How do business schools compete in Latin America? Stability and best predictors of success for the AmericaEconomia MBA Ranking

ABSTRACT

The main aim of this paper is to present a longitudinal analysis of the AmericaEconomia MBA Ranking for the period 2005–2014. AmericaEconomia was the first international ranking specifically devoted to Latin American business schools, and with data gathered from this publication, we build a panel to study its stability and the main determinants of a school‘s position in such ranking. We examine the reliability of the ranking, that is whether changes in the relative positions are not just due to white noise, and compare its stability with those of the US and other global rankings. We also empirically determine which are the key quality variables this ranking is promoting for Latin America Business Schools and the evolution of these business schools during the period under study. Unlike previous literature that usually considers dynamic Tobit models for ranking analysis, we put forwards an alternative methodology based on a system GMM estimator with first-differenced instruments. We argue that dynamic Tobit models are appropriate only if you have truncated data about the ranking variable but full data on Business Schools variables.     

Assessing editorial preferences towards Industrial Organization articles

In light of widespread specialization of research and teaching, it seems appropriate to supplement the existing general rankings of economics journals with subdiscipline-specific rankings. That is the primary objective of this paper. The availability of subdiscipline-specific rankings also permits both (i) alternative journal ranking methods for the general discipline that account for the breadth of a journal's impact across specialized fields, and (ii) estimation of the relative weights implicitly associated with each field in traditional disciplinary journal rankings. The results are robust to the exclusion of self-citations.     

RANKING ECONOMICS DEPARTMENTS IN TERMS OF RESIDUAL PRODUCTIVITY: NEW ZEALAND ECONOMICS DEPARTMENTS, 2000–2006*

This paper utilises a human‐capital approach for ranking the research productivity of academic departments. Our approach provides rankings in terms of residual research output after controlling for the key characteristics of each department's academic staff. More specifically, we estimate residual research output rankings for all of New Zealand's economics departments based on their publication performance over the 2000 to 2006 period. We do so after taking into account the following characteristics of each department's academic staff: gender, experience, seniority, academic credentials and academic rank. The paper demonstrates that the rankings generated by the residual research approach and those generated by traditional approaches to research rankings may be significantly different for some departments. These differences are important in determining the likely efficiency impact of research assessment exercises.     

A Ranking of Journals in Economics and Related Fields

Abstract. This paper presents an update of the ranking of economics journals by the invariant method, as introduced by Palacio‐Huerta and Volij, with a broader sample of journals. By comparison with the two other most prominent rankings, it also proposes a list of ‘target journals’, ranked according to their quality, as a standard for the field of economics.     

An updated ranking of academic journals in economics

Abstract We conduct an update of the ranking of economic journals by Kalaitzidakis, Mamuneas, and Stengos (2003) . However, our present study differs methodologically from that earlier study in an important dimension. We use a rolling window of years between 2003 and 2008, for each year counting the number of citations of articles published in the previous 10 years. This allows us to obtain a smoother longer view of the evolution of rankings in the period under consideration and avoid the inherent randomness that may exist at any particular year, because of new entrants.     

Socioeconomic status or noise? Tradeoffs in the generation of school quality information

This paper calculates a time series of simple, standard measures of schools' relative performance. These are drawn from a 1997–2004 panel of Chilean schools, using individual-level information on test scores and student characteristics for each year. The results suggest there is a stark tradeoff in the extent to which rankings generated using these measures: i) can be shown to be very similar to rankings based purely on students' socioeconomic status, and ii) are very volatile from year to year. At least in Chile, therefore, producing a meaningful ranking of schools that may inform parents and policymakers may be harder than is commonly assumed.     

An ordinal ranking of economic institutions

We provide the first ranking of countries’ economic institutions using an ordinal methodology. Using the five areas of the Fraser Institute’s Economic Freedom of the World (EFW) index, we find that final rankings of a country’s institutions are sensitive to the importance-ordering of Area 1 (Size of Government). When Areas 2–5 are in the most important position, we find that there is no significant difference between the EFW rankings and our rankings. When Area 1 is placed in the most important position, however, a number of European countries with large welfare states but good governance do poorly.     

Ranking Journals Following a Matching Model Approach: An Application to Public Economics Journals

Journal rankings based on citation indexes are widely used in the economics field. This paper proposes an alternative way to rank journals based on the publishing behavior of top‐ranked authors. I justify this approach by depicting the scientific publishing market as following a matching process. Compared with the citation approach, the methodology that we propose has advantages in terms of time effort to produce national and subdiscipline rankings. It also corrects the impact underestimation that the citation approach tends to produce in new and re‐founded journals. This paper proposes an empirical application to the case of public economics journals.     

Maximum likelihood ranking in racing sports

Most ranking methods used in racing sports are based on the number of points earned in a series of races. In some applications, this method will fail to provide an accurate ranking of competitors based on ability. In particular, rankings will not accurately reflect ability when competitors enter different numbers of races or when the level of competition varies by race. Additionally, point-based rankings are dependent on a subjective points scale. Three alternative models of performance and corresponding maximum likelihood estimation methods are presented that can be used to rank competitors and overcome the shortcomings of point-based rankings. Two methods are based on paired-comparisons among competitors and can be estimated using common binary-choice regression methods; the other is based on the rank-ordered logit model. These methods are valuable tools for stakeholders who need to evaluate the relative abilities of competitors to efficiently allocate resources. Application is demonstrated using results from the 2012 Formula One season, and the results of the maximum likelihood methods are compared to each other and the official point-based rankings.     

What are the top five journals in economics? A new meta-ranking

We construct a meta-ranking of 277 economics journals based on 22 different rankings. The ranking incorporates bibliometric indicators from four different databases (Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, and RePEc). We account for the different scaling of the bibliometric indicators by standardizing each ranking score. We run a principal component analysis to assign weights to each ranking. In our meta-ranking, the top five journals are given by: Quarterly Journal of Economics, Journal of Financial Economics, Journal of Economic Literature (JEL), Journal of Finance, and Econometrica. Additionally, leaving out the JEL as a survey journal and the finance journals in our top 10 list we confirm the perceived top five journals in the economics profession.     

Which Single Currency for Western Europe?

The Maastricht Treaty calls for a single European money in the third and final stage of European monetary integration. The purpose of this paper is to infer the preferred currency from the point of view of economic agents in each EMS country by ranking the realized distributions of returns from holding foreign currencies. These rankings are obtained using the notion of generalized stochastic dominance. The preferred currency varies with time and the portfolio considered. In all cases, the ECU is not supported as a likely dominant money.     

The intellectual influence of economic journals: quality versus quantity

The evaluation of scientific output has a key role in the allocation of research funds and academic positions. Decisions are often based on quality indicators for academic journals, and over the years, a handful of scoring methods have been proposed for this purpose. Discussing the most prominent methods (de facto standards) we show that they do not distinguish quality from quantity at article level. The systematic bias we find is analytically tractable and implies that the methods are manipulable. We introduce modified methods that correct for this bias, and use them to provide rankings of economic journals. Our methodology is transparent; our results are replicable.     

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.     

Product competitiveness evaluation— quantitative analysis for development strategy

Product competitiveness is the most important concern for industry and is decided by the interaction of engineering activity with the market environment. This paper describes the characteristics of technological product competitiveness in the market, by use of an ordinal scaling method based on rivalry comparison. The analysis was made for actual data extracted from data on consumer electrical products evaluated over a long period of time. Four methods were examined to quantify ordinal data for competitive evaluation elements. The maximum correlation ratio method was proved to be most reasonable for extracting detailed characteristics regarding product competitiveness in the market. It was also confirmed how the highest and lowest rankings in some element influence total competitiveness. The most competitive product in the electrical consumer market gets the highest ranking in performance evaluation, first or second ranking in timing, and above average ranking in cost, with no major setback in reliability.     

Publishing performance in economics: Spanish rankings (1990–1999)

Abstract. This paper contributes to the growing literature that analyses the Spanish publishing performance in Economics throughout the 1990s. Several bibliometric indicators are used in order to provide Spanish rankings (of both institutions and individual authors) based on Econlit journals. Further, lists of the ten most influential authors and articles over that period, in terms of citations, are reported. We are grateful to many colleagues who made very useful remarks to preliminary versions of this paper, as well as to two anonymous referees. We are particularly indebted to Xavier Sala-i-Martín, without whose invaluable help this work would not have been possible. All errors or omissions are of our exclusive responsibility.     

Evaluating The Research Output Of Australian Universities' Economics Departments

This paper presents measures of the research output of Australian economics departments. Our study covers the 640 academic staff at rank Lecturer and above in the 27 Australian universities with economics departments containing eight or more staff in April 2002. We construct publication measures based on journal articles, which can be compared with weighted publication measures, and citation measures, which can be compared with the publication measures. Our aim is to identify the robustness of rankings to the choice of method, as well as to highlight differences in focus of departments' research output. A striking feature of our measures is that the majority of economists in Australian university departments have done no research that has been published in a fairly long list of refereed journals over the last dozen years. They may publish in other outlets, but in any event their work is rarely cited. Thus, average research output is low because many academic economists in Australia do not view research as part of their job or, at least, suffer no penalty from failing to produce substantive evidence of research activity.     

Economics research in Canada: a long-run assessment of journal publications

Abstract.  We examine the publications of authors affiliated with an economics research institution in Canada in (1) the Top-10 journals in economics according to journals' impact factors, and (2) the Canadian Journal of Economics . We consider all publications in the even years from 1980 to 2000. Canadian economists contributed about 5% of publications in the Top-10 journals and about 55% of publications in the Canadian Journal of Economics over this period. We identify the most active research centres and identify trends in their relative outputs over time. Those research centres successful in publishing in the Top-10 journals are found to also dominate the Canadian Journal of Economics . Additionally, we check the robustness of our findings with respect to journal selection, and we present data on authors' PhD origin, thereby indicating output and its concentration in graduate education.     

Standing on the shoulder of giants: the aspect of free-riding in RePEc rankings

Research papers in economics (RePEc) rankings have become a well-established source of information about actual and perceived academic performance of institutions, academic fields and their authors. One essential ingredient is the impact factors calculated in RePEc which differ from the standard ones. RePEc reports the ratio of the cumulative citations of all articles of a journal and the number of listed items. The continuously updated RePEc impact factors account for the whole journal and citation history. This approach gives rise to a potential free-riding of authors who profit from journal ranking established in the past. In this article, we demonstrate how the rankings of economists change if one calculates yearly impact factors. The distribution of gains and losses is most pronounced among middle-field ranked authors while the top group shows relative persistence.     

Research Productivity in Business Economics: The Case of Marketing

Abstract. The German Economic Review ( GER ) recently published a paper by Fabel, Hein and Hofmeister about research productivity in Austrian, German and Swiss universities. The authors derive the rankings of institutions and subject areas by analyzing an impressive and comprehensive dataset, which captures the research output of business administration departments. While these rankings might hold at an aggregate level, they lack face validity at a subject-specific level. This lack of validity is demonstrated in the case of marketing by analyzing the research output of the top-ranked institutions in top-ranked journals. A number of proposals to overcome these kinds of problems are provided.