The University of Augsburg in Germany invites us to a cutting-edge conference on Higher Education in Modern Ecosystems: Efficiency, Society and Policies. Keynote Speakers will be Tommaso Agasisti (Politecnico Milano, Italy), Stefano Paleari (University of Bergamo, Italy) and Berthold U. Wigger (Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Germany). Please read the full CfP here.
A little more than three years ago, we’ve started the IndiKon. As the generous funding from the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) for our project terminates this October, some of our colleagues in Hamburg and Friedrichshafen move on to new professional challenges. After obtaining her PhD, Jessica leaves for the university hospital in Kiel. Hendrik continues his research at the Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (WZB). And Isabel works at the Chair of Management, especially Strategy and Leadership at Constance University.
It’s been a wonderful time with you and we wish you all the best in your future endeavors!
“What rules do we play by?” is the question we’ve followed in our bibliometric study which has just been published in the renowned journal Research Policy. Given the growing importance of journal rankings in academic performance management, it is relevant to researchers and managers alike whether there are certain characteristics of publications that are more prevalent the higher a journal is ranked. Our paper examines how tangible and adaptable characteristics of papers vary between different rating categories of journals and what the drivers of publication in journals at the top of rankings are. We build on a bibliometric analysis of more than 85,000 papers published in 168 management and business journals as rated in 18 popular journal rankings. Results refute some often repeated but rarely substantiated criticisms of journal rankings. Contrary to many voices, we find that interdisciplinarity and innovativeness are positively associated with publication in highly ranked journals. In other respects, our results support more critical assumptions, such as a widespread preference for quantitative methods. By providing more evidence on the implicit standards of journal rankings, this study expands on the understanding of what intended or unintended incentives they provide and how to use them responsibly.