, Volume 85, Issue 3, pp 627–646 | Cite as

Are finance, management, and marketing autonomous fields of scientific research? An analysis based on journal citations

  • Pedro Cosme Vieira
  • Aurora A. C. TeixeiraEmail author


Although there is considerable consensus that Finance, Management and Marketing are ‘science’, some debate remains with regard to whether these three areas comprise autonomous, organized and settled scientific fields of research. In this paper we aim to explore this issue by analyzing the occurrence of citations in the top-ranked journals in the areas of Finance, Management, and Marketing. We put forward a modified version of the model of science as a network, proposed by Klamer and Van Dalen (J Econ Methodol 9(2):289–315, 2002), and conclude that Finance is a ‘Relatively autonomous, organized and settled field of research’, whereas Management and (to a larger extent) Marketing are relatively non-autonomous and hybrid fields of research’. Complementary analysis based on sub-discipline rankings using the recursive methodology of Liebowitz and Palmer (J Econ Lit 22:77–88, 1984) confirms the results. In conclusions we briefly discuss the pertinence of Whitley’s (The intellectual and social organization of the sciences, 1984) theory for explaining cultural differences across these sub-disciplines based on its dimensions of scholarly practices, ‘mutual dependency’ and ‘task uncertainty’.


Citations Finance Management Marketing Autonomy 

JEL Classification

C89 A12 



The authors are deeply indebted for helpful comments and suggestions of two anonymous referees. The usual caveat applies.


  1. Alexander, J., Jr., & Mabry, R. (1994). Relative significance of journals, authors, and articles cited in financial research. The Journal of Finance, XLIX(2), 697–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Avkiran, N. K. (1997). Scientific collaboration in Finance does not lead to better quality research. Scientometrics, 39(2), 173–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Becher, T. (1989). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the culture of disciplines. Buckingham: SRHE & Open University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bensman, S. J. (2001). Bradford’s Law and fuzzy sets: Statistical implications for library analyses. IFLA Journal, 27, 238–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bhattacharya, S., & Basu, P. K. (1998). Mapping a research area at the micro level using co-word analysis. Scientiometrics, 43, 359–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Biehl, M., Kim, H., & Wade, M. (2006). Relationships among the academic business disciplines: A multi-method citation analysis. Omega, 34, 359–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Borgman, C. (2007). Scholarship in the digital age information infrastructure, and the internet. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. Borgman, C., & Furner, J. (2002). Scholarly communication and bibliometrics. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 36, 3–72.Google Scholar
  9. Börner, K., Chen, C., & Boyack, K. (2003). Visualizing knowledge domains. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 37, 179–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Börner, K., & Scharnhorst, A. (2009). Guest Editor’s introduction to the special issue on “science of science: Conceptualizations and models of science”. Journal of Informetrics, 3, 161–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Braam, R. R., Moed, H. F., & van Raan, A. F. (1991). Mapping of science by combined co-citation and word analysis, I: Structural aspects. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 42, 233–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bush, W. C., Hamelman, P. W., & Staaf, P. J. (1974). A quality index for economic journals. Review of Economics and Statistics, 56, 123–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Callon, M., Courtial, J. P., Turner, W. A., & Bauin, S. (1983). From translations to problematic networks: An introduction to co-word analysis. Social Science Information, 22, 191–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chen, C., Chen, Y., Horowitz, M., Hou, H., Liu, Z., & Pellegrino, D. (2009). Towards an explanatory and computational theory of scientific discovery. Journal of Informetrics, 3(3), 191–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Clements, K. W., & Wang, P. (2003). Who cites what? Economic Record, 79(245), 229–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. de Solla Price, D. (1965). Networks of scientific papers. Science, 149(3683), 510–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. de Wilde, R. (1992). Discipline en legende. De identiteit van de sociologie in Duitsland en de Verenigde Staten 1870–1930, Van Gennep, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  18. Dusansky, R., & Vernon, C. (1998). Rankings of U. S. economics departments. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 12(1), 157–170.Google Scholar
  19. Eto, H. (2002). Authorship and citation patterns in management science in comparison with operational research. Scientometrics, 53(3), 337–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Franck, G. (1999). Scientific communication—a vanity fair? Science, 286, 53–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Frey, B. S., & Eichenberger, R. (1997). Economists: First semester, high flyers and UFOs. In P. A. G. Van Bergeijk, A. L. Bovenberg, E. E. C. van Damme, & J. van Sinderen (Eds.), Economic science and practice (pp. 15–48). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  22. Fronczak, P., Fronczak, A., & Holyst, J. A. (2006). Self-organized criticality and co-evolution of network structure and dynamics. Physical Review E, 73, 046117.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  23. Fry, J. (2004). The cultural shaping of ICTs within academic fields: Corpus-based linguistics as a case study. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 19(3), 303–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fry, J. (2006). Studying the scholarly web: How disciplinary culture shapes online representations. Cybermetrics: International Journal of Scientometrics, Informetrics and Bibliometrics, 10(1). Available at:
  25. Fry, J., & Talja, S. (2005). The cultural shaping of scholarly communication: Explaining e-journal use within and across academic fields. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 41(1), 20–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. García-Aracil, A., Gracia, A. G., & Pérez-Marín, M. (2006). Analysis of the evaluation process of the research performance: An empirical case. Scientometrics, 67(2), 213–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Garfield, E. (1986). Essays of an information Scientist: 1986. In Towards Scientography. Preface (Vol. 9, pp. xi–xii).Google Scholar
  28. Garfield, E. (2009). From the science of science to Scientometrics visualizing the history of science with HistCite software. Journal of Informetrics, 3, 173–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gerrity, D. M., & Mckenzie, R. B. (1978). The ranking of southern economic departments: New criterion and further evidence. Southern Economic Journal, 45, 608–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hamelman, P. W., & Mazze, E. M. (1974). Citations patterns in finance journals. Journal of Finance, 29, 1295–1301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kalaitzidakis, P., Mamuneas, T. P., & Stengos, T. (2003). Rankings of academic journals and institutions in economics. Journal of the European Economic Association, 1, 1346–1366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Klamer, A., & van Dalen, H. (2002). Attention and the art of scientific publishing. Journal of Economic Methodology, 9(3), 289–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Knorr-Cetina, K. D. (1981). The manufacture of knowledge: An essay on the constructivist and contextual nature of science. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  34. Laband, D., & Piette, M. (1994). The relative impact of economic journals. Journal of Economic Literature, 32, 640–666.Google Scholar
  35. Lambiotte, R., & Panzarasa, P. (2009). Communities, knowledge creation and information diffusion. Journal of Informetrics, 3(3), 180–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lewison, G. (1999). The definition and calibration of biomedical subfields. Scientometrics, 46, 529–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Leydesdorff, L. (2002). Indicators of structural change in the dynamics of science: Entropy statistics of the sc journal citation reports. Scientometrics, 53(1), 131–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Leydesdorff, L. (2004a). Clusters and maps of science journals based on bi-connected graphs in the journal citation reports. Journal of Documentation, 60(4), 371–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Leydesdorff, L. (2004b). Top-down decomposition of the journal citation report of the social science citation index: Graph- and factor-analytical approaches. Scientometrics, 60(2), 159–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Leydesdorff, L. (2007). Visualization of the citation impact environments of scientific journals: An online mapping exercise. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(1), 25–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Leydesdorff, L. (2008). The delineation of nanoscience and nanotechnology in terms of journals and patents: A most recent update. Scientometrics, 76(1), 159–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Leydesdorff, L., & Bensman, S. J. (2006). Citations, powerlaws, and logarithmic transformations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(11), 1470–1486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Leydesdorff, L., & Cozzens, S. E. (1993). The delineation of specialties in terms of journals using the dynamic journal set of the science citation index. Scientometrics, 26, 133–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Leydesdorff, L., & Zhou, P. (2007). Nanotechnology as a field of science: Its delineation in terms of journals and patents. Scientometrics, 70(3), 693–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Liebowitz, S. J., & Palmer, J. P. (1984). Assessing the relative impacts of economics journals. Journal of Economic Literature, 22, 77–88.Google Scholar
  46. Lozano, S., & Salmerón, J. (2005). Data envelopment analysis of OR/MS journals. Scientometrics, 64(2), 133–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mabry, R, H., & Sharplin, A. D. (1985). The relative importance of journals used in financial research. Journal of Financial Research, 8, 287–296.Google Scholar
  48. Macri, J., & Sinha, D. (2006). Rankings methodology for international comparisons of institutions and individuals: an application to economics in Australia and New Zealand. Journal of Economic Surveys, 20(01), 111–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Moed, H. F. (2005). Citation analysis in research evaluation. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  50. Moore, W. J. (1972). The relative quality of economics journals: A suggested rating system. Western Economic Journal, 10, 156–169.Google Scholar
  51. Narin, F., Carpenter, M., & Berlt, N. C. (1972). Interrelationships of scientific journals. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 23, 323–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Newman, M., Barabási, A.-L., & Watts, D. J. (2006). The structure and dynamics of networks. Princeton: Princeton University Press.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  53. Noyens, E. C. M., & Van Raan, A. F. J. (1998). Advanced mapping of science and technology. Scientometrics, 41(1–2), 61–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Noyons, E. C. M., Luwel, M., & Moed, H. F. (1999). Combining mapping and citation analysis for evaluative bibliometric purposes. A bibliometric study on recent development in micro-electronics. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 50, 115–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Parks, R. (2002). The Faustian grip of academic publishing. Journal of Economic Methodology, 9(3), 317–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Polanyi, M. (1962/1969). The republic of science: Its political and economic theory. In Knowing and Being (pp. 49–72). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  57. Rigney, D., & Barnes, D. (1980). Patterns of interdisciplinary citation in the social sciences. Social Science Quarterly, 61(1), 114–127.Google Scholar
  58. Saad, G. (2010). Applying the h-index in exploring bibliometric properties of elite marketing scholars. Scientometrics, 83, 423–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Schwechheimer, H., & Winterhager, M. (2001). Mapping interdisciplinary research fronts in neuroscience: A bibliometric view to retrograde amnesia. Scientometrics, 51, 311–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Schwert, G. W. (1993). The Journal of Financial Economics: A retrospective evaluation (1971–1991). Journal of Financial Economics, 33, 369–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Small, H. G. A. (1977). Co-citation model of a scientific specialty: A longitudinal study of collagen research. Social Studies of Science, 7, 139–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Small, H., & Sweeney, E. (1985). Clustering the science citation index using co-citations I. A comparison of methods. Scientometrics, 7, 391–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Stigler, S. M. (1994). Citation patterns in the journals of statistics and probability. Statistical Science, 9, 94–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Stigler, G. J., Stigler, S. M., & Friedland, C. (1995). The journals of economics. Journal of Political Economy, 103, 331–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Swygart-Hobaugh, A. J. (2004). A citation analysis of the quantitative/qualitative methods debate’s reflection in sociology research: Implications for library collection development. Library Collections, Acquisitions and Technical Services, 28(2), 180–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. van Dalen, H. P., & Henkens, K. (1999). How influential are demography journals? Population and Development Review, 25, 229–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. van Raan, A. F. (2000). On growth, ageing, and fractal differentiation of science. Scientometrics, 47, 347–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. van Raan, A. F. (2004). Measuring science. Capita Selecta of Current Main Issues. In H. F. Moed, W. Glänzel & U. Schmoch (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative science and technology research (Chap. 1, pp. 19–50). Dordrecht, Netherlands: KluwerGoogle Scholar
  69. Vieira, P. C. C. (2004). Statistical variability of top ranking economics journal impact. Applied Economics Letters, 11, 945–948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Waller, J. H. (2006). Evaluating scholarly communication at the subdisciplinary level. Collection Management, 30(2), 45–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. White, H., & McCain, K. (1998). Visualizing a discipline: An author co-citation analysis of information science, 1972–1995. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49(4), 327–355.Google Scholar
  72. Whitley, R. (1984). The intellectual and social organization of the sciences. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  73. Wouters, P. (1999). The citation culture. Ph.D. Dissertation. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  74. Zitt, M. (2006). Scientometric indicators: A few challenges. Data mine-clearing, knowledge flows measurements, diversity issues, invited plenary talk. In Proceedings international workshop on webometrics, informetrics and scientometrics & seventh COLLNET meeting, Nancy (France).

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pedro Cosme Vieira
    • 1
  • Aurora A. C. Teixeira
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    Email author
  1. 1.Faculdade EconomiaUniversidade do PortoPortoPortugal
  2. 2.CEF.UP, Faculdade Economia do PortoUniversidade do PortoPortoPortugal
  3. 3.INESC PortoPortoPortugal
  4. 4.OBEGEF, Faculdade de Economia do PortoUniversidade do PortoPortoPortugal

Personalised recommendations