Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Collaboration network of knowledge creation and dissemination on Management research: ranking the leading institutions

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to measure the relevance of the institutions in the academic community involved in creating and disseminating knowledge in the field of Management through their position in the collaboration network. This relevance is defined by an original and more comprehensive approach to the analysis of each institution’s importance through degree centrality, as it includes scientific output, while at the same time taking into account the level of collaboration between institutions, as well as the impact of the publications in which each institution is involved. This approach enables us to draw up a ranking of the 103 leading institutions, as well as overcome some of the limitations of prior studies by considering the role each institution plays in the academic community, not only through its scientific output or citations but also through the relationships it forges with other institutions. Our findings confirm the existence of elite groups worldwide that collaborate with other minor institutions, whereas major institutions collaborate less with each other.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Acedo, F. J., Barroso, C., Casanueva, C., & Galán, J. L. (2006). Co-authorship in management and organizational studies: An empirical and network analysis. Journal of Management Studies, 43(5), 957–983.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adams, J. (2013). Collaborations: The fourth age of research. Nature, 497(7451), 557–560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adams, J., & King, K. (2009). Brazil research and collaboration in the new geography of science. Retrieved from USA: http://sciencewatch.com/sites/sw/files/sw-article/media/grr-brazil-Jun09.pdf

  • Adler, N. J., & Harzing, A. W. (2009). When knowledge wins: Transcending the sense and nonsense of academic rankings. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 8(1), 72–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Albert, R., & Barabási, A. L. (2002). Statistical mechanics of complex networks. Reviews of Modern Physics, 74(1), 47–97.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Barabási, A. L., & Albert, R. (1999). Emergence of Scaling in Random Networks. Science, 286(5439), 509–512.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Batagelj, V., & Mrvar, A. (1998). Pajek—Program for large network analysis. Connections, 21(2), 47–57.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Beaver, D. B. (2001). Reflections on scientific collaboration (and its study): Past, present, and future. Scientometrics, 52(3), 365–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braun, T., & Glanzël, W. (2001). Publication and cooperation patterns of the authors of neuroscience journals. Scientometrics, 51(3), 499–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burt, R. (2001). Attachment, decay, and social network. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(6), 619–643.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang, C. L., McAleer, M., & Oxley, L. (2013). Coercive journal self citations, impact factor, journal influence and article influence. Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, 93, 190–197.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Coe, R., & Weinstock, I. (1984). Evaluating the management journals: A second look. Academy of Management Journal, 27(3), 660–666.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conroy, M. E., Dusansky, R., Drucker, D., & Kildegaard, A. (1995). The productivity of economics departaments in the U.S: Publication in the core journals. Journal of Economic Literature, 33(4), 1966–1970.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, A. M. J. (1985). The money value of citations to single-authored and multiple-authored articles. Scientometrics, 8(5–6), 815–820.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, A. M. J. (1986). What is citation worth? Journal of Human Resources, 21(2), 201–215.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Egghe, L. (2006). Theory and practise of the g-index. Scientometrics, 69(1), 131–152.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Extejt, M. M., & Smith, J. E. (1990). The behavioral sciences and management: An evaluation of relevant journals. Journal of Management, 16(3), 539–551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fatt, C. K., Ujum, E. A., & Ratnavelu, K. (2010). The structure of collaboration in the Journal of Finance. Scientometrics, 85(3), 849–860.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franke, R. H., Edlund, T. W., & Oster, F. (1990). The development of strategic management: Journal quality and article impact. Strategic Management Journal, 11(3), 243–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frawley, W. J., Piatratetsky-Shapiro, G., & Matheus, C. J. (1992). Knowledge discovery in databases: An overview. AI Magazine, 13(3), 57–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frenken, K., Hoolzl, W., & de Vor, F. (2005). The citation impact of research collaborations: The case of European biotechnology and applied microbiology (1988–2002). Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 22, 9–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garfield, E. (1972). Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation. Science, 178(November), 471–479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gazda, E., & Quandt, C. O. (2010). Inter-institutional collaboration in research in Brazil: Trends in articles in the innovation management area. RAE Electronica, 9(2), 1–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geary, J., Marriott, L., & Rowlinston, M. (2004). Journal rankings in business and management and the 2001 research assesment exercise in the UK. British Journal of Management, 15(2), 95–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Georghiou, L. (1998). Global cooperation in research. Research Policy, 27, 611–626.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W., & Thijs, B. (2004). Does co-authorship inflate the share of self-citations? Scientometrics, 61(3), 395–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gomez-Mejía, L. R., & Balkin, D. B. (1992). Determinants of faculty pay: An agency theory perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 35(5), 921–955.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammersmesh, D. S., Jonhson, G. E., & Weisbrod, B. A. (1982). Scholarship, citations and salaries. Southern Economics Journal, 49(2), 472–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hartley, J. (2012). To cite or not to cite: Author self-citations and the impact factor. Scientometrics, 92(2), 313–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heck, J., & Cooley, P. (1988). Most frequent contributors to the finance literature. Financial Management, 17(3), 100–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Paper presented at the Proc Natl Acad Sci USA.

  • Huang, M. H., & Lin, W. Y. C. (2012). The influence of journal self-citations on journal impact factor and immediacy index. Online Information Review, 36(5), 639–654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, S., Yang, B., Yan, S., & Rousseau, R. (2013). Institution name disambiguation for research assessment. Scientometrics, 99(3), 823–838.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Judge, W., Weber, T., & Muller-Kahle, M. I. (2012). What are the correlates of interdisciplinary research impact? The case of corporate governance research. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11(1), 82–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karami, A., Rowley, J., & Analoui, F. (2006). Research and knowledge building in management studies: An analysis of methodologial preferences. International Journal of Management, 23(1), 43–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirkpatrick, S. A., & Locke, E. A. (1992). The development of measures of faculty scholarship. Group & Organization Studies, 17(1), 5–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laband, D. N. (1985). An evaluation of 50 “Ranked” economics departments: By quantity and quality of faculty publications and graduate student placement and research success. Southern Economic Journal, 52(1), 216–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, X., Bollen, J., Nelsonb, M. L., & Van de Sompel, H. (2005). Co-authorship networks in the digital library research community. Information Processing and Management, 41, 1462–1480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lotka, A. J. (1926). The frecuency distribution of scientific productivity. Journal of the Academy of Sciences, 16, 317–323.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacMillan, I. C., & Stern, I. (1987). Delineating a forum for business policy scholars. Strategic Management Journal, 8(4), 183–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R. (1968). The Mathew effect in science. Science, 159(3810), 56–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R. (1988). The Mathew effect in science II. Cumulative advantage and the symbolism of intellectual property. ISIS, 79, 606–623.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mingers, J., Evangelia, A. E., & Lipitakis, C. G. (2010). Counting the citations: A comparison of Web of Science and Google Scholar in the field of business and management. Scientometrics, 85, 613–625.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mingers, J., & Fang, X. (2010). The drivers of citations in management science journals. European Journal of Operational Research, 206, 422–430.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Mingers, J., & Harzing, A.-W. (2006). Ranking journal in business and management: A statistical analysis of the Harzing dataset. European Journal of Information Systems, 16(4), 303–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrison, A. J., & Inkpen, A. C. (1991). An analysis of significant contributions to the international business literature. Journal of International Business Studies, 22(1), 143–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Bachrach, D. G., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2005). The influence of management journals in the 1980s and 1990s. Strategic Management Journal, 26(5), 473–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, N. P., & Bachrach, D. G. (2008). Scholarly influence in the field of management: A bibliometric analysis of the determinants of university and author impact in the management literature in the past quarter century. Journal of Management, 34(4), 641–720.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Price, D. S. (1963). Little science, big science. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Racherla, P., & Hu, C. (2010). A social network perspective of tourism research collaborations. Annals of Tourism Research, 37(4), 1012–1034.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ronda-Pupo, G. A., & Guerras-Martín, L. A. (2012). Dynamics of the evolution of the strategy concept 1962–2008: A co-word analysis. Strategic Management Journal, 33(2), 162–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ronda-Pupo, G. A., & Guerras-Martín, L. A. (2010). Dynamics of the scientific community network within the strategic management field through the strategic management journal 1980–2009: The role of cooperation. Scientometrics, 85(3), 821–848.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S. A. (1997). Who is publishing the entrepreneurship research? Journal of Management, 23(1), 83–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stahl, M. J., Leap, T. L., & Wei, Z. Z. (1988). Publication in leading management journals as a measure of institutional research productivity. Academy of Management Journal, 31(3), 707–720.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tahai, A., & Meyer, M. J. (1999). A revealed preference study of management journals’ direct influences. Strategic Management Journal, 20(3), 279–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trieschmann, J. S., Dennis, A. R., Northcraft, G. B., & Niemi, A. W. (2000). Serving multiple constituencies in the business school: MBA program vs research performance. Academy of Management Journal, 43(6), 1130–1141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsai, W. (2001). Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational networks: Effects on network position and absortive capacity on business unit innovation and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44(5), 996–1004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsai, W., & Wu, C.-H. (2010). Knowledge combination: A cocitation analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 53(3), 441–450.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • van Raan, A. F. J. (2008a). Bibliometric statistical properties of the 100 largest European research universities: Prevalent scaling rules in the science system. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(3), 461–475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Raan, A. F. J. (2008b). Scaling rules in the science system: Influence of field-specific citation characteristics on the impact of research groups. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(4), 565–576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Raan, A. F. J. (2008c). Self-citation as an impact-reinforcing mechanism in the science system. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(10), 1631–1643.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Raan, A. F. J. (2014). Fatal attraction: Conceptual and methodological problems in the ranking of universities by bibliometric methods. Scientometrics, 62(1), 133–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, C. S., & Leydesdorff, L. (2005). Network structure, self-organization, and the growth of international collaboration in science. Research Policy, 34(10), 1608–1618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (2009). Social network analysis. Methods and applications. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank three anonymous reviewers for their intuitive and insightful comments.

Financial support

This paper has been supported by Projects ECO2012-36775 and ECO2015-67434-R of Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (Spain) and Project 40101001 of the Universidad Católica del Norte (Chile).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Departamento de Administración, Universidad Católica del Norte, Antofagasta, Chile

    Guillermo Armando Ronda-Pupo

  2. Universidad de Holguín, Holguín, Cuba

    Guillermo Armando Ronda-Pupo

  3. Facultad de Ciencias Jurídicas y Sociales, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, Paseo de los Artilleros, s/n, 28032, Madrid, Spain

    Luis Ángel Guerras-Martín

Authors
  1. Guillermo Armando Ronda-Pupo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Luis Ángel Guerras-Martín
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Luis Ángel Guerras-Martín.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ronda-Pupo, G.A., Guerras-Martín, L.Á. Collaboration network of knowledge creation and dissemination on Management research: ranking the leading institutions. Scientometrics 107, 917–939 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1924-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1924-3

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation