Advertisement

The performance of Latin American research on economics & business

  • Guillermo Armando Ronda-PupoEmail author
Article
  • 23 Downloads

Abstract

This paper aims to evaluate the citation-based performance of Latin American research on economics and business using scale-adjusted indicators. The results show that scale-invariant properties govern the Latin American research output in the Economics & Business discipline. Power law aptly describes the distribution of citation impacts with exponent \(\alpha \approx - 2.27 \pm 0.05\). Likewise, the Latin American citation impact and the size of the fields in the discipline of Economics & Business correlate according to a power law with scaling exponent \(\alpha \approx 1.13 \pm 0.07\). The results suggest that to accurately evaluate the citation-based performance of this research field, the use of scale-invariant indicators is necessary. Furthermore, the results show the efficacy of scale-adjusted indicators when comparing research fields of vastly different sizes.

Keywords

Citation impact Power-law Relative impact Scale-independent indicator Scale-adjusted indicator Self-similarity 

Mathematics Subject Classification

00 62 

JEL Classification

M1 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We express our gratitude to the two reviewers for their encouraging observations and to Herman Aguinis, Luis Ángel Guerras-Martín, Lutz Bornmann, Sundaresan Naranan, and Ronald Rousseau for their interesting suggestions to a previous version of the manuscript.

Author contributions

GARP designed the study and prepared the experiments, performed the experiments, analyzed the data, and wrote the manuscript.

Funding

FONDECYT Chile financed this research. Grant Number: 1180200.

References

  1. Aguinis, H., Ji, Y. H., & Joo, H. (2018a). Gender productivity gap among star performers in STEM and other scientific fields. Journal Applied Psychology,103(12), 1283–1306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aguinis, H., Ramani, R. S., Alabduljader, N., Bailey, J., & Lee, J. (2018b). A pluralist conceptualization of scholarly impact in management education: Students as stakeholders. Academy of Management Learning & Education,18(1), 11–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aguinis, H., Ramani, R. S., & Villamor, I. (2018c). The first 20 years of organizational research methods: Trajectory, impact, and predictions for the future. Organizational Research Methods,22(2), 463–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aguinis, H., Shapiro, D. L., Antonacopoulou, E. P., & Cummings, T. G. (2014). Scholarly impact: A pluralist conceptualization. Academy of Management Learning & Education,13(4), 623–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Amal, M., Cardoza, G., & Fornés, G. (2011). International co-operation of Ibero-American countries in business administration and economics research. European Business Review,23(1), 7–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Andras, P. (2011). Research: Metrics, quality, and management implications. Research Evaluation,20(2), 90–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Archambault, É., Beauchesne, O. H., & Caruso, J. (2011). Towards a multilingual, comprehensive and open scientific journal ontology. In B. Noyons, P. Ngulube, & J. Leta (Eds.), Proceedings of the 13th international conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics (ISSI) (Vol. 2016, pp. 66–77, Vol. 30 March 2016). South Africa: Science Metrix.com.Google Scholar
  8. Bianconi, G., & Barabási, A. L. (2001). Competition and multiscaling in evolving networks. Europhysics Letters (EPL),54(4), 436–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Birkinshaw, J., Lecuona, R., & Barwise, P. (2016). The relevance gap in business school research: Which academic papers are cited in managerial bridge journals? Academy of Management Learning & Education,15(4), 686–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Blackburn, R. S., & Mitchell, M. (1981). Citation analysis in the organizational sciences. Journal of Applied Psychology,66(3), 337–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bonilla, C. A., Merigó, J. M., & Torres-Abad, C. (2015). Economics in Latin America: A bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics,105(2), 1239–1252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Braun, T., Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (1989). Publication productivity: From frequency distributions to scientometric indicators. Journal of Information Science,16(1990), 37–44.Google Scholar
  13. Christenson, J., & Sigelman, L. (1985). Accrediting knowledge: Journal stature and citation impact in social science. Social Science Quarterly,66(4), 964–975.Google Scholar
  14. Clauset, A., Shalizi, C. R., & Newman, M. E. J. (2009). Power-law distributions in empirical data. SIAM Review,51(4), 661–703.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. de Bellis, N. (2009). Bibometrics and citation analysis: From the science citation index to cibermetrics. Toronto: The Scarecrow Press Inc.Google Scholar
  16. de Solla-Price, D. J. (1976). A general theory of bibliometric and other cumulative advantage processes. Journal of the American Society for Information Science,27(5), 292–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Díaz-Contreras, C., & Ronda-Pupo, G. A. (2017). International collaboration and the impact of research on management in Chile. Interciencia,42(7), 437–440.Google Scholar
  18. Egghe, L. (2005). Power laws in the information production process: Lotkaian informetrics. Oxford: Elsevier Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gantman, E. R., & Rodríguez, C. J. F. (2016). Literature segmentation in management and organization studies: The case of Spanish-speaking countries (2000–10). Research Evaluation,25(4), 461–471.Google Scholar
  20. Gibrat, R. (1931). Les inégalités économiques. Paris: Librairie du Recueil Sirey.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. Herranz, N., & Ruiz-Castillo, J. (2012). Sub-field normalization in the multiplicative case: High- and low-impact citation indicators. Research Evaluation,21(2), 113–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Judge, T. A., Cable, D. M., Colbert, A. E., & Rynes, S. L. (2007). What causes a management article to be cited. Article, author, or journal? Academy of Management Journal,50(3), 491–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Katz, J. S. (1999). The self-similar science system. Research Policy,28(5), 501–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Katz, J. S. (2005). Scale-independent bibliometric indicators. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives,3(1), 24–28.Google Scholar
  25. Katz, J. S. (2016a). Policies considerations for evidence-based measures of complex innovation systems. In SPRU 50th anniversary conference (pp. 12). Brighton: University of Sussex.Google Scholar
  26. Katz, J. S. (2016b). What is a complex innovation system? PLoS ONE,11(6), e0156150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Koljatic, M., & Silva, M. R. (2001). The international publication productivity of Latin American countries in the economics and business administration fields. Scientometrics,51(2), 381–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Leguendre, P., & Leguendre, L. (2012). Numerical ecology (3rd ed., Vol. 24). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  29. Lepori, B., Reale, E., & Tijssen, R. (2011). Designing indicators for policy decisions: Challenges, tensions and good practices: Introduction to a special issue. Research Evaluation,20(1), 3–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Leung, K. (2007). The glory and tyranny of citation impact: An East Asian perspective. Academy of Management Journal,50(3), 510–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Martin, B. R. (2011). The research excellence framework and the ‘impact agenda’: Are we creating a Frankenstein monster? Research Evaluation,20(3), 247–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Naranan, S. (1970). Bradford’s law of bibliography of science: An interpretation. Nature,227(5258), 631–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nicholls-Nixon, C. L., Davila Castilla, J. A., Sanchez Garcia, J., & Rivera Pesquera, M. (2011). Latin America management research: Review, synthesis, and extension. Journal of Management,37(4), 1178–1227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Orozco, L. A., & Villaveces, J. L. (2015). Heterogeneous research networks in Latin American schools of business management. Academia Revista Latinoamericana de Administración,28(1), 115–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ronda-Pupo, G. A. (2017). The citation-based impact of complex innovation systems scales with the size of the system. Scientometrics,112(1), 141–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ronda-Pupo, G. A., & Diaz-Contreras, C. (2014). Relationship between the impact of Latin American articles on management and the language in which they appear. Interciencia,39(9), 1–9.Google Scholar
  38. Ronda-Pupo, G. A., Díaz-Contreras, C., Ronda-Velázquez, G., & Ronda-Pupo, J. C. (2015). The role of academic collaboration in the impact of Latin-American research on management. Scientometrics,102(2), 1435–1454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ronda-Pupo, G. A., & Katz, J. S. (2016). The power-law relationship between citation-based performance and collaboration in articles in management journals: A scale-independent approach. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology,67(10), 2565–2572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ronda-Pupo, G. A., & Katz, J. S. (2017). The scaling relationship between citation-based performance and scientific collaboration in natural sciences. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology,68(5), 1257–1265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rynes, S. L. (2007). Academy of management journal editors’ forum on citations. Academy of Management Journal,50(3), 489–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sahal, D. (1981). Patterns of technological innovation. New York, NY: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  43. Smith, R. J. (2009). Use and misuse of the reduced major axis for line-fitting. American Journal of Physical Anthropology,140(3), 476–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Stremersch, S., Camacho, N., Vanneste, S., & Verniers, I. (2015). Unraveling scientific impact: Citation types in marketing journals. International Journal of Research in Marketing,32(1), 64–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Stremersch, S., Verniers, I., & Verhoef, P. C. (2007). The quest for citations: Drivers of article impact. Journal of Marketing,71(3), 171–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Turner, W. A., & Rojouan, F. (1991). Evaluating input/output relationships in a regional research network using co-word analysis. Scientometrics,22(1), 139–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. van Leeuwen, T. N., & Calero Medina, C. (2012). Redefining the field of economics: Improving field normalization for the application of bibliometric techniques in the field of economics. Research Evaluation,21(1), 61–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. van Raan, A. F. J. (2008). 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. van Raan, A. F. J. (2013). Universities scale like cities. PLoS ONE,8(3), e59384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. van Raan, A. F. J. (2014). Advances in bibliometric analysis: Research performance assessment and science mapping. In W. Blockmans, L. Engwall, & D. Weaire (Eds.), Bibliometrics: Use and abuse in the review of research performance (pp. 17–28). London: Portland Press.Google Scholar
  51. Wang, D., Song, C., & Barabasi, A. L. (2013). Quantifying long-term scientific impact. Science,342(6154), 127–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Zupic, I., & Čater, T. (2014). Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organizational Research Methods,18(3), 429–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Departamento de AdministraciónUniversidad Católica del NorteAntofagastaChile
  2. 2.Departamento de TurismoUniversidad de HolguínHolguínCuba

Personalised recommendations