Scientometrics

, Volume 112, Issue 3, pp 1593–1614 | Cite as

Editorial governance and journal impact: a study of management and business journals

Article

Abstract

In striving for academic relevance and recognition, editors exert a significant influence on a journal’s mission and content. We examine 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. Using multi-level modeling, we relate editorial team characteristics to journal impact as reflected in three widely used measures: Five-year Impact Factor, SCImago Journal Rank, and Google Scholar h5 index. 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. Results indicate that the editorial team’s scientific achievement is more decisive than team diversity in terms of journal impact. The study has useful implications for the composition of editorial teams.

Keywords

Higher education publishing Journal editors Journal rankings Random intercept model Research metrics 

JEL Classification

C55 D02 I23 J16 J63 M14 

Mathematics Subject Classification

62F07 62H12 62H20 68P05 62Q05 93A13 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research is supported by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (Grant No. 01PY13014).

References

  1. Aguinis, H. (2014). Revisiting some “established facts” in the field of management. BRQ Business Research Quarterly, 17(1), 2–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aguinis, H., De Bruin, G. P., Cunningham, D., Hall, N. L., Culpepper, S. A., & Gottfredson, R. K. (2010). What does not kill you (sometimes) makes you stronger: Productivity fluctuations of journal editors. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 9(4), 683–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aguinis, H., Gottfredson, R., Culpepper, S. A., Dalton, D. R., & De Bruin, G. P. (2012). Doing good and doing well: On the multiple contributions of journal editors. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 12(4), 564–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. (2014). Habitat and habitus: Boxed-in versus box-breaking research. Organization Studies, 35(7), 967–987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Andrikopoulos, A., & Economou, L. (2015). Editorial board interlocks in financial economics. International Review of Financial Analysis, 37, 51–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Azar, O. H., & Brock, D. M. (2008). A citation-based ranking of strategic management journals. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 17(3), 781–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baccini, A., & Barabesi, L. (2009). Interlocking editorship. A network analysis of the links between economic journals. Scientometrics, 82(2), 365–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bakker, P., & Rigter, H. (1985). Editors of medical journals: Who and from where. Scientometrics, 7(1–2), 11–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bedeian, A. G., Van Fleet, D. D., & Hyman, H. H. (2009). Scientific achievement and editorial board membership. Organizational Research Methods, 12(2), 211–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bennink, M., Croon, M. A., & Vermunt, J. K. (2013). Micro-macro multilevel analysis for discrete data: A latent variable approach and application on personal network data. Sociological Methods & Research, 42(4), 431–457.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Beyer, J. M., Chanove, R. G., & Fox, W. B. (1995). The review process and the fates of manuscripts submitted to AMJ. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), 1219–1260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Blau, P. M. (1977). Inequality and heterogeneity. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  13. Braun, T., Diospatonyi, I., Zador, E., & Zsindely, S. (2007). Journal gatekeepers indicator-based top universities of the world, of Europe and of 29 countries—A pilot study. Scientometrics, 71(2), 155–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brinn, T., & Jones, M. J. (2008). The composition of editorial boards in accounting: A UK perspective. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 21(1), 5–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Burgess, T. F., & Shaw, N. E. (2010). Editorial board membership of management and business journals: A social network analysis study of the financial times 40. British Journal of Management, 21(3), 627–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chang, C.-L., & McAleer, M. (2013). Ranking journal quality by harmonic mean of ranks: An application to ISI statistics & probability. Statistica Neerlandica, 67(1), 27–53.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chubin, D. E. (1994). Grants peer review in theory and practice. Evaluation Review, 18(1), 20–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Clark, T., & Wright, M. (2008). Sustaining independent journals. In Y. Baruch, A. M. Konrad, H. Aguinis, & W. H. Starbuck (Eds.), Opening the black box of editorship (pp. 176–187). Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Coleman, A. (2007). Assessing the value of a journal beyond the impact factor. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(8), 1148–1161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Corbett, A., Cornelissen, J., Delios, A., & Harley, B. (2014). Variety, novelty, and perceptions of scholarship in research on management and organizations: An appeal for ambidextrous scholarship. Journal of Management Studies, 51(1), 3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Croon, M. A., & van Veldhoven, J. P. M. (2007). Predicting group-level outcome variables from variables measured at the individual level: A latent variable multilevel model. Psychological Methods, 12(1), 45–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. DuBois, F. L., & Reeb, D. (2000). Ranking the international business journals. Journal of International Business Studies, 31(4), 689–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Finkelstein, S., & Hambrick, D. C. (1990). Top-management-team tenure and organizational outcomes: The moderating role of managerial discretion. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(3), 484–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fogarty, T. J., & Liao, C. (2009). Blessed are the gatekeepers: Boards of the accounting review. Issues in Accounting Education, 24(3), 299–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. García-Carpintero, E., Granadino, B., & Plaza, L. M. (2010). The representation of nationalities on the editorial boards of international journals and the promotion of the scientific output of the same countries. Scientometrics, 84(3), 799–811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Giménez-Toledo, E., Román-Román, A., Perdiguero, P., & Palencia, I. (2009). The editorial boards of Spanish scholarly journals: What are they like? What should they be like? Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 40(3), 287–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Glänzel, W., & Moed, H. (2002). Journal impact measures in bibliometric research. Scientometrics, 53(2), 171–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Harzing, A.-W. (2008). On becoming a high impact journal in international business and management. European Journal of International Management, 2(2), 115–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Harzing, A.-W. (2013). A preliminary test of Google Scholar as a source for citation data: A longitudinal study of Nobel prize winners. Scientometrics, 94(3), 1057–1075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Harzing, A.-W. (2014). A longitudinal study of Google Scholar coverage between 2012 and 2013. Scientometrics, 98(1), 565–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Harzing, A.-W. (2015). Journal quality list. 55th ed. http://www.harzing.com/jql.htm. Accessed February 20, 2017.
  33. Harzing, A.-W., & Alakangas, S. (2016). Google scholar, scopus and the web of science: A longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison. Scientometrics, 106(2), 787–804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Harzing, A.-W., & Metz, I. (2013). Practicing what we preach: The geographic diversity of editorial boards. Management International Review, 53(2), 169–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Harzing, A.-W., & van der Wal, R. (2008). Google Scholar as a new source for citation analysis. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, 8, 61–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hodgkinson, G. P. (2008). Moving a journal up the rankings. In Y. Baruch, A. M. Konrad, H. Aguinis, & W. H. Starbuck (Eds.), Opening the black box of editorship (pp. 104–113). Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hodgson, G. M., & Rothman, H. (1999). The editors and authors of economics journals: A case of institutional oligopoly? The Economic Journal, 109(453), F165–F186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Konrad, A. M. (2008). Knowledge creation and the journal editor’s role. In Y. Baruch, A. M. Konrad, H. Aguinis, & W. H. Starbuck (Eds.), Opening the black box of editorship (pp. 3–15). Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Krampen, G., Becker, R., Wahner, U., & Montada, L. (2007). On the validity of citation counting in science evaluation: Content analyses of references and citations in psychological publications. Scientometrics, 71(2), 191–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Laband, D. N., & Piette, M. J. (1994). Favoritism versus search for good papers: Empirical evidence regarding the behavior of journal editors. Journal of Political Economy, 102(1), 194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mauleón, E., Hillán, L., Moreno, L., Gómez, I., & Bordons, M. (2012). Assessing gender balance among journal authors and editorial board members. Scientometrics, 95(1), 87–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mazov, N. A., & Gureev, V. N. (2016). The editorial boards of scientific journals as a subject of scientometric research: A literature Review. Scientific and Technical Information Processing, 43(3), 144–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science. Science, 159(3810), 56–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Metz, I., & Harzing, A.-W. (2009). Gender diversity in editorial boards: An update. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 8(4), 540–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Metz, I., Harzing, A.-W., & Zyphur, M. J. (2015). Of journal editors and editorial boards: Who are the trailblazers in increasing editorial board gender equality? British Journal of Management, 27(4), 712–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Mingers, J., & Willmott, H. (2013). Taylorizing business school research: On the “one best way” performative effects of journal ranking lists. Human Relations, 66(8), 1051–1073.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Moed, H. F., Colledge, L., Reedijk, J., Moya-Anegon, F., Guerrero-Bote, V., Plume, A., et al. (2012). Citation-based metrics are appropriate tools in journal assessment provided that they are accurate and used in an informed way. Scientometrics, 92(2), 367–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998-2015). Mplus User’s Guide. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
  49. Nisonger, T. E. (2002). The relationship between international editorial board composition and citation measures in political science, business, and genetics journals. Scientometrics, 54(2), 257–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rost, K., & Frey, B. S. (2011). Quantitative and qualitative rankings of scholars. Schmalenbach Business Review, 63(1), 63–91.Google Scholar
  52. Rynes, S. L. (2006). “Getting on board” with AMJ: Balancing quality and innovation in the review process. Academy of Management Journal, 49(6), 1097–1102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Seglen, P. (1997). Citations and journal impact factors: Questionable indicators of research quality. Allergy, 52, 1050–1056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Serenko, A., & Bontis, N. (2009). Global ranking of knowledge management and intellectual capital academic journals. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(1), 4–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Spector, P. E., & Brannick, M. T. (2011). Methodological urban legends: The misuse of statistical control variables. Organizational Research Methods, 14(2), 287–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Tsui, A. S., & Hollenbeck, J. R. (2009). Successful authors and effective reviewers. Organizational Research Methods, 12(2), 259–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Welbourne, T. M. (2008). Editing a bridge journal. In Y. Baruch, A. M. Konrad, H. Aguinis, & W. H. Starbuck (Eds.), Opening the black box of editorship (pp. 157–166). Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Zedeck, S. (2008). Editing a top academic journal. In Y. Baruch, A. M. Konrad, H. Aguinis, & W. H. Starbuck (Eds.), Opening the black box of editorship (pp. 145–156). Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Zsindely, S., Schubert, A., & Braun, T. (1982). Editorial gatekeeping patterns in international science journals. A new science indicator. Scientometrics, 4(1), 57–68.Google Scholar
  60. Zuckerman, H., & Merton, R. K. (1971). Patterns of evaluation in science: Institutionalisation, structure and functions of the referee system. Minerva, 9(1), 66–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of HamburgHamburgGermany
  2. 2.University of HamburgHamburgGermany

Personalised recommendations