Counting footnotes: Citability in management studies

Scandinavian Journal of Management

Volumn 26, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 189-203

  Macdonald, Stuart ^a   Kam, Jacqueline ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Citation; Citation analysis; Management Studies

Indexed keywords

EID: 77953807248     PISSN: 09565221     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.scaman.2010.01.003     Document Type: Article

References (129)

1. Armstrong J. Unintelligible management research and academic prestige. Interfaces 1980, 10(2):80-86.
2. Armstrong J. Peer review of scientific papers. Journal of Biological Response Modifiers 1984, 3(1):10-14.
3. Armstrong J. Peer review for journals: Evidence on quality control, fairness, and innovation. Science and Engineering Ethics 1997, 3:63-84.
4. Ashkanasy N. Playing the citations game. Journal of Organizational Behavior 2007, 28:643-645.
5. Barker K. The UK research assessment exercise: The evolution of a national research evaluation system. Research Evaluation 2007, 16(1):3-12.
6. Begley S. Science journals artfully try to boost their rankings. Wall Street Journal 2006, pp. B1.
7. Bennis W., O'Toole J. How business schools lost their way. Harvard Business Review May 2005, 96-104.
8. Beyer J., Chanove R., Fox W. The review process and the fates of manuscripts submitted to AMJ. Academy of Management Journal 1995, 38(5):1219-1260.
9. Borokhovich K., Bricker R., Simkins B. Financial management's success as an academic journal. Financial Management 1999, 28(3):76-82.
10. Broadus R. An investigation of the validity of bibliographic citations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 1983, 34:132-135.
11. Brodman E. Choosing physiology journals. Bulletin of the Medical Libraries Association 1944, 32:479-483.
12. Brooks T. Private acts and public objects: An investigation of citer motivations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 1985, 36(4):223-229.
13. Butler, L. (2006). RQF pilot study project-History and political science. Methodology for citation analysis, Accessed March 2009. http://www.chass.org.au/papers/pdf/PAP20061102LB.pdf.
14. Callaham M., Wears R., Weber E. Journal prestige, publication bias, and other characteristics associated with citation of published studies in peer-reviewed journals. Journal of the American Medical Association 2002, 287(21):2847-2850.
15. Cameron B. Trends in the usage of ISI bibliometric data: Uses, abuses, and implications. Libraries and the Academy 2005, 5(1):105-125.
16. Case D., Higgins G. How can we investigate citation behavior? A study of reasons for citing literature in communication. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 2000, 51(7):635-645.
17. Ceci S., Peters D. Peer review. A study of reliability. Change: The Magazine of Higher Education 1982, 14(6):44-48.
18. Chew M., Villanueva E., Van Der Weyden M. Life and times of the impact factor: Retrospective analysis of trends for seven medical journals (1994-2005) and their editors' views. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 2007, 100:142-150.
19. Cookson R. Why visibility matters-Exploding the Broadcast Fallacy. Learned Publishing 2009, 22(2):146-152.
20. Cookson R., Cross J. Optimising citations to your journal, Part 1. Editors' Bulletin 2006, 2(3):66-69.
21. Corbyn Z. Philosophers in ranking protest. Times Higher Education August 2008, 28. p. 15.
22. Corbyn Z. Conflict of interest warning over evidence sale. Times Higher Education January 2009, 22:8.
23. Cronin B., Meho L. The shifting balance of intellectual trade in information studies. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2008, 59(4):551-564.
24. Cross J. Impact factors-The basics. The E-Resources Management Handbook 2009, UK Serials Group, Available at http://serials.uksg.org/app/home/contribution.asp? G. Stone (Ed.).
25. Daft R., Lewin A. Rigor and relevance in organization studies: Idea migration and academic journal evolution. Organization Science 2008, 19(1):177-183.
26. Dennis W. Bibliographies of eminent scientists. Scientific Monthly 1954, 79:180-183.
27. DiMaggio P., Powell W. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review 1983, 48:147-160.
28. Dunne S., Harney S., Parker M. The responsibilities of management intellectuals: A survey. Organization 2008, 15(2):271-282.
29. Editors The impact factor game. PLoS Medicine 2006, 3:6.
30. Elton L. The UK research assessment exercise: Unintended consequences. Higher Education Quarterly 2000, 54(3):274-283.
31. Evans J. Electronic publishing and the narrowing of science and scholarship. Science 2008, 321(5887):395-399.
32. Evans J., Nadjari M., Burchell S. Quotational and reference accuracy in surgical journals. JAMA 1990, 263(10):1353-1354.
33. Fearn H. REF may distort journal choices. Times Higher Education May 2009, 7.
34. Figa-Talamanca A. Strengths and weaknesses of citation indices and impact factors. Quality assessment in higher education 2007, 83-88. Portland Press, London. A. Cavalli (Ed.).
35. Frey B. Publishing as prostitution? Choosing between one's own ideas and academic success. Public Choice 2003, 116:205-223.
36. Gans J., Shepherd G. How are the mighty fallen: Rejected classic articles by leading economists. Journal of Economic Perspectives 1994, 8(1):165-179.
37. Garfield E. Citation frequency and citation impact; and the role they play in journal selection for current contents and other ISI services. Current Contents February 1973, 6:5-6.
38. Garfield E. Selecting the all-time citation classics. Here are the fifty most cited papers for 1961-1972. Current Contents January 1974, 2:6-9.
39. Garfield E. The ethics of scientific publication. Current Contents 1978, 40:5-12.
40. Garfield E. Citation behavior-An aid or a hindrance to information retrieval?. Essays of an Information Scientist: Creativity, Delayed Recognition, and Other Essays 1989, 12:123-128.
41. Garfield E. Citation indexes for retrieval and research evaluation. Paper presented at a conference on theory and practice of research assessment 1996.
42. Garfield E. How can impact factors be improved?. British Medical Journal 1996, 313:411-413.
43. Garfield E. The significant scientific literature appears in a small core of journals. Scientist September 1996, 10(17):13.
44. Garfield E. Random thoughts on citationology. Its theory and practice. Scientometrics 1998, 43(1):69-76.
45. Garfield E. The intended consequences of Robert K. Merton. Scientometrics 2004, 60(1):51-61.
46. Garfield E. The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. Journal of the American Medical Association 2006, 295(1):90-93.
47. Gosling C., Cameron M., Gibbons P. Referencing and quotation accuracy in four manual therapy journals. Manual Therapy 2004, 9:36-40.
48. Greenwood R., Meyer R. Influencing ideas. A celebration of DiMaggio and Powell (1983). Journal of Management Inquiry 2008, 17(4):258-264.
49. Griffith G., Cavusgil S., Xu S. Emerging themes in international business research. Journal of International Business Studies 2008, 39:1220-1235.
50. Gross P., Gross E. College libraries and chemical education. Science 1927, 66(1713):385-389.
51. Ha T., Tan S., Soo K. The journal impact factor: Too much of an impact?. Annals of the Academy of Medicine 2006, 35(12):911-916.
52. Harnad S. Open access scientometrics and the UK research assessment exercise. Paper to 11th annual meeting of the international society for scientometrics and informetrics 2007, Available at http://issi2007.cindoc.csic.es Accessed October 2008.
53. Harzing, A.-W. (2007). Reflections on Google Scholar. Accessed February 2007. http://www.harzing.com/pop_gs.htm.
54. Harzing, A.-W. (2008). On becoming a high impact journal in international business and management. European Journal of International Management, 2(2)11, 5-18. Higher Education Quarterly, 54(3), 274-83.
55. Holt S. Fishing for compliments. Nature November 1998, 396:12.
56. Hopkins K. Most highly cited. Scientist 2005, 19:20.
57. Horrobin D. Something rotten at the core of science?. Trends in Pharmacological Sciences 2001, 22(2):51-52.
58. Houghton, J. et al. (2009). Economic implications of alternative scholarly models: Exploring the costs and benefits. Report to the Joint Information System Committee, Victoria University/Loughborough University.
59. Hurt R., Schuchman R. The economic rationale of copyright. American Economic Review 1966, 56(1/2):421-432.
60. Ilgen D. Citations to management articles: Cautions for the science about advice for the scientist. Academy of Management Journal 2007, 50(3):507-509.
61. Ioannidis J. Concentration of the most-cited papers in the scientific literature: Analysis of journal ecosystems. PLoS ONE 2006, 1:1.
62. Jones M., Brinn T., Pendlebury M. Journal evaluation methodologies: A balanced response. Omega 1996, 24(5):607-612.
63. Judge T., Cable D., Colbert A., Rynes S. What causes a management article to be cited-Article, author or journal?. Academy of Management Journal 2007, 50(3):491-506.
64. Kaplan N. The norms of citation behavior: Prolegomena to the footnote. American Documentation 1965, 16(3):179-184.
65. Klein D., Chiang E. The social science citation index: A black box-With an ideological bias?. Econ Journal Watch 2004, 1(1):134-165.
66. Klimoski R. Begin the journey with the end in mind. Organizational Research Methods 2009, 12(2):239-252.
67. Knothe G. Comparative citation analysis of duplicate or highly related publications. Journal of the American Society for Information Society and Technology 2006, 57(13):1830-1839.
68. Laband D., Piette M. Favoritism versus search for good papers: Empirical evidence regarding the behavior of journal editors. Journal of Political Economy 1994, 102(1):194-203.
69. Lariviere V., Archambault E., Gingras Y. The decline in the concentration of citations, 1900-2007. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2008, 60(4):858-862.
70. Lawrence S. Online or invisible?. Nature 2001, 411(6837):521.
71. Leff D. Making an impact: The rise of the impact factor as a measure of journal quality. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 2005, 105(1):29-30.
72. Lockett A., McWilliams A. The balance of trade between disciplines: Do we effectively manage knowledge?. Journal of Management Inquiry 2005, 14:139-150.
73. Lok C., Chan M., Martinson I. Risk factor for citation errors in peer-reviewed nursing journals. Journal of Advanced Nursing 2001, 34(2):223-229.
74. Lowry O., Rosebrough N., Farr A., Randall R. Protein measurement with the folin phenol reagent. Journal of Biological Chemistry 1951, 193:265-275.
75. Lowry, O. (1969). Letter to Derek de Solla Price, 11 November, Accessed November 2008. http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/classics1977/A1977DM02300001.pdf.
76. Lundberg G. The 'omnipotent' science citation index impact factor. Medical Journal of Australia 2003, 178:253-254.
77. Macdonald S., Kam J. Ring a ring o' roses: Quality journals and gamesmanship in management studies. Journal of Management Studies 2007, 44(4):640-655.
78. Macdonald S., Kam J. Aardvark et al. ...: Quality journals and gamesmanship in management studies. Journal of Information Science 2007, 33(6):702-717.
79. Macdonald S., Kam J. Quality journals and gamesmanship in management studies. Management Research News 2008, 31(9):595-606.
80. Mangematin V., Baden-Fuller C. Global contests in the production of business knowledge: Regional centres and individual business schools. Long Range Planning 2008, 41:117-139.
81. Marsh H., Jayasinghe U., Bond N. Improving the peer-review process for grant applications. American Psychologist 2008, 63(3):160-168.
82. Merilainen S., Tienari J., Thomas R., Davies A. Hegemonic academic practices: Experiences of publishing from the periphery. Organization 2008, 15(4):584-597.
83. Merton R. The Matthew effect in science. Science 1968, 159(3810):56-63.
84. Miller C. Peer review in the organizational and management sciences: Prevalence and effects of reviewer hostility, bias, and dissensus. Academy of Management Journal 2006, 49(3):425-431.
85. Mingers J., Harzing A.-W. Ranking journals in business and management: A statistical analysis of the Harzing dataset, working paper 85 2007, Kent Business School, University of Kent, Canterbury.
86. Mitra A. The bibliographic reference: A review of its role. Annals of Library Science and Documentation 1970, 17(3/4):117-123.
87. Mittal V., Feick L., Murshed F. Publish and prosper: The financial impact of publishing by Marketing faculty. Marketing Science 2008, 27(3):430-442.
88. Monastersky R. The number that's devouring science. Chronicle of Higher Education 2005, 52(8):A12.
89. Moravcsik M. Measures of scientific growth. Research Policy 1973, 2:266-275.
90. Moravcsik M., Murugesan P. Some results on the function and quality of citations. Social Studies of Science 1975, 5:86-92.
91. Morrison A., Inkpen A. An analysis of significant contributions to the international business literature. Journal of International Business Studies 1991, 22(1):143-153.
92. Norris M., Oppenheim C. Comparing alternatives to the Web of Science for coverage of the social sciences' literature. Journal of Informetrics 2006, 1:161-169.
93. Odlyzko A. The rapid evolution of scholarly communication. Learned Publishing 2002, 15(1):7-19.
94. Paul R. Measuring research quality: The United Kingdom Government's research assessment exercise. European Journal of Information Systems 2008, 17:324-329.
95. Perkel J. The future of citation analysis. Scientist 2005, 19:20.
96. Perlman M. On the editing of American economics journals: Some comments on the earliest journals and the lessons suggested. Economic Notes 1991, 20(1):159-172.
97. Pfeffer J. A modest proposal: How we might change the process and product of managerial research. Academy of Management Journal 2007, 50(6):1334-1345.
98. Podsakoff P., MacKenzie S., Podsakoff N., Backrach D. Scholarly influence in the field of management: A bibliographic analysis of the determinants of university and author impact in the management literature of the past quarter century. Journal of Management 2008, 34(4):641-720.
99. Price D. Ethics of scientific publication. Science 1964, 144:655-657.
100. Price D. Networks of scientific papers. Science July 1965, 149(3683):510-515.
101. Price D. A general theory of bibliometric and other cumulative advantage processes. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 1976, 27(5-6):292-306.
102. Pullum G. Citation etiquette beyond thunderdome. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1988, 6(4):579-588.
103. Ronco C. Scientific journals: Who impacts the impact factor?. International Journal of Artificial Organs 2006, 29(7):645-648.
104. Rossner M., Van Epps H., Hill E. Show me the data. Journal of Exploratory Medicine 2007, 204(13):3052-3053.
105. Rynes S. Getting on board with AMJ: Balancing quality and innovation in the review process. Academy of Management Journal 2006, 49(6):1097-1102.
106. Schoonbaert D., Roelants G. Citation analysis for measuring the value of scientific publications: Quality assessment tool or comedy of errors?. Tropical Medicine and International Health 1996, 1(6):739-772.
107. Segalla M. Publishing in the right place or publishing the right thing: Journal targeting and citations' strategies for promotion and tenure committees'. European Journal of International Management 2008, 2(2):122-127.
108. Sharplin A., Mabry R. The relative importance of journals used in management research: An alternative ranking. Human Relations 1985, 38(2):139-149.
109. Simkin M., Roychowdhury V. Read before you cite!. Complex Systems 2003, 14:269-274.
110. Small H. Cited documents as concept symbols. Social Studies of Science 1978, 8(3):327-340.
111. Smart R. The importance of negative results in psychological research. The Canadian Psychologist 1964, 5a(4):225-232.
112. Smith R. Journal accused of manipulating impact factor. British Medical Journal 1997, 314(7079):461.
113. Smith R. Commentary: The power of the unrelenting impact factor-Is it a force for good or harm?. International Journal of Epidemiology 2006, 35:1129-1130.
114. Speier C., Palmer J., Wren E., Hahn S. Faculty perceptions of electronic journals as scholarly communication: A question of prestige and legitimacy. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 1999, 50(6):537-543.
115. Starbuck W. Turning lemons into lemonade: Where is the value in peer reviews?. Journal of Management Inquiry 2003, 12:344-351.
116. Starbuck W. How much better are the most prestigious journals? The statistics of academic publication. Organization Science 2005, 16(2):180-200.
117. Swanson D. Two medical literatures that are logically but not bibliographically connected. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 1986, 38(4):228-233.
118. Tenopir C. Online databases: Are e-journals good for science?. Library Journal November 2008, 133.
119. Tenopir C., King D. Perceptions of value and value beyond perceptions: Measuring the quality and value of journal article readings. Serials 2007, 20:3.
120. Tenopir C., King D. Electronic journals and changes in scholarly article seeking and reading patterns. D-Lib Magazine 2008, 14(11/12).
121. Thornton M. Excellence is in the ire of the beholder. Australian September 2008, 34.
122. Venard B. Making sense of research: The dynamics of management research in France. Prometheus 2007, 25(2):125-145.
123. Vickery B. Indicators of the use of periodicals. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 1969, 1(3):170-178.
124. Wade, N. (1997). No Nobel Prize this year? Try footnote counting. New York Times, 7 October
125. Warwick University (2009). Journal citations, impact factors and WRAP, April, University of Warwick, mimeo.
126. West R. Impact factors need to be improved. British Medical Journal 1996, 313:1400.
127. Westrin C.-G. Primary health care: Cooperation between health and welfare personnel. Scandinavian Journal of Social Medicine 1987, (Suppl. 38):5-73.
128. Wright, M., Armstrong, J. (2007). Verification of citations: Fawlty towers of knowledge? Munich Personal RePEc Archive, July, available at http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/4149/.
129. Young N., Ioannidis J., Al-Ubaydli O. Why current publication practices may distort science. PLoS Medicine 2008, 5:10.