The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
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
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to identify the universities and research scholars who have had the greatest impact on the field of management during the past quarter century and the factors that influence their impact. Using bibliometric techniques, the authors examined 30 management journals to identify the 100 most-cited universities and 150 most-cited authors from 1981 to 2004. The analysis included more than 1,600 universities and 25,000 management scholars across five individual time periods. The findings showed that (a) a relatively small proportion of universities and scholars accounted for the majority of the citations in the field; (b) total publications accounted for the majority of the variance in university citations; (c) university size, the number of PhDs awarded, research expenditures, and endowment assets had the biggest impact on university publications; and (d) total publications, years in the field, graduate school reputation, and editorial board memberships had the biggest effect on a scholar's citations.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
THE BIG FIVE PERSONALITY DIMENSIONS AND JOB PERFORMANCE: A META‐ANALYSIS
BARRICK, M. R., & MOUNT, M. K. (1991) · Personnel Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00688.x · Cited by 8,689
The Matthew Effect in Science: The reward and communication systems of science are considered.
Merton, R. K. (1968) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.159.3810.56 · Cited by 6,720 · cited 9×
“Hoskisson, Robert E. 1,596 3.16 24.”
InfluentialThe Matthew Effect in Science, II: Cumulative Advantage and the Symbolism of Intellectual Property
Merton, R. K. (1988) · Isis · doi:10.1086/354848 · Cited by 1,397
The influence of management journals in the 1980s and 1990s
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Bachrach, D. G., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2005) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.454 · Cited by 912 · cited 2×
“…author studies was obtained from 30 journals, the majority of which have been used in previous research on journal influence in the field of management (cf. Coe & Weinstock, 1984; Extejt & Smith, 1990; Johnson & Podsakoff, 1994; Podsakoff et al., 2005; Sharplin & Mabry, 1985; Tahai & Meyer, 1999).”
MethodSelf-citation
Cited by
Aguinis, H., Dalton, D. R., Bosco, F. A., Pierce, C. A., & Dalton, C. M. (2011) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206310377113 · Cited by 302
Klarin, A. (2024) · International Journal of Consumer Studies · doi:10.1111/ijcs.13031 · Cited by 292
Santos, C., Coelho, A., & Marques, A. (2024) · Management Review Quarterly · doi:10.1007/s11301-023-00337-5 · Cited by 235
Mas-Tur, A., Roig-Tierno, N., Sarin, S., Haon, C., Sego, T., Belkhouja, M., Porter, A., & Merigó, J. M. (2021) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120487 · Cited by 147
Meißner, M., & Oll, J. (2019) · Organizational Research Methods · doi:10.1177/1094428117744882 · Cited by 131
Metadata
- Authors
- Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, N. P., & Bachrach, D. G.
- Venue
- Journal of Management
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2008-01-30
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 641-720
- ISSN
- 0149-2063 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-1211
- OpenAlex
- W1987311106
- Cited by
- 523
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 12.36
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
