Misleading Rankings of Research in Business

Abstract. The attempts by Schulze and colleagues and Ritzberger to develop a joint ranking of journals for economics and business research are critically evaluated. Their lists suggest that the quality of top business journals is substantially lower than that of many economics journals. If, however, the authors of these lists do not want to claim a general superiority of one discipline (economics) over another one (business), they should give a clear indication that these lists are only applicable for economists. This warning appears to be necessary because Fabel and colleagues derive a ranking of universities and departments with respect to research productivity in business from the business research discriminating list RbR_IMP by Schulze and colleagues. While Diamantopoulos and Wagner already show a lack of face validity of these results, this article explains that the reason for this lies not only in the downgrading and also biased weighting of the business journals across subfields, but even more importantly, in a remarkable incompleteness of the database.     

Research Productivity in Business Economics: A Reply

Abstract. We reply to a comment by Diamantopoulos and Wagner questioning the face validity of our research productivity ranking for the field 'Marketing and Sales'.     

Misleading Inferences from Panel Unit Root Tests: a Reply*

Ford et al. (this issue) point out that the SURADF panel unit root test may be sensitive to panel composition. This reply shows that they overstate the case since they focus on a short time series of 44 observations. Type II errors are much more likely in this environment so that inconsistent conclusions may arise for individual panel members across differently composed panels. We demonstrate that this problem becomes much less likely when the number of time‐series observations increases.     

The Handelsblatt Rankings 2.0: Research Rankings for the Economics Profession in Austria,Germany, and Switzerland

The distinguishing feature of all Handelsblatt rankings published over the last ten years is that they could draw on premium quality bibliometric data. We present here the new method used by KOF and DICE to compile the 2017 Handelsblatt Rankings of university departments and individual economists. As in previous years, the rankings are based on quality weighted journal publications. We show that the benchmark results are robust to various changes in the employed method, in particular to changes in the convexity of the journal quality weighting scheme. In conclusion, we show how the collected data can be used to provide customized evaluations of entire academic careers of individual economists.     

家族企业研究:一个文献计量分析

本文运用文献计量分析方法,以ISI Web of Science与中国知网(CNKI)系统中手工整理获得的1 136篇SSCI国外文献以及1 193篇中国核心期刊文献为研究对象,首次对国外与国内家族企业研究的趋势和特征进行了较为系统的梳理和分析。进一步地,我们深入比较了国内外家族企业研究在研究氛围(发展趋势、学术期刊与外部支持)和研究实践(研究视角、方法、主题、学者与机构)方面的差异,并相应提出了完善我国家族企业研究的一些政策建议。我们认为,中国的家族企业研究目前还远远滞后于我国家族企业的发展,基于中国制度与现实背景的家族企业研究在未来亟待进一步深入。     

完善我国误导行为规制法的建议

建立和完善我国对误导行为的规制法律,尤其是在我国加入WTO以后,一则可以促进生产者、经营者合法生产经营,形成良好的市场秩序;二则有利于保护广大消费者的利益。文章通过对国外先进的立法经验的论述,以期对我国法律的完善能有所借鉴。     

数字化商业模式研究回顾与展望

在数字经济时代,利用数字技术特性设计和实现能够充分发挥数字化潜能、具有数字化特征的商业模式是企业最重要的能力之一,有利于企业在高度不确定性数字环境中发展壮大。在此背景下,数字化商业模式实践的大量涌现引发了愈来愈多的理论关注,但作为新兴研究议题,数字化商业模式研究尚存在概念不清、研究分散等问题。鉴于此,首先对数字化商业模式进行溯源,解析数字化商业模式概念和类型;其次,对数字化商业模式内在机制、前因后果等文献进行细致梳理,构建数字化商业模式理论框架;最后,基于上述文献梳理,展望数字化商业模式未来研究方向。研究结论可为推进数字化商业模式研究进展、启发数字化商业模式创新实践提供参考。     

Economic Scholarship at Elite Liberal Arts Colleges: A Citation Analysis with Rankings

Although prominent economists at elite universities produce the most influential scholarship, economists at the nation's leading liberal arts colleges make significant contributions. The author measures the influence of 439 economists employed at the 50 top liberal arts colleges and ranks departments and individuals on the basis of citations. The author discovered a hierarchy with a small number of departments whose faculty produce cited scholarship, and a small number of influential economists employed at liberal arts colleges. The determinants of citations are estimated. Greater experience and more publications but not lower teaching loads are correlated with more citations.     

Business Processes and Networks in University Incubators: A Review and Research Agendas

While the technology aspects of university incubators in university science parks (USPs) receive considerable attention and development, as the primary force in the creation of incubator businesses, the business and social inputs (entrepreneurial networks) are less well defined. Anchoring to the resource-based view of the firm (RBV), it is argued that a business process perspective is useful to conceptualize the deployment of key resources in USPs—namely business support and social support (entrepreneurial networks). This paper reviews existing literature in relation to university incubator business processes and networks. In particular, the paper seeks to link the process and network concepts to define research agendas.     

Business Processes and Networks in University Incubators: A Review and Research Agendas

While the technology aspects of university incubators in university science parks (USPs) receive considerable attention and development, as the primary force in the creation of incubator businesses, the business and social inputs (entrepreneurial networks) are less well defined. Anchoring to the resource-based view of the firm (RBV), it is argued that a business process perspective is useful to conceptualize the deployment of key resources in USPs—namely business support and social support (entrepreneurial networks). This paper reviews existing literature in relation to university incubator business processes and networks. In particular, the paper seeks to link the process and network concepts to define research agendas.     

澳门中小微型企业营商环境研究

澳门中小微企业面临着严峻营商环境主要体现在市场环境、融资环境、人才环境和政策环境四个方面。博彩业的过度膨胀严重挤压了澳门中小微企业的市场空间,也破坏了中小微企业健康成长的社会生态环境。澳门中小微企业资金来源单一,外部融资渠道狭窄且不通畅。人力资源短缺反映出中小微企业人力资源环境的深度恶化,也掩盖着中小微企业目前深陷的危机。澳门特区政府已经确立辅助中小微企业发展的基本政策导向,并实施了一系列的倾斜性政策支持,但未形成完整的政策体系,政策效果不彰显,政策环境仍有待根本性的改善。     

Professorial Rankings of Australian Accounting Departments

This article presents the results of a survey of professors in accounting departments in Australia. Professors ranked Australian accounting departments on a variety of research, teaching and staffing attributes, on contributions to the accounting profession and provided an overall ranking of the departments. Overall rankings placed the University of Queensland and the University of New South Wales a close first and second, followed by the University of Sydney, the University of Melbourne, the University of Western Australia, and Monash University. Analysis of the separate sub-dimensions of performance shows that it is variations in respondents' perceptions of research-related performance of departments which accounts for variation in the overall ranking. We also asked the professors for their views on several issues facing accounting educators and those who recruit accounting graduates. Most believed that there should be more breadth in undergraduate accounting courses than is currently the case. However, most felt that recruiters would prefer degree structures to remain as they are. There was overwhelming consensus that it was reasonable to expect ethics to be taught in accounting programs; that the Australian Securities Commission should not replace corporate management in the appointment of auditors; and that accounting standards should not be written to force very conservative depictions of profitability and financial position. There was disparity of opinions on whether auditors ought to be expected to foreshadow financial distress; whether the audit role should be expanded to explicitly embrace fraud detection; and whether financial reports should be understandable to the lay person.