Corruption and Representations of Scholarly Output

Abstract

In this paper I analyze representations of scholarly output for the purpose of identifying corrupt practices. Accordingly, the components of output—price, quantity, and time—are examined. A key part of the analysis is recognizing the unique role that the scholarly community plays in scholarship and the implications this has for the roles of groups other than the scholarly community. Finally, a survey of students indicates that particular representations of scholarly output are viewed by students as unethical.

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

References

  1. Alexander, J., & Mabry, R. (1994). Relative significance of journals, authors, and articles cited in financial research. The Journal of Finance, 49(2), 697–712. doi:10.2307/2329169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Baumgartner, H., & Pieters, R. (2003). The structural influence of marketing journals: A citation analysis of the discipline and its subareas over time. Journal of Marketing, 67, 123–139. doi:10.1509/jmkg.67.2.123.18610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bogle, J. (2005). The battle for the soul of capitalism. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Boyle, M. (2004). Walking our talk: Business schools, legitimacy, and citizenship. Business & Society, 43(1), 37–68. doi:10.1177/0007650303262638.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Borkowski, S., & Welsh, M. (2000). Ethical practice in the accounting publishing process: Contrasting opinions of authors and editors. Journal of Business Ethics, 25, 15–31. doi:10.1023/A:1005939128790.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Brunetti, A., & Weder, B. (2003). A free press is bad news for corruption. Journal of Public Economics, 87, 1801–1824. doi:10.1016/S0047-2727(01) 00186-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Caldwell, C., Karri, R., & Matula, T. (2005). Practicing what we teach—ethical considerations for business schools. Journal of Academic Ethics, 3, 1–25. doi:10.1007/s10805-006-9007-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Carland, J., Carland, J., & Aby, C. (1992). Proposed codification of ethicacy in the publication process. Journal of Business Ethics, 11, 95–104. doi:10.1007/BF00872316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Davis, J., & Ruhe, J. (2003). Perceptions of country corruption: Antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Business Ethics, 43, 275–288. doi:10.1023/A:1023038901080.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Garfield, E. (1955). Citation indexes for science. Science, 122, 108–111. doi:10.1126/science.122.3159.108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Garfield, E. (1972). Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation. Science, 178, 471–479. doi:10.1126/science.178.4060.471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Geelhoed, R., Phillips, J., Fisher, A., Shpungin, E., & Gong, Y. (2007). Authorship decision making: An empirical investigation. Ethics & Behavior, 17(2), 95–115.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Getz, K., & Volkema, R. (2001). Culture, perceived corruption, and economics. Business & Society, 40(1), 7–30. doi:10.1177/000765030104000103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Gross, P., & Gross, E. (1927). College libraries and chemical education. Science, 66, 385–389. doi:10.1126/science.66.1713.385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Husted, B. (1994). Honor among thieves: A transaction-cost interpretation of corruption in third world countries. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4(1), 17–27. doi:10.2307/3857556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Hutchinson, E., & Zivney, T. (1995). The publication profile of economists. The Journal of Economic Education, 26, 59–79. doi:10.2307/1183466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Khatri, N., & Tsang, E. (2003). Antecedents and consequences of cronyism in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 43, 289–303. doi:10.1023/A:1023081629529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Laband, D., & Piette, M. (1994). The relative impacts of economics journals: 1970–1990. Journal of Economic Literature, 32, 640–666.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Lewellyn, P. (1996). Academic perceptions: Ethics in the information system discipline. Journal of Business Ethics, 15, 559–569. doi:10.1007/BF00381931.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Lewis, P. (1985). Defining ‘business ethics’: Like nailing jello to a wall. Journal of Business Ethics, 4, 377–383. doi:10.1007/BF02388590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Meyer, M., & McMahon, D. (2004). An examination of ethical research conduct by experienced and novice accounting academics. Issues in Accounting Education, 19(4), 413–442. doi:10.2308/iace.2004.19.4.413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Nielsen, R. (2003). Corruption networks and implications for ethical corruption reform. Journal of Business Ethics, 42, 125–149. doi:10.1023/A:1021969204875.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. O’Higgins, E. (2006). Corruption, underdevelopment, and extractive resource industries: Addressing the vicious cycle. Business Ethics Quarterly, 16(2), 235–254.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Ponemon, L. (1992). Ethical reasoning and selection-socialization in accounting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 17(3/4), 239–258. doi:10.1016/0361-3682(92) 90023-L.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Sandler, J., & Russell, B. (2005). Faculty-student collaborations: Ethics and satisfaction in authorship credit. Ethics & Behavior, 15(1), 65–80. doi:10.1207/s15327019eb1501_5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Tabachnick, B., Keith-Spiegel, P., & Pope, K. (1991). Beliefs and behaviors of psychologists as educators. The American Psychologist, 46(5), 506–515. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.46.5.506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Tahai, A., & Rigsby, J. (1998). Information processing using citations to investigate journal influence in accounting. Information Processing & Management, 34(2/3), 341–359. doi:10.1016/S0306-4573(97) 00082-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Tahai, A., & Meyer, M. (1999). A revealed preference study of management journals’ direct influences. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 279–296. doi:10.1002/(SICI) 1097-0266(199903) 20:3<279::AID-SMJ33>3.0.CO;2-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Turner, L. (2003). Doffing the mask: Why manuscript reviewers ought to be identifiable. Journal of Academic Ethics, 1, 41–48. doi:10.1023/A:1025454331738.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Vincent, V., & De Moville, W. (1993). Ethical considerations for streaming business publications. Journal of Business Ethics, 12, 37–43. doi:10.1007/BF01845785.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Wilhelm, P. (2002). International validation of the corruption perceptions index: Implications for business ethics and entrepreneurship education. Journal of Business Ethics, 35, 177–189. doi:10.1023/A:1013882225402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

I thank two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments. The views in this manuscript are mine and are not necessarily the views of any organizations with which I am affiliated.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert Liebler.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Liebler, R. Corruption and Representations of Scholarly Output. J Acad Ethics 6, 259–269 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-009-9071-6

Download citation

Keywords

  • Scholarship
  • Corruption