease research quality. The results generally carry through when publishing markets tend to a monopoly.     

Meta-analysis selection bias in marketing research

The tendency of meta-analytic authors to select particular studies is called selection bias. Selection bias can affect the strength of the meta-analytic estimate and the attention that scholars devote to the results. This research is, in effect, a meta-analysis of the effect sizes reported or calculated from 94 meta-analysis studies of various topics in marketing research. The analysis reveals that estimates depend on the publication status of the included studies. The greater the percentage of studies that were published in academic journals vs. non-published studies, the greater is the size of the meta-effects, and the more published studies from leading journals the meta-analysis includes, the stronger the effect size. The meta-analytic effect size is a mediator for the influence of both the ratio of unpublished studies and the ratio of studies from leading journals on the probability of a meta-analysis to be published in a leading journal, which increases the number of citations to a meta-analysis. The findings of this study have several implications for meta-analysts, editors, reviewers and the marketing community on how to conduct and read current and future meta-analysis in marketing research.     

The Ethics of Predatory Journals

Predatory journals operate as vanity presses, typically charging large submission or publication fees and requiring little peer review. The consequences of such journals are wide reaching, affecting the integrity of the legitimate journals they attempt to imitate, the reputations of the departments, colleges, and universities of their contributors, the actions of accreditation bodies, the reputations of their authors, and perhaps even the generosity of academic benefactors. Using a stakeholder analysis, our study of predatory journals suggests that most stakeholders gain little in the short run from such publishing and only the editors or owners of these journals benefit in the long run. We also discuss counter-measures that academic and administrative faculty can employ to thwart predatory publishing.     

How prevalent is academic misconduct in management research?

We survey 1215 management researchers, including editors, researchers, and reviewers, about their views and experiences with four types of academic misconduct: plagiarism, self-plagiarism, coercive citations, and questionable reviewing practices. Management researchers hold strict views on plagiarism, though editors report on frequent instances encountered. We find that many management researchers consider self-plagiarism acceptable. There is also a high percentage of editors who report on authors being coerced to add citations of reviewers or journals to their submission. Similarly prevalent is so-called “honorary authorship,” where colleagues and supervisors who did not take part in the work are added as co-authors. Lastly, nearly half of the editors who responded report having witnessed conflicts of interest in peer reviewing. We conclude that the current system of peer reviewing is in need of change, and we discuss possible ramifications to overcome the persistence of academic misconduct.     

The inside scoop: Acceptance and rejection at the journal of international economics

There is little work on the inner workings of journals. What factors seem to affect the ability to publish in a journal? Could simple rules (which are already used by some journals) like the desk rejection of a significant minority of papers, help to streamline the process? At what cost? How well do journals seem to do in choosing papers? What can we say about the extent of type 1 and type 2 errors? Do editors seem to have uniform standards or are some harsher than others? We use data on submissions to the Journal of International Economics to help answer these questions.     

The Profile of Research on Exporter–Importer Relationships: A Chronological Analysis

This article presents a chronological analysis of bibliographic and thematic aspects of exporter–importer business relationships research based on a systematic review of 211 articles published between the years 1975 and 2017 in business journals. The study findings indicate that, in terms of bibliographic aspects, this literature is characterized by (a) an increasing collaboration among different institutions and countries, despite a heavy concentration of authors from Europe and North America; (b) a predominance of a small number of scholars producing a substantial part of the literature; and (c) dominance of empirical articles with relatively moderate average impact. In terms of thematic aspects, behavioral dimensions and relationship characteristics constitute the nucleus of the literature, with research efforts focusing on their environmental and internal drivers and performance outcomes. These study findings carry significant implications for major stakeholders of the exporter–importer relationships research, including authors, editors, and conference organizers.     

Is there global inclusion of authors in the five leading advertising journals?

A question that has been raised in academia has to do with whether there is global inclusion of authors in publishing. While this issue has been explored in some areas in business and marketing it has generally not been investigated across 30 years of advertising research activity. This paper seeks to examine the global inclusion of authors in five advertising-focused journals. We found that, while there appears to be an increase in international publishing activity in advertising compared to data extrapolated from past studies, published advertising research still reveals a North American bias/domination. A failure to be globally inclusive may lead to an under-exploration of academic issues and perspectives, as important ‘non-US’ issues could possibly be ignored.     

Ethics and the Accounting Publishing Process: Author, Reviewer, and Editor Issues

Are codes of ethics needed to guide author, reviewer and editor publishing practices in accounting journals? What practices are considered unethical, and to what extend do they occur? A survey of ninety-five journal editors who publish accounting articles rated author, reviewer and editor practices as ethical or unethical, and estimated the frequency with which these practices occur. Respondents also commented on current publishing practices regarding the double-blind review process, payments for reviews, confirmatory bias, and whether codes of ethics are needed for the publication process. More than half the editors supported the status quo, and felt that that codes were not necessary for editors and reviewers. They were evenly split on the question of an author code of ethics.     

提升高职院校学报质量的途径——以《安徽商贸职业技术学院学报》为例

为促进高职院校学报质量的提升,以《安徽商贸职业技术学院学报》为例,分析论述了提升高职院校学报质量的主要途径：通过坚持开门办刊,向专家约稿,不收版面费且实行优稿优酬,严把审稿质量关,实行匿名审稿制等方法,提高学报的学术质量;依托学校的办学特色和专业优势,建设特色栏目;组建专兼结合的编辑队伍,提高学报的编校质量。     

Defining a forum for entrepreneurship scholars

This study defines a forum for entrepreneurship scholars by updating [MacMillan, I.C., 1993. The emerging forum for entrepreneurship scholars. J. Bus. Venturing 8, 377–381]. A three-stage process is used in which entrepreneurship scholars identify and subjectively rate journals as publication outlets for entrepreneurship research. 25 journals were rated “appropriate” or higher, including both generalist and entrepreneurship specialist journals, both academic and practitioner journals, and journals from multiple academic disciplines. Compared to the ten-year earlier survey, there is a strong increase in the ratings of specialist journals.     

Online and offline retailing: What we know and directions for future research

The fast-paced growth of e-commerce is rapidly changing consumers’ shopping habits and shaping the future of the retail industry. While online retailing has allowed companies to overcome geographic barriers to selling and helped them achieve operational efficiencies, offline retailers have struggled to compete with online retailers, and many retailers have chosen to operate both online and offline. This paper presents a review of the literature on the interaction between e-commerce and offline retailing, highlighting empirical findings and generalizable insights, and discussing their managerial implications. Our review includes studies published in more than 50 different academic journals spanning various disciplines from the inception of the internet to present. We organize our paper around three main research questions. First, what is the relationship between online and offline retail channels including competition and complementarity between online and offline sellers as well as online and offline channels of an omnichannel retailer? Under this question we also try to understand the impact of e-commerce on market structure and what factors impact the intensity of competition /complementarity. Second, what is the impact of e-commerce on consumer behavior? We specifically investigate how e-commerce has impacted consumer search, its implications for price dispersion, and user generated content. Third, how has e-commerce impacted retailers’ key managerial decisions? The key research questions under this heading include: (i) What is the impact of big data on retailing? (ii) What is the impact of digitization on retailer outcomes? (iii) What is the impact of e-commerce on sales concentration? (iv) What is the impact of e-commerce and platforms on pricing? And (v) How should retailers manage product returns across online and offline channels? Under each section, we also develop detailed recommendations for future research which we hope will inspire continued interest in this domain.     

How to derive consensus among various marketing journal rankings?

Despite the increasing popularity of journal rankings to evaluate the quality of research contributions, the individual rankings for journals that ranked below the top tier of publications usually feature only modest agreement. Attempts to merge rankings into meta-rankings suffer from some methodological issues, such as mixed measurement scales and incomplete data. This paper addresses the issue of how to construct suitable aggregates of individual journal rankings, using an optimization-based consensus ranking approach. The authors apply the proposed method to a subset of marketing-related journals from a list of collected journal rankings. Next, the paper studies the stability of the derived consensus solution, and the degeneration effects that occur when excluding journals and/or rankings. Finally, the authors investigate the similarities/dissimilarities of the consensus with a naive meta-ranking and with individual rankings. The results show that, even though journals are not uniformly ranked, one may derive a consensus ranking with considerably high agreement with the individual rankings.     

Being a JBR reviewer

Publishing academic research in influential journals is at the heart of modern knowledge economies. However, submitting to a top-tier journal such as JBR can be a challenging experience for some authors. In this piece I share my experience as a JBR reviewer and offer my thoughts on how authors should approach submissions and resubmissions to JBR.     

国内近20年关于比较优势与(国家)竞争优势问题研究的统计与评论

迈克尔·波特1990年出版的《国家竞争优势》在海外学术界引起了热烈的论战,但国内的研究不但严重滞后,且出现完全推崇的"一边倒"格局,质疑者屈指可数,整体研究质量堪忧。本文通过对1980-2009年国内公开发表的关于比较优势和(国家)竞争优势的文献进行检索,就检选出的417篇期刊论文和37篇硕博论文的研究内容和研究手段进行归纳,从"两优势"的研究入手,探讨了国内经济与管理领域研究存在的主要问题,分析了产生问题的原因,希望能够促进该领域研究水平的提高。     

Key institutions in business and management education research

The authors investigate institutional productivity in business and management education (BME) research based on the analysis of 4,464 articles published by 7,210 authors across 17 BME journals over a 10-year period, involving approximately 1,900 schools worldwide. Departing from traditional disciplinary silos, they examine the BME research field as a whole by including all traditional business disciplinary areas and producing two top 100 rankings, one based on raw number of author publications and the other based on weighted scores reflecting journal quality and coauthorship.     

Critical Management Studies and Business Ethics: A Synthesis and Three Research Trajectories for the Coming Decade

We present the findings of a worldwide survey that was administered to business ethic scholars to better understand journal quality within the business ethics academic community. Based upon the data from the survey, we provide a ranking of the top 10 business ethics journals. We then provide a comparison of business ethics journals to other mainstream management journals in terms of journal quality. The results of the study suggest that, within the business ethics academic community, many scholars prefer to publish in the top business ethics academic journals over other mainstream management journals. Furthermore, the results of the study suggest that within the business ethics academic field there are two dominant academic communities: one in Europe and one in North America. Each of these academic communities has its own preferred publication outlets, suggesting a potentially problematic bifurcation of business ethics scholarship.     

Behavioral Finance in Brazil: A Bibliometric Study from 2007 to 2017

This article analyzed 58 Brazilian journals in order to address the gap unexplored in the past 10?years by congresses and periodical journals. In this research, an analysis based on keywords was used, followed by analysis of citations and co-citations that allowed to verify: an average growth of 20% p.a. of publications; the most common focus was replication of Kahneman and Tversky; the most studied group tended to be university students; quality has failed to accompany the increase in publications; public institutions publish more. A gap was perceived in the surveying of financial managers and investors, as well as bias and heuristics as a subject.     

International Business Research: Coauthorship Patterns and Quality

The authors investigate published international business research in four international business journals over a 10‐year period, 1995–2004: (a) patterns of coauthorship across regions, and (b) the relation between coauthorship patterns and the quality of international business (IB) articles. A cross‐region coauthorship enhances the quality of an article, suggesting that international collaboration creates synergy in IB research. The authors do not see any positive correlation between alphabetical ordering of coauthor names in multiauthored articles and article quality—a result that is contrary to some evidence in other disciplines. Finally, international management articles appear to be more frequently cited than articles in other IB research areas.