“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.
The results of an international web-based survey on journal editors in four disciplines were published in Research Evaluation. The article is titled “How innovative are editors?: evidence across journals and disciplines”. Journal editors play a crucial role in the scientific publication system, as they make the final decision on acceptance or rejection of manuscripts. Some critics, however, suspect that the more innovative a manuscript is, the less likely it will be accepted for publication. Especially top-tier journals are accused of rejecting innovative research. As evidence is only anecdotal, this article empirically examines the demand side for innovative research manuscripts. I assess journal editors’ innovativeness, i.e. their general predispositions for innovative research manuscripts. As antecedents to innovativeness, personal and contextual factors are taken into account. I differentiate the concept of innovativeness in research by distinguishing three dimensions: innovativeness in terms of research problems, theoretical approaches, and methodological approaches. Drawing on an international web-based survey, this study is based on responses of 866 journal editors. The article sheds light on editors’ inclination toward accepting different forms of innovative research for publication. Overall, findings indicate that individual characteristics, such as editorial risk-taking or long-term orientation, are more decisive than journal-related characteristics regarding innovativeness. However, editors of older journals turn out to be less open toward new research problems and a u-shaped relationship between a journal’s rating score and editor’s willingness to adopt new theoretical approaches exists. Most surprisingly, editors’ consensus orientation regarding reviewer recommendations is positively associated with methodological innovativeness.
Scientometrics published our article Editorial governance and journal impact: a study of management and business journals. It examines how characteristics of editors, in particular the diversity of editorial teams, are related to journal impact. Our sample comprises 2244 editors who were affiliated with 645 volumes of 138 business and management journals. Results show that multiple editorships and editors’ affiliation to institutions of high reputation are positively related to journal impact, while the length of editors’ terms is negatively associated with impact scores. Surprisingly, we find that diversity of editorial teams in terms of gender and nationality is largely unrelated to journal impact. Our study extends the scarce knowledge on editorial teams and their relevance to journal impact by integrating different strands of literature and studying several demographic factors simultaneously.
The 12th Annual Conference of the German Association for Higher Education Research (GfHf) has announced its call for papers. The theme of the conference is “Digitalization of universities: Research, teaching, and administration”.
The conference will take place at the German Centre for Higher Education Research and Science Studies (DZHW) in Hanover from 30 – 31 April 2017.
The conference also explicitly welcomes contributions from disciplines beyond higher education and scientific research that address research questions in the context of digitalization in higher education and science systems. Exemplary relevant research questions can be found in the full call for papers.
Abstracts (max. 1,000 words) shall be submitted until 31 October 2016.
We’ve recieved great submissions to our call for papers for the 18th Workshop of the Scientific Commission Higher Education Management (Wissenschaftliche Kommission Hochschulmanagement im VHB). See the preliminary program here.
If you want to join the workshop, you’re heavily invited to contact us (please use this form).
The workshop on strategic change and organizational transformation in higher education institutions will take place next week. As for our last workshop, we generated a word cloud of the program. Besides the core themes of strategy and change, students, resources, markets, as well as management and leadership issues are of high relevance in the abstracts. So is research. Rankings are of minor significance.
Here are the abstracts for this weeks workshop “Organization Turn in Higher Education Research”. Well, not exactly the full 15 pages.. It’s a wordcloud to give you an idea of the presentations at a glance. It’s pretty obvious that measurement issues are of high interest in the current discourse on organizing universities.
Organizational change is an issue as old as organization theory itself. However, it has been largely overlooked in research on higher education institutions. We’re currently working on filling that void. Our short paper entitled Governing Change in Universities: Towards a Micro Foundation (Blaschke, Frost, and Hattke) just got accepted for presentation at the first Higher Education Research Conference in Zürich next year. Now the heat is on, the full paper is due in January. Here’s the abstract:
Universities are facing increasing institutional pressure to change due to government efforts of new public management, more and more academic competition over research grants, and rising student enrolments. Research on higher education institutions broadly suggests that it takes governance, leadership, and managment alike to cope with these recent developments (e.g., de Boer et al., 2007; Bradshaw & Fredette, 2008; Carnegie & Tuck, 2010). Governing organizational change in universities, however, is notoriously difficult. As loosely coupled systems of academic, administrative, or political issues and organizational bodies concerned with these issues, universities presumably defy tight couplings, which are required to govern change. Our aim, then, is to remedy this seemingly paradox by developing patterns of temporary tight couplings that facilitate governing organizational change in universities. Based on research on intentional organizational change and university governance, we first derive propositions for effectively governing four stages of intentional change: initiation, understanding, performance, and closure (Ford & Ford, 1995). We substantiate our theoretical reasoning with thirteen years of longitudinal data from the university senate of one of the largest German universities. Following the four stages, our findings indicate unique patterns of tightly coupled strategic issues and organizational bodies. In contrast to the rather broadly defined macro modes of university governance, leadership, and management, our patterns provide a micro foundation for governing organizational change in universities.
- Bradshaw, P., & Fredette, C. (2008). Academic Governance of Universities: Reflections of a Senate Chair on Moving From Theory to Practice and Back. Journal of Management Inquiry, 18 (2), 123–133.
- Carnegie, G. D., & Tuck, J. (2010). Understanding the ABC of University Governance. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 69(4), 431–441.
- de Boer, H., Enders, J., & Schimank, U. (2007). On the way towards New Public Management? The Governance of University Systems in England, the Netherlands, Austria, and Germany. In D. Jansen (Ed.) New Forms of Governance in Research Organizations, (pp. 137–152). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
- Ford, J. D., & Ford, L. W. (1995). The Role of Conversations in Producing Intentional Change in Organizations. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 541–570.