Printer Friendly

Quantitative evaluation of German research output in Business Administration: 1992-2001.

Abstract

* The study presents a quantitative analysis of publications of business scholars and practitioners in six major German-speaking journals over the period from 1992 to 2001.

* The measure of research output is used as an indicator of research performance of scholars and institutions.

* The present analysis replicates and extends a previous study conducted ten years ago.

Key Results

* Results suggest that the share of full professors and practitioners who contribute to the major journals has decreased while the share of junior academics has increased.

* As a common feature of all journals included in the study their international exposure is low.

* The ranking of business schools has not changed very much compared to the time period of the previous study.

**********

Evaluation of Research Output as a Core Element of University Controlling

During the last decades in the German-speaking countries (Germany, Austria and Switzerland) there have been strong and differentiated efforts to evaluate the performance of universities and their units (Daniel 1988a, p. 93, Daniel 2000, p. 2). Although there are some concerns against such efforts performance evaluations tend to be useful since university research is primarily publicly funded, and universities are embedded in an environment which follows market-oriented principles. Such evaluations are caused by the fact that in the 90s the resources available to the academic system have declined significantly. The academic sector has to spend limited resources extremely effectively. With respect to the German-speaking countries it can be argued that these countries belong to the knowledge-based societies which are highly dependent upon the knowledge created in their academic institutions (Campbell 2000, p. 7).

Hence it does not come as a surprise that performance evaluations referring to the academic sector have been conducted by numerous institutions. Among others special institutions such as evaluation commissions, professional evaluation agencies, but also (business) magazines, students, and peers have become engaged in this field. Likewise the spectrum of the addressees of such studies shows a similar variety: Business firms want to identify those educational institutions which offer the best candidates for junior management positions, politicians strive for an efficient assignment of the scarce resources, high school graduates seek for transparency with respect to the quality of institutions of higher learning, and junior scholars look out for places with distinct research performance (Buttner/Kraus/Rincke 2002, p. 23). Finally, the universities themselves are highly interested in such evaluations, since they alleviate the raising of third-party funds as well as an efficient internal allocation of their resources. Since all these interests are legitimate academic performance evaluations are not only necessary but rather should their utilization be expanded during the coming years.

Due to the multitude of interests there is a wide spectrum of methods used in such evaluations. This methodological diversity is documented in several publications (e.g. Kostoff 1998). It can be shown that this wide spectrum of methods refers both to the research and to the teaching activities of the universities or their units. Whilst the teaching activities in spite of some problems (Kromrey 2001, pp. 11 et seq.) can be screened relatively precisely (e.g. on the basis of the number of students or examinations), the assessment of scholars' research performance is difficult to determine because of the complex nature of the research process. It is this very nature of the research process which does not allow for an unreflecting application of absolute, inter-subjective criteria. The biggest problems refer to the qualitative dimension of the research and its output which seems to be even more important than quantitative aspects. Scrinzi (2000, p. 16) states that "a fundamental problem of any evaluation is the contradiction between the administration's need for simple "objective" criteria for the quality and quantity of research output and the necessarily complex and sometime elusive nature of creative research". Up until now this dilemma remains unsolved; there is no concept or method which would allow for a precise or valid measurement of the qualitative dimension of scholarly work.

Because of validity problems in assessing research performance a variety of indicators have been suggested (e.g. Bolsenkotter 1986, p. 45, Daniel 1988a, p. 95, Hufner/Rau 1989, pp. 728 et seq., Montada/Krampen/Burkard 1999, pp. 69 et seq.) such as

* the number of completed doctoral or post-doctoral research projects,

* the amount of risen/spent third-party funds,

* the extent of scholars' active participation at scholarly conferences,

* the number of publications (refereed journal articles, book chapters etc.),

* the total number of pages published,

* the impact factor measured by the frequency in which the publications are cited in other publications, or

* the evaluation by peers.

Each indicator has its specific disadvantages (Daniel 1988a, p. 95, Rau 1986, pp. 70 et seq., Kieser 1998, pp. 215 et seq., Welsch/Ehrenheim 1999, pp. 455 et seq., Dilger 2000, pp. 473 et seq.). For instance, the number of completed doctoral or post-doctoral research projects is highly dependent upon the aspiration level in the respective university. The amount of risen/spent third-party funds is a problematic indicator for research performance since it is an input- rather than an output-oriented measure. Third-party funds are a difficult proxy, since large third-party funds have not always led to outstanding research results. The extent of scholars' conference activities is arguable since the number of conferences with low quality standards rises permanently. The number of publications might be misleading if contributions to handbooks and readers without peer-refereeing are included. The number of pages published has to be criticized since it only relies on the quantitative dimension of research (Lerbinger 1985, pp. 848 et seq.). The limitations of this method can be imposingly portrayed with Einstein's seminal publication "Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Korper" (1916) which is only 30 pages long but which revolutionized the science of physics in toto. The impact measure is misleading because of the existence of citation cartels and (self-)citation chains (Macharzina/ Wolf/Oesterle 1993, p. 67, Hennig-Thurau/Walsh/Schrader 2003b, pp. 6 et seq). Moreover since German scholars still prefer to publish in German journals and since only a few of these journals are listed in the SSCI this method is problematic when applied to Germany, and the evaluation by peers is even more of a problem because of numerous personal networks in the academic sector.

Needless to say that some of these methods and indicators cause immense efforts for data gathering and data analysis. Therefore, claims for the parallel use of several methods and indicators (Bolsenkotter 1986, p. 47, Kieser 1998, p. 222, Daniel 2000, p. 4) have to be regarded as somewhat problematic.

Concept of the Study

The concept of the present study takes into account the strengths and weaknesses of alternative approaches to assess research performance. The study rests on the assumption that research output and research productivity are widely accepted measures for evaluating scholarly work (Welsch/Ehrenheim 1999, p. 455). Based on that it relies on the following conceptual features:

* Application of a bibliometric (quantitative, indicator-based) and not a reputation-oriented (qualitative, peer-review-based) mode of analysis (see e.g. different chapters in Fisch/Daniel 1986, Barry 1990, p. 52, Campbell 2000, p. 8), since the latter suffers from the problem of circular conclusions (Macharzina/ Wolf/Oesterle 1993, p. 67). In the North-American university system publication records have played a central role for career-oriented performance evaluation of academics. The same is true of Australia. In Europe, too, bibliometric analyses are of increasing importance for evaluating the research of university units as the British example shows. In the Netherlands publications are the most important indicator for evaluation of university research (Kieser 1998, pp. 213 et seq.).

* Measurement of the amount of publication output and not the frequency, in which publications have been cited. This measure is widely accepted for selection or replacement decisions of professorial positions (Hufner/Rau 1989, p. 728). A striking argument for not using impact factor analysis is a high intercorrelation between the number of publications and the frequency of citations (Klingemann 1974, cited in Daniel 2000, p. 2).

* Concentration on journal publications. It has been argued that in scientific communities journal publications play a critical role in evaluating scholarly work (Hennig-Thurau/Walsh/Schrader 2003b, p. 2). This is because entry barriers are high due to limited space available and high aspiration level controlled by rigorous refereeing. Although there might be some scholars who publish a little inside and a lot outside of academic journals--Daniel (1988b, p. 238) has found no strong correlation between these two types of publications--we have selected academic journal publications as the study's data base. It is fair to assume that the large majority of scholars would prefer to publish an article in a reputable journal than elsewhere. Schlinghoff has shown that the probability to get appointed as full professor much more depends on the number of journal publications than on the number of other kinds of publications (2001, p. 8 and p. 12).

* Focusing on German speaking academic journals in recognition of their high standard. Some German scholars of business administration have shown a tendency to publish their work outside Germany, especially in English-speaking journals. Yet, for the majority of the German scholars of business administration the German publication market still is the main "playground". According to Schlinghoff (2001, p. 12) German-speaking universities base their decisions for filling vacant full professorships much more on German-speaking top-tier journal publications than on international top-tier journal publications. Mainly because of language reasons the number of German scholars publishing in English-speaking top-tier journals such as Administrative Science Quarterly, Management Science, Academy of Management Journal, Academy of Management Review, Journal of Finance, or Strategic Management Journal is still low. Schlinghoff (2001, p. 12) has shown that between 1990 and 1994 60.8% of those young German academics who had qualified for a professorial career by way of a post-doctoral degree (so called Privatdozenten) had no international publication at all; recently, however, as a tendency more and more junior academics try to get their work published in English-speaking outlets.

* Concentration on six academic journals. The selection of these six journals has been guided by the following deliberations. First, we wanted to concentrate on such academic journals which are neither specialized in functional areas such as marketing, finance, planning, organization, accounting nor on types of institutions such as banks or insurance companies. We argue that in general management or business administration journals there is competition among all scholars in the field and not just among those within a functionally oriented subgroup. Based on that we have selected those journals out of German-speaking general business administration journals which--according to studies by Hufner and Rau (1989, p. 732 and p. 734) and Schlinghoff and Backes-Gellner (2002, pp. 343 et seq.)--were acclaimed the highest reputation by German-speaking professors of business administration. These journals were included by Rau (1986, p. 69) in his well-known study on research performance. Moreover, in determining the group of journals, we have considered that, Germany, Austria, and Switzerland, have a highly integrated community of business scholars jointly organized in the Verband der Hochschullehrer fur Betriebswirtschaft (Association of University Professors of Management) but with the overriding majority of German professors. By concentrating on the top German-speaking academic journals (four German, one Austrian, and one Swiss journal) with rigorous refereeing processes there is a chance to also include qualitative aspects in a quantitative study such as ours (Buchholz 1995, pp. 195 et seq.).

* Analysis of the research output over a rather long period of time of ten years. We chose a time-frame comparable to previous studies conducted by Ran (1986, p. 64) and Macharzina, Wolf, and Oesterle (1993, p. 67). By analyzing a data set of ten years the study easily fulfills the minimum requirements statet by Daniel (2000, p. 4). He argues that research output studies should cover at least three to five years in order to eliminate outliers.

* Reference to exactly the same group of journals which were covered by the previous study (Macharzina/Wolf/Oesterle 1993, pp. 67 et seq.). This continuity is appropriate since Schlinghoff and Backes-Gellner (2002, p. 349) have found that among German-speaking business administration journals there is a high level of qualitative stability. That means that the ranking of German-speaking academic journals according their quality is changing only very little over time. Among others Bolsenkotter (1986, p. 46) and Kieser (1998, p. 222) define such a continuity of a data base as an indicator for a good research output project.

* Evaluation of the research output both of individual scholars and institutions. By doing so the study follows the widely accepted request that research performance studies should refer to each of these dimensions. They should be characterized by a "differentiation of objects" (Bolsenkotter 1986, pp. 42 et seq.).

Based on these conceptual foundations the present study

* analyzes which individuals (scholars and practitioners) have contributed most to the journals under study. This individualized analysis might help universities to identify promising candidates (especially research assistants) for professorial positions,

* investigates to what degree practitioners have contributed to the journals. This investigation helps to recognize how far the academic journals in spite of all need for specialization had been able to bridge the gap between the scientific and the practical world,

* examines to what degree persons without a higher academic degree (doctorate) have contributed to the respective journals; this can help to find out to which degree doctoral candidates would have a chance to publish in such journals,

* scrutinizes to which degree specific authors have concentrated their work on a single or a few journals. By doing so we can see if the publishing style of individual authors fits to specific journals,

* contrasts the six journals with respect to several characteristics in order to specify the journals more clearly, and

* checks the level of connection between a journal's contributors and editors.

Methodology of the Study

The data were collected computing the contributions in six major business research journals in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland over a period of ten years from 1992 to 2001. These journals are

* Betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung und Praxis (BFuP) [Research and Practice in Business Administration], edited by M. J. Matschke, G. Sieben, Th. Schildbach; 6 issues per volume, founded in 1949.

* Die Betriebswirtschaft (DBW) [Business Administration], edited by A. G. Coenenberg, M. Ebers, W. Gerke, R. Kohler, H. Meffert. B. Pellens, G. Reber, N. Szyperski, M. R. Theisen; 6 issues per volume, founded in 1908, inactive since 1943; revived in 1977.

* Die Unternehmung (DU) [The Firm], edited by M. Bruhn, P. Gomez, R. Gruning, M. Hilb, R. Kuhn, D. Pfaff; 6 issues per volume, founded in 1974.

* Journal fur Betriebswirtschaft (JfB) [Journal of Business Administration], edited by H. Stremitzer, R. Bratschitsch, O. Grun, A. Grunbichler, E. Loitlsberger, J. Mugler, D. Rossl, K. Sandner, R. Schauer, U. Schneider, G. Schweiger, G. Seicht, A. Taudes, E. Topritzhofer, K. Vodrazka; 5 issues per volume, founded in 1951.

* Zeitschrift fur Betriebswirtschaft (ZfB) [Review of Business Administration], edited by H. Albach, U. Backes-Gellner, H. E. Buschgen, G. Fandel, D. Heuskel *, D. Hunsdiek *, W. Kursten, B.-A. von Maltzan *, H. B. von Portatius *, H. Sabel, D. Schneidewind, J. Schwalbach; 12 issues per volume, founded in 1924.

* Zeitschrift fur betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung (ZfbF/sbr) [Review of Business Administration Research/Schmalenbach Business Review], edited by S. Albers, W. Ballwieser, C. Borsig *, W. Buhler, W. Busse v. Colbe, K. Esser, G. Franke, H. Hax, G. Lassmann, L. Muller-Hagedorn, A. Picot, D. Schneider, U. Schreiber, A. Wagenhofer; 12 issues per volume, founded in 1949. 12 issues per year, with 8 issues appearing in German (journal title: ZfbF) and 4 issues appearing in English (journal title: sbr).

The data base comprises a total of 2,255 articles. Book reviews, short notes and comments (less than five pages) were not included in the calculations since they normally are not subject to a reviewing process. The distribution of the total number of contributions across the journals is as follows:

* BFuP: 336 (14.9%),

* DBW: 397 (17.6%),

* DU: 274 (12.1%),

* JfB: 187 (8.3%),

* ZfB: 592 (26.3%),

* ZfbF/sbr: 469 (20.8%).

The variations between journals can be explained by the number of issues per year (5, 6 or 12 issues), the average length of the articles published and the number of pages per issue.

Adjusted appearances were computed such that a contribution written by a single author received one point. Co-authored articles were given 0.5 points for each author in case of two authors, 0.33 points each in case of three authors and so forth.

Results

Evaluation by Authors

An evaluation by authors is adequate; empirical studies have shown that performance differences between researchers belonging to the same research unit are often bigger than performance differences between research units (Vitt 1998, pp. 248 et seq.). According to the "sacred spark thesis" (Wanner/Lewis/Gregorio 1981, p. 250) publication performance is highly influenced by an individual's motivation, attitudes, perseverance and specific skills. As a consequence, in many universities there is a considerable inhomogeneity of the performance among their members (Heckhausen 1983, p. 11). No university can fulfill the criterion of a top research institution in its entirety (Daniel 2000, p. 4). Jaspers (1961, p. 124) suggested that life of a university depends upon the people, not the institution which just is the condition. Daniel (1988b, p. 227) argues that comparative analyses of research performance should always focus on the individual scholar or the individual research team. Also there is the universities' tendency to prefer applicants with outstanding publication record in academic journals for professorial positions (Schlinghoff 2001, p. 8 and p. 12) which legitimates to conduct such an analysis.

In German academic business journals there is the peculiarity that based upon the pertinent desire to bridge the gap between theory and practice, executives are invited to contribute as well. Research questions in business administration root in the practical world; hence we should include practitioner's contribution to academic journals. Accordingly, Table 1 reports on the appearances of scholars and of practitioners. Authors were ranked according to their publications across all journals ("total appearances"; column 4). For reasons of space only those authors are included who have acquired at least three points. Moreover, Table 1 informs about the type of author (column 3: S = scholar; P = practitioner; S/P = both scholar and practitioner with a tendency towards scholar; etc.), it also informs about the distribution of the authors across the six journals (column 5). The last but one column of table 1 informs about the authors' total of appearances in Germany's 3 top journals (DBW, ZfB, ZfbF/ sbr). This calculation relates to studies (Hufner/Rau 1989, pp. 732 et seq.; Hennig-Thurau/Walsh/Schrader 2003a, no foliation) which found that German-speaking business administration professors ranked that three journals significantly higher than the other three.

Unlike in the 1993 study no author clearly stands out. Rank No. 1 is held by Professor Gerpott (14.16 points) who in the reference study (Macharzina/Wolf/ Oesterle 1993, p. 72) showed as the practitioner with the highest number of appearances. Now a professor at the University of Duisburg-Essen he scored highest again. Another five authors, Professors Seicht, Weber, Homburg, Schwetzler and Albach, received 10 points or more, followed by a second group with 9-7 points, and a third with 6-4 points which cuts off at rank 62.

Among those not included in the list there are 58 professors who received between 2.83 and 2 points. 412 professors received more than 0 but less than 2 points. There are many one-time authors among them. Altogether if one holds against the total of 575 professors (105 + 58 + 412) who contributed to the journals the average of 818 representing the total population of professors between 1992 and 2001, (1) about 70% have appeared (in the 1993 study, the respective value had been 82%). Only 48% of the professors had one or more appearances in the time period between 1992 and 2001. Yet this finding is not surprising at all. Daniel (1988b, p. 228) in a sample of professors of psychology found that in a five-year period 68% had no publication in academic journals at all. Our findings are also in line with Lotka's Square Root Law of Elitism, according to which in a scientific community the number of very productive scholars is approximately the square root of the total number of individuals in that community (Daniel 1988b, p. 229).

Focusing on the three top journals (DBW, ZfB, ZfbF/sbr) the ranking of top authors changes considerably. Professors Gerpott, Homburg, and Schwetzler remain in the top positions but Professors Albach, Albers and Wildemann rank much higher than in the long list. They have concentrated their work on the top tier journals.

Among the top 142 authors there are eight practitioners and thirteen individuals with a mixed career (both as a scholar and a practitioner; the majority of these authors have published their articles during their time as university research assistants). The percentage of full-time practitioners in the ranking of the top authors is significantly lower than the percentage measured by Macharzina, Wolf, Oesterle in 1993. In between 1982 and 1991, 22 practitioners had achieved at least 3 points. Since this compares to the scores of scholars with three or more points (1993, p. 72) it can be assumed that practitioners' influence on German-speaking academic journals has vanished. Below we will test this assumption in more detail. Among the top 142 authors there are 105 professors and 16 junior academics. This relationship corresponds with the 1993 findings with a number of 93 vs. 7 respectively (see Macharzina/Wolf/Oesterle 1993, pp. 70 et seq.).

Leaders in the group of full-time practitioners are Professor Bernhardt and Dr. Kirchmann. Drs. Funk, Guserl, Paul and Liener are or were top executives in German companies, and still appear considerably in research outlets. Professor Simon served as a university professor before he became a management consultant.

In total 2,081 authors have contributed to the 2,255 appearances in the six journals. Yet only 55 of this appearances (2.4%) stem from authors outside the German-speaking countries.

Table 1 reveals that there seems to be a strong connection between certain authors and certain journals; only very few contributors show a nearly even spread over several journals.

Evaluation by Institutions

In German-speaking countries research-output-based rankings of institutions have had a rather long tradition. As early as in 1975 Spiegel-Rosing has published such a kind of list; she showed that the research productivity differs significantly among institutions. Such institutional analyses are important for the following reasons:

* It was shown that the membership to an outstanding institution positively influences the research output of its individual members ("accumulative advantage framework") (Wanner/Lewis/Gregorio 1981, p. 250).

* According to empirical studies (Schlinghoff 2001, p. 3) the reputation of an institution/faculty/department significantly improves its chances to attract outstanding candidates for vacant professorial positions.

* In important publications the quality of institutions/faculties/departments is usually operationalized on the basis of research output.

Following the above procedure the calculations were performed across all journals (see Table 2). The authors were assigned to those institutions which they belonged to at the time of publication of their respective articles. Since fair output-oriented performance analyses should always account for institutions' differences in size and resource endowments (Bolsenkotter 1986, p. 46, Daniel 2000, p. 4), we have included them in the computation. According to widely recognized studies (Fabel/Hesse 1999, pp. 197 et seq.) the number of scholars belonging to an institution is an acceptable proxy for its size and resource endowment. Therefore the last but one column of table 2 informs about the number of professors (C4/C3) who at the end of 2001 belonged to the respective institution. Table 2 informs about the institution's rank in the 1993 reference study.

As is revealed in Table 2 Mannheim Faculty of Business Administration, Business Economics University of Vienna, and the Kiel Institute of Business Administration top the ranks in terms of the amount of published research, followed by Cologne, Zurich, and Frankfurt/Main. The ranking is influenced by ethnocentric features also. Non-German-speaking institutions are still a minority in terms of appearances as is the case with authors.

A comparison of our findings with those of the 1993 reference study (Macharzina/Wolf/Oesterle 1993, pp. 74 et seq.) indicate a high level of concordance. There is a marked level of congruence of the institutions' ranks between the 1982-1991 and the 1992-2001 time periods (r = 0.75182; p = 0.0001). Yet among the top schools Mannheim, Kiel, Zurich, Munich, and Augsburg have gained, whilst Cologne, St. Gall, and MOnster relapsed.

Our findings fit nicely with those of other empirical studies, especially those which had been re-analyzed by Ursprung (2002, appendix). In our ranking the same institutions tend to be on top as in the six rankings re-analyzed by this author.

Table 2 shows that a consideration of the institutions' size would change their ranks significantly. This finding is also in line with earlier research results (Rau 1986, pp. 65 et seq).

Daniel (1988b, p. 226) has proven that in academic top institutions 80% of all scholars within and outside tenure track positions would publish at least one article in five years. Given the fact that in German-speaking-countries the majority of full professors have at least two research assistants only a rather small group of institutions fulfill this criterion of excellence.

Evaluation by Professional Affiliation

The phrasing of titles of journals such as "research and practice" or "business research", or explicit statements in the editorial program convey the basic philosophy of the respective journal's editorial policy. In order to find out whether the collection of contributors is in accord with the editorial policy the appearances were analyzed by professional affiliation of authors, university (professors, research assistants) vs. non-university (practitioners, others). As a second step authors were classified by academic qualification, doctorate vs. non-doctorate. (2) The analysis resulted in a considerable variation between the journals under study. As can be seen from Tables 3 and 4, the DBW shows the clearest profile of a research-oriented journal mainly geared towards the academic establishment. The high share of contributors from business practice in the BFuP suggests that this journal does indeed seem to follow successfully the policy expressed in its title. A similarly marked result can be reported for the JfB with respect to the high share of authors who belong to the group of research assistants. That means that this journal fulfills an important function in terms of an outlet for junior academics.

In the ZfbF/sbr, the organ of the Schmalenbach-Gesellschaft fur Betriebswirtschaft e.V. [Schmalenbach Society of Business] whose membership mainly comprises executives (about 80%) there is an obvious conflict built into the editorial policy of this journal in that it has to cater for both parties. The description in the title of the journal, however, signals an emphasis towards "business research". This emphasis was corroborated by a rather high share of academicians among the contributors. At the same time many appearances of practitioners are reported such that the ZfbF/sbr achieves the second highest value of contributions of practitioners among all journals. For the DU journal there is no marked peak position to be reported for any of the groups of authors; yet, there is also a majority of university affiliated contributors in the professorial and research assistants groups. The group of contributors qualified by a doctoral degree prevails as is the case with the other journals.

If we compare these findings with those of the reference study (Macharzina/ Wolf/Oesterle 1993, pp. 77 et seq.), we see a high level of time-stability of the journals. Yet what needs to be highlighted as an important finding is that in all journals, the influence of practitioners went down. Moreover, the DBW, DU, ZfB, and ZfbF/sbr became even more research oriented journals than they had been previously. This seems to be a consequence that in academia the trend towards specialization has increased considerably over recent years. Moreover it indicates that during this period of time, these four journals have continued to orientate their rigorous reviewing processes towards purely academic criteria. Another signal that leads us to this conclusion is that in our 1992-2001 sample the degree of participation of non-university authors is much lower (23.73%) than in Rau's (1986, p. 64) study (38.9%).

Connection of Appearances with University Location of Editors

It is suggested that the function of a scholar as an editor, co-editor or member of an editorial board may have a positive impact on the publication of research of the academic staff in the university one of the individuals is affiliated with. It is assumed that editors actively encourage and solicit manuscripts for their journal. In order to find out whether there is such a connection the following coefficient was constructed:

[C.sub.1] = points of contributors affiliated with editors' universities/total of appearances x 100.

As there are different numbers of editor-related universities per journal this difference was eliminated by dividing the ratio by the total number of editor-related universities (= [C.sub.1a]). As is shown in Table 5 the lowest correlation rests with the ZfB. The high ratio of 86% for JfB can be explained by the small number of business schools in Austria (nearly every university is represented in JfB's editorial board) and the central role which Vienna Business Economics University plays in Austrian business education.

When comparing the [C.sub.1a]-values of the present study with those of the reference study (Macharzina/Wolf/Oesterle 1993, p. 80) it can be shown that five journals (all but JfB) have reduced their degree of connectedness. Thus the chances of authors from institutions outside the editors' universities have improved.

Concentration of Authors in Journals

With respect to longevity as a controlling variable of the frequency of appearances there is contradictory evidence. While it has been found that in some journals authors contribute either once or twice (3) over a long period for such reasons as low acceptance rate or discouraging length of the review process, there are other findings which suggest that the number of one-time authors is inversely related with the age of a journal. (4) Apart from longevity there may be other reasons such as prestige and editorial policy which attract authors to submit contributions to a particular journal. If such contributions would be accepted again and again this could consequentially lead to a few authors influencing the profile of a journal considerably. In economic terms this phenomenon could be described as the degree of concentration of authors in a journal. The more (scarce) space is occupied by a few authors the lesser the chance for others to get in. The degree of concentration of German-speaking business journals was measured by two ratios

[C.sub.2]] = points of the 3 most frequent authors/total of appearances x 100,

[C.sub.3] = points of the 10 most frequent authors/total of appearances x 100.

The degrees of concentration for the German-speaking journals are shown in Table 6. Measured on the basis of [C.sub.2]], the highest degrees are shown for JfB, followed by DU, ZfB, and BFuP, while DBW and ZfbF/sbr seem to incorporate a wider spread of contributions from many different authors. This result is confirmed by a measurement based on [C.sub.3].

Comparing these results with those of the reference study (Macharzina/ Wolf/Oesterle 1993, p. 81) we found that in all journals the concentration of authors is significantly lower than it had been ten years ago. This might be interpreted as a result of an increased competitiveness among journals.

Summary and Conclusion

The present study uses the research output published in six major German-speaking academic journals as an indicator of scholars' and institutions' research performance. Although the number of publications in academic journals is only one element of scholarly performance this indicator seems to be appropriate. Journal publications are most competitive and domestic journal publications are the strongest predictor of academic careers. Thus the results can serve as a benchmark for evaluation and standard-setting in scholarly research.

Results of the quantitative evaluation suggested that in the 1992-2001 time period 70% of German-speaking university professors of business administration have contributed to the six major academic journals. This percentage is lower than the respective one of the 1982-1991 time period. Yet the scholars had different productivity levels. A second important finding is that the contribution of full-time practitioners in the journals is significantly lower than in the 1982-1991 time period. Third, only 2.4% of the journals' papers stem from authors outside German-speaking countries. Fourth, we found that the research output-oriented ranking of the university departments has not changed very much between the two time periods. Fifth, in five of the six journals the degree of connectedness between the location of editors and authors has declined. And sixth, in all journals the concentration of authors is lower than in the previous time period.
Table 1. Adjusted Appearances of Authors (Scholars and Practitioners)

Rank Author Type of Total
 Author Appearances

 1 Gerpott Thorsten J. S/P 14.16
 2 Seicht Gerhard S 12
 3 Weber Jurgen S 11.94
 4 Homburg Christian S/P 11.65
 5 Schwetzler Bernhard S 10.5
 6 Albach Horst S 10
 7 Albers Sonke S 9
 7 Schildbach Thomas S 9
 9 Wildemann Horst S 8.5
 10 Franck Egon S 8.33
 11 Schneider Dieter S 8
 12 Herrmann Andreas S 7.48
 13 Bruhn Manfred S 7.25
 14 Jenner Thomas S 7.08
 15 Brockhoff Klaus S 7
 16 Pfaff Dieter S 6.83
 17 Buhner Rolf S 6.5
 17 Buhl Hans Ulrich S 6.49
 19 Ossadnik Wolfgang S 6.33
 20 Fischer Edwin O. S 6.16
 21 Gierl Heribert S 6.07
 22 Frohling Oliver S/P 6
 22 Windsperger Josef S 6
 24 Ewert Ralf S 5.66
 25 Schewe Gerhard S 5.5
 26 Hellwig Klaus S 5.33
 26 Sattler Henrik S 5.33
 26 Skiera Bernd S 5.33
 26 Steven Marion S 5.33
 30 Hruschka Harald S 5.25
 31 Frese Erich S 5.03
 32 Ballwieser Wolfgang S 5
 32 Benkenstein Martin S 5
 32 Bernhardt Wolfgang P 5
 32 Betz Stefan S 5
 32 Kirchmann Edgar M. W. P 5
 32 Krafft Manfred S 5
 32 Kursten Wolfgang S 5
 32 Neus Werner S 5
 32 Posselt Thorsten S 5
 32 Siegel Theodor S 5
 32 Theil Michael S 5
 32 Hering Thomas S 4.99
 44 Simon Hermann S/P 4.83
 45 Helm Roland S 4.74
 46 Kupper Hans-Ulrich S 4.53
 47 Funk Joachim P 4.5
 47 Meffert Heribert S 4.5
 47 Ruhnke Klaus S 4.5
 47 Schefczyk Michael P/S 4.5
 47 Wagenhofer Alfred S 4.5
 47 Winter Stefan S 4.5
 47 Weber Martin S 4.49
 54 Fritz Wolfgang S 4.33
 54 Krakel Matthias S 4.33
 54 Leker Jens S 4.33
 54 Ruhli Edwin S 4.33
 54 Schierenbeck Henner S 4.33
 59 Osterloh Margit S 4.16
 60 Bauer Hans H. S 4.15
 61 Volkart Rudolf S 4.08
 62 Alewell Dorothea S 4
 62 Dellmann Klaus S 4
 62 Diller Hermann S 4
 62 Guserl Richard P 4
 62 Karmasin Matthias S 4
 62 Kieser Alfred S 4
 62 Kopel Michael S 4
 62 Krulis-Randa Jan S. S 4
 62 Kuhner Christoph S 4
 62 Scherer Andreas G. S 4
 62 Scherm Ewald S 4
 62 Tscheulin Dieter K. S 4
 62 Wagner Franz W. S 4
 62 von Werder Axel S 4
 62 Wielenberg Stefan S 4
 62 Witte Eberhard S 4
 78 Breuer Wolfgang S 3.83
 78 Mandler Udo P 3.83
 78 Fischer Marc P/S 3.82
 78 Gerke Wolfgang S 3.82
 82 Baetge Jorg S 3.67
 83 Kolisch Rainer S 3.66
 84 Schiereck Dirk S 3.65
 85 Drexl Andreas S 3.6
 86 Hoitsch Hans-Jorg S 3.5
 86 Kempf Alexander S 3.5
 86 zu Knyphausen Dodo S 3.5
 86 Matzler Kurt S 3.5
 86 Paul Walter P 3.5
 86 Richter Frank P/S 3.5
 86 Schwalbach Joachim S 3.5
 86 Spremann Klaus S 3.5
 86 Thom Norbert S 3.5
 86 Wirl Franz S 3.5
 86 Zelewski Stephan S 3.5
 97 Gedenk Karen S 3.33
 97 Gox Robert S 3.33
 97 Gruning Rudolf S 3.33
 97 Matschke Manfred Jurgen S 3.33
 97 Pechtl Hans S 3.33
 97 Pfeiffer Thomas S 3.33
 97 Schaffer Utz S/P 3.33
 97 Salewski Frank S 3.33
105 Ruegg-Sturm Johannes S 3.25
105 Wieandt Axel P 3.25
107 Glaum Martin S 3.16
107 Haase Knut S 3.16
107 Hennig-Thurau Thorsten S 3.16
107 Herzig Norbert S 3.16
107 Speckbacher Gerhard S 3.16
107 Steiner Manfred S 3.16
113 Satzger Gerhard S/P 3.08
114 Al-Ani Ayad P/S 3
114 Braun Thomas S 3
114 Burger Anton S 3
114 Burr Wolfgang S 3
114 Drukarczyk Jochen S 3
114 Fischer Thomas M. S 3
114 Frentz Martin H. S/P 3
114 Grabner-Krauter Sonja S 3
114 Gunther Thomas S 3
114 Hachmeister Dirk S 3
114 Hempelmann Bernd S 3
114 Kaas Klaus Peter S 3
114 Klingebiel Norbert S 3
114 Koch Helmut S 3
114 Kossbiel Hugo S 3
114 Lehner Franz S 3
114 Liener Gerhard P 3
114 Littkemann Jorn S 3
114 Rammert Stefan S 3
114 Rau-Bredow Hans S/P 3
114 Schneeweiss Christoph S 3
114 Schreyogg Georg S 3
114 Swoboda Bernhard S 3
114 Swoboda Peter S 3
114 Teichert Thorsten S 3
114 Walgenbach Peter S 3
114 Wallmeier Martin S 3
114 Wirtz Bernd W. S/P 3
142 Huber Frank S 2.98

Rank Author Appearances by Journal

 BFuP DBW DU JfB ZfB ZfbF

 1 Gerpott -- 4.33 2 0.5 4.83 2.5
 2 Seicht 1 -- -- 11 -- --
 3 Weber 3.03 2.75 3.33 -- 2.33 0.5
 4 Homburg -- 2.57 2.33 -- 5.75 1
 5 Schwetzler 2 3 -- -- 2 3.5
 6 Albach -- -- -- -- 10 --
 7 Albers -- 3 -- -- 3 3
 7 Schildbach 5 1 -- -- 1 2
 9 Wildemann -- 2 -- -- 6.5 --
 10 Franck 0.5 2.33 1 -- 2 2.5
 11 Schneider 1 -- -- 2 1 4
 12 Herrmann -- 0.33 0.5 1.5 3.32 1.83
 13 Bruhn -- 1.5 4.75 -- 1 --
 14 Jenner -- 1.25 3.83 -- 1 1
 15 Brockhoff -- 0.5 -- -- 6 0.5
 16 Pfaff 1.83 0.5 2.5 -- -- 2
 17 Buhner 0.5 1.5 0.5 -- 1 3
 17 Buhl -- 0.58 -- -- 3.91 2
 19 Ossadnik 2 -- 2.5 0.5 1.33 --
 20 Fischer -- 0.5 -- 3.66 2 --
 21 Gierl -- -- 0.25 0.33 2.83 2.66
 22 Frohling -- 1.5 -- -- 4.5 --
 22 Windsperger -- -- -- 4 2 --
 24 Ewert 3.33 -- -- -- 1 1.33
 25 Schewe -- 1.5 -- -- 2.5 1.5
 26 Hellwig 1.33 1 -- -- 3 --
 26 Sattler -- 1.5 -- -- 3.33 0.5
 26 Skiera -- -- -- -- 2.33 3
 26 Steven 1.5 0.5 -- 3.33 --
 30 Hruschka -- -- -- -- 3.5 1.75
 31 Frese 2 0.5 0.2 -- -- 2.33
 32 Ballwieser 1 1 -- -- -- 3
 32 Benkenstein -- 2 0.5 -- 1.5 1
 32 Bernhardt -- -- -- -- 5 --
 32 Betz 3 1 -- -- 1 --
 32 Kirchmann -- -- 1 3 -- 1
 32 Krafft -- 2 -- -- 2.5 0.5
 32 Kursten -- -- -- -- 4 1
 32 Neus -- 1.5 -- -- 2 1.5
 32 Posselt -- 0.5 -- -- 2.5 2
 32 Siegel 4 -- -- -- -- 1
 32 Theil -- -- 0.5 4.5 -- --
 32 Hering 1.83 2.33 -- -- 0.33 0.5
 44 Simon -- 1.33 -- -- 2.5 1
 45 Helm -- -- 1.25 1 1.83 0.66
 46 Kupper 3.2 -- -- -- -- 1.33
 47 Funk -- -- -- -- -- 4.5
 47 Meffert -- 2.5 -- -- 2 --
 47 Ruhnke -- 2 -- -- 1.5 1
 47 Schefczyk 1 1.5 -- 0.5 0.5 1
 47 Wagenhofer 1.5 1 -- -- 1 1
 47 Winter -- 2 -- -- -- 2.5
 47 Weber -- 1.5 -- -- 0.5 2.49
 54 Fritz 1 1.83 -- -- 1 0.5
 54 Krakel 1 -- -- -- 0.33 3
 54 Leker 0.5 0.33 -- -- 0.5 3
 54 Ruhli -- -- 2.83 -- 1.5 --
 54 Schierenbeck -- 0.83 2.5 -- 1 --
 59 Osterloh -- 1 2.5 -- 0.66 --
 60 Bauer -- -- -- -- 2.49 1.66
 61 Volkart -- -- 4.08 -- -- --
 62 Alewell -- 1 -- -- 2 1
 62 Dellmann -- -- 2 -- 1 1
 62 Diller -- 2 -- -- 0.5 1.5
 62 Guserl -- 1 -- 1 2 --
 62 Karmasin -- -- 0.5 3.5 -- --
 62 Kieser -- 3 -- -- -- 1
 62 Kopel -- -- -- -- 2.5 1.5
 62 Krulis-Randa -- -- 4 -- -- --
 62 Kuhner 2 1 -- -- -- 1
 62 Scherer 2 1 -- 1 -- --
 62 Scherm -- 2 1 0.5 -- 0.5
 62 Tscheulin -- 0.5 -- -- 2 1.5
 62 Wagner 3 -- -- -- -- 1
 62 von Werder -- -- 0.5 -- 1.5 2
 62 Wielenberg -- -- -- -- 3 1
 62 Witte -- 2 -- -- 1 1
 78 Breuer 0.33 -- -- -- 1.5 2
 78 Mandler 0.83 1 -- -- 2 --
 78 Fischer -- 1 -- -- 1.66 1.16
 78 Gerke -- 2.33 -- -- 0.33 1.16
 82 Baetge 2.5 -- 0.5 -- 0.17 0.50
 83 Kolisch 1 -- -- -- 1.83 0.83
 84 Schiereck -- 0.33 -- -- 1.83 1.49
 85 Drexl -- -- -- -- 1.99 1.61
 86 Hoitsch -- 1 -- 2.5 -- --
 86 Kempf -- 1 -- -- 0.5 2
 86 zu Knyphausen -- 2.5 -- -- 1 --
 86 Matzler -- 0.5 1 1.75 0.25 --
 86 Paul 1 -- -- -- 0.5 2
 86 Richter 0.5 1 -- -- -- 2
 86 Schwalbach 1 -- -- -- 0.5 2
 86 Spremann -- -- 2 -- 1 0.5
 86 Thom -- -- 3.5 -- -- --
 86 Wirl 1 -- -- -- 0.5 2
 86 Zelewski 1.5 -- -- -- 2 --
 97 Gedenk -- 2 -- -- 0.33 1
 97 Gox -- -- -- -- -- 3.33
 97 Gruning -- -- 3.33 -- -- --
 97 Matschke 2.33 -- -- -- -- 1
 97 Pechtl 1 0.33 -- -- 0.5 1.5
 97 Pfeiffer 0.33 -- -- -- 1 2
 97 Schaffer 0.5 0.5 2.33 -- -- --
 97 Salewski -- -- -- -- 3 0.33
105 Ruegg-Sturm -- -- 3.25 -- -- --
105 Wieandt 1 -- -- -- 1.25 1
107 Glaum 0.83 -- -- -- 0.83 1.5
107 Haase -- -- -- -- 2.16 1
107 Hennig-Thurau -- 1.16 2 -- -- --
107 Herzig 1 0.66 -- -- 0.5 1
107 Speckbacher 0.33 1.5 -- -- 1.33 --
107 Steiner -- 1.33 -- -- 1.33 0.5
113 Satzger -- 0.25 -- -- 0.83 2
114 Al-Ani -- -- 1 2 -- --
114 Braun 1 -- -- -- 2 --
114 Burger 0.5 0.5 -- 0.5 1.5 --
114 Burr -- 1 -- -- 1 1
114 Drukarczyk 1 2 -- -- -- --
114 Fischer -- 0.5 1 -- 0.5 1
114 Frentz -- 1 -- 1 1 --
114 Grabner-Krauter -- -- -- 1 -- 2
114 Gunther -- 1 -- -- 0.5 1.5
114 Hachmeister -- 1 -- -- -- 2
114 Hempelmann -- -- -- -- -- 3
114 Kaas -- 1 -- -- 1 1
114 Klingebiel 1 2 -- -- -- --
114 Koch -- -- -- -- 3 --
114 Kossbiel -- 1 -- -- 2 --
114 Lehner -- -- 2 2 1 --
114 Liener -- -- -- -- 3 --
114 Littkemann -- 1 -- -- 2 --
114 Rammert -- 1 -- -- -- 2
114 Rau-Bredow -- 1 -- -- -- 2
114 Schneeweiss -- 0.5 -- -- 0.5 2
114 Schreyogg -- 1 1.5 -- 0.5 --
114 Swoboda -- 2 -- -- 1 --
114 Swoboda 1 -- -- 1.5 -- 0.5
114 Teichert -- -- -- -- 1 2
114 Walgenbach -- 3 -- -- -- --
114 Wallmeier -- -- -- -- 1 2
114 Wirtz -- 0.5 0.5 -- -- 2
142 Huber -- 0.33 -- 0.5 1.82 0.33

Rank Author Appearances Rank in 3 Top
 in 3 Top Journals
 Journals

 1 Gerpott 11.66 1
 2 Seicht -- --
 3 Weber 5.58 11
 4 Homburg 9.32 3
 5 Schwetzler 8.5 5
 6 Albach 10 2
 7 Albers 9 4
 7 Schildbach 4 33
 9 Wildemann 8.5 5
 10 Franck 6.83 8
 11 Schneider 5 19
 12 Herrmann 5.48 15
 13 Bruhn 2.5 88
 14 Jenner 3.25 58
 15 Brockhoff 7 7
 16 Pfaff 2.5 88
 17 Buhner 5.5 12
 17 Buhl 6.49 9
 19 Ossadnik 1.33 120
 20 Fischer 2.5 88
 21 Gierl 5.49 14
 22 Frohling 6 10
 22 Windsperger 2 103
 24 Ewert 2.33 98
 25 Schewe 5.5 12
 26 Hellwig 4 33
 26 Sattler 5.33 16
 26 Skiera 5.33 16
 26 Steven 3.83 43
 30 Hruschka 5.25 18
 31 Frese 2.83 85
 32 Ballwieser 4 33
 32 Benkenstein 4.5 26
 32 Bernhardt 5 19
 32 Betz 2 103
 32 Kirchmann 1 123
 32 Krafft 5 19
 32 Kursten 5 19
 32 Neus 5 19
 32 Posselt 5 19
 32 Siegel 1 123
 32 Theil -- --
 32 Hering 3.16 59
 44 Simon 4.83 25
 45 Helm 2.49 96
 46 Kupper 1.33 120
 47 Funk 4.5 26
 47 Meffert 4.5 26
 47 Ruhnke 4.5 26
 47 Schefczyk 3 63
 47 Wagenhofer 3 63
 47 Winter 4.5 26
 47 Weber 4.49 31
 54 Fritz 3.33 53
 54 Krakel 3.33 53
 54 Leker 3.83 43
 54 Ruhli 1.5 117
 54 Schierenbeck 1.83 115
 59 Osterloh 1.66 116
 60 Bauer 4.15 32
 61 Volkart -- --
 62 Alewell 4 33
 62 Dellmann 2 103
 62 Diller 4 33
 62 Guserl 3 63
 62 Karmasin -- --
 62 Kieser 4 33
 62 Kopel 4 33
 62 Krulis-Randa -- --
 62 Kuhner 2 103
 62 Scherer 1 123
 62 Scherm 2.5 88
 62 Tscheulin 4 33
 62 Wagner 1 123
 62 von Werder 3.5 49
 62 Wielenberg 4 33
 62 Witte 4 33
 78 Breuer 3.5 49
 78 Mandler 3 63
 78 Fischer 3.82 45
 78 Gerke 3.82 45
 82 Baetge 0.67 131
 83 Kolisch 2.66 87
 84 Schiereck 3.65 47
 85 Drexl 3.6 48
 86 Hoitsch 1 123
 86 Kempf 3.5 49
 86 zu Knyphausen 3.5 49
 86 Matzler 0.75 130
 86 Paul 2.5 88
 86 Richter 3 63
 86 Schwalbach 2.5 88
 86 Spremann 1.5 117
 86 Thom -- --
 86 Wirl 2.5 88
 86 Zelewski 2 103
 97 Gedenk 3.33 53
 97 Gox 3.33 53
 97 Gruning -- --
 97 Matschke 1 123
 97 Pechtl 2.33 98
 97 Pfeiffer 3 63
 97 Schaffer 0.5 132
 97 Salewski 3.32 57
105 Ruegg-Sturm -- --
105 Wieandt 2.25 101
107 Glaum 2.33 98
107 Haase 3.16 59
107 Hennig-Thurau 1.16 122
107 Herzig 2.16 102
107 Speckbacher 2.83 58
107 Steiner 3.16 59
113 Satzger 3.08 62
114 Al-Ani -- --
114 Braun 2 103
114 Burger 2 103
114 Burr 3 63
114 Drukarczyk 2 103
114 Fischer 2 103
114 Frentz 2 103
114 Grabner-Krauter 2 103
114 Gunther 3 63
114 Hachmeister 3 63
114 Hempelmann 3 63
114 Kaas 3 63
114 Klingebiel 2 103
114 Koch 3 63
114 Kossbiel 3 63
114 Lehner 1 123
114 Liener 3 63
114 Littkemann 3 63
114 Rammert 3 63
114 Rau-Bredow 3 63
114 Schneeweiss 3 63
114 Schreyogg 1.5 117
114 Swoboda 3 63
114 Swoboda 0.5 132
114 Teichert 3 63
114 Walgenbach 3 63
114 Wallmeier 3 63
114 Wirtz 2.5 88
142 Huber 2.48 97

Table 2. Adjusted Appearances of Institutions

Rank Location Institution Appearances

 1 Mannheim Universitat 84.71
 2 Wien Wirtschaftsuniversitat 82.1
 3 Kiel Universitat 72.35
 4 Koln Universitat 70.47
 5 Zurich Universitat 62.82
 6 Frankfurt/Main Universitat 61.97
 7 St. Gallen Universitat 48.93
 8 Munchen Universitat 46.45
 9 Munster Universitat 45.77
10 Augsburg Universitat 44.9
11 Koblenz WHU 39.22
12 Bochum Universitat 33
13 Passau Universitat 29.99
14 Bern Universitat 26.49
15 Erlangen-Nurnberg Universitat 26.29
16 Wien Universitat 25.66
17 Berlin Freie Universitat 23.47
18 Regensburg Universitat 23.45
19 Bonn Universitat 23.15
20 Basel Universitat 22.66
21 Duisburg Universitat 21.99
22 Eichstatt Katholische Universitat 21.83
23 Giessen Universitat 20.8
24 Mainz Universitat 20.29
25 Hamburg Universitat 19.99
26 Saarbrucken Universitat 19.98
27 Graz Universitat 19.84
28 Berlin Humboldt-Universitat 19.83
29 Magdeburg Universitat 18.99
30 Innsbruck Universitat 17.98
30 Trier Universitat 17.98
32 Bielefeld Universitat 16.83
33 Berlin Technische Universitat 16.52
34 Freiburg Universitat 16.31
35 Tubingen Universitat 16
36 Freiberg Technische Universitat 15.99
37 Aachen RW Technische Hochschule 15.98
38 Munchen Technische Universitdt 15.9
39 Wurzburg Universitat 15.48
40 Jena Universitat 14.83
41 Fribourg Universitat 14.74
42 Linz Universitat 14.58
43 Hannover Universitat 14.43
44 Hagen Fernuniversitat 14.16
45 Essen Universitat 13.23
46 Dortmund Universitat 12.99
47 Darmstadt Technische Universitat 12.69
48 Greifswald Universitat 12.65
49 Karlsruhe Universitat 12.3
50 Bayreuth Universitat 11.99
50 Ulm Universitat 11.99
52 Braunschweig Technische Universitat 11.66
53 Dresden Technische Universitat 11.5
53 Hohenheim Universitat 11.5
55 Paderborn Universitat 11
56 Konstanz Universitat 10
57 Osnabruck Universitat 9.66
58 Leipzig Universitat 9.5
58 Rostock Universitat 9.5
60 Wien Technische Universitat 8.67
61 Dusseldorf Universitat 8.66
62 Leipzig Handelshochschule 8
63 Stuttgart Universitat 7.75
64 Hamburg Universitat der Bundeswehr 7.65
65 Kaiserslautern Universitat 7.5
66 Siegen Universitat 7.17
67 Gottingen Universitat 7
67 Luneburg Universitat 7
69 Bamberg Universitat 6.99
69 Munchen Universitat der Bundeswehr 6.99
71 Oestrich-Winkel EBS 6.48
72 Halle-Wittenberg Universitat 6
72 Ilmenau Technische Universitat 6
72 Klagenfurt Universitat 6
75 Bremen Universitat 5.98
76 Lausanne Universitat 5.5
77 Witten-Herdecke Universitat 5.33
78 Clausthal-Zellerfeld Technische Universitat 4.99
79 Frankfurt/Oder Europa-Universitat 4
80 Zurich ETH 3.74
81 Oldenburg Universitat 3.5
82 Kassel Universitat 3
82 Maribor, SLO University 3
82 Neuchatel Universitat 3
85 Chemnitz Technische Universitat 2.99
86 Boston, USA Harvard University 2.5
87 Rotterdam University 2.32
88 Erfurt Universitat 2.25
89 Berlin WZB (Wissenschaftszentrum) 2
89 Cambridge, USA MIT (Massachusetts 2
 Institute of Technology)
89 Heidelberg Universitat 2
89 Istanbul, TR University 2
89 Potsdam Universitat 2
89 Wuppertal Universitat 2
95 Uppsala, S University 1.75
96 Bergen. N Norwegian School of 1.5
 Economics and Business
 Administration
96 Genf Universitat 1.5
96 Hamburg-Harburg Technische Universitat 1.5
96 Urbana-Champaign, University of Illinois 1.5
 USA
100 Philadelphia, USA University of Pennsylvania 1.17
101 Ann Arbor, USA University of Michigan 1
101 Berlin Max-Planck-Institut 1
101 Birmingham, UK University 1
101 Boston, USA Northeastern University 1
101 Charlottesville, USA University of Virginia 1
101 Columbus, USA Ohio State University 1
101 Cottbus Technische Universitat 1
101 Durham, USA Duke University 1
101 Frederiksberg, DK University 1
101 Groningen, NL University 1
101 Helsinki, SF School of Economics 1
101 Kobe, J University 1
101 Krems Donau-Universitat 1
101 Leicester, UK University 1
101 Louvain, B University 1
101 Namur, B University 1
101 Oviedo, E University 1
101 Oxford, UK University 1
101 Beijing, PRC University 1
101 Pittsburgh, USA University 1
101 Santa Cruz, USA University of California 1
101 Santiago de Chile, University 1
 RCH
101 St. Petersburg, RUS Academy of Sciences 1
101 Stillwater, USA Oklahoma State University 1
101 Strasbourg, F University 1
101 Tokyo, J Waseda University 1

Rank Location Number of Rank in
 Professors 1993 Study

 1 Mannheim 21 3
 2 Wien 34 2
 3 Kiel 8 11
 4 Koln 19 1
 5 Zurich 12 8
 6 Frankfurt/Main 20 6
 7 St. Gallen 38 5
 8 Munchen 14 10
 9 Munster 15 4
10 Augsburg 12 22
11 Koblenz 11 27
12 Bochum 10 9
13 Passau 9 12
14 Bern 7 47
15 Erlangen-Nurnberg 16 7
16 Wien 13 30
17 Berlin 6 16
18 Regensburg 9 14
19 Bonn 4 13
20 Basel 4 24
21 Duisburg 10 53
22 Eichstatt 10 90
23 Giessen 9 29
24 Mainz 9 59
25 Hamburg 16 28
26 Saarbrucken 10 18
27 Graz 12 15
28 Berlin 13 --
29 Magdeburg 12 --
30 Innsbruck 13 42
30 Trier 8 21
32 Bielefeld 6 26
33 Berlin 7 40
34 Freiburg 5 63
35 Tubingen 8 33
36 Freiberg 9 --
37 Aachen 8 31
38 Munchen 3 + 9 50
39 Wurzburg 7 66
40 Jena 8 93
41 Fribourg 8 25
42 Linz 13 23
43 Hannover 10 20
44 Hagen 8 35
45 Essen 12 55
46 Dortmund 7 34
47 Darmstadt 9 19
48 Greifswald 7 --
49 Karlsruhe 6 60
50 Bayreuth 8 57
50 Ulm 5 48
52 Braunschweig 9 51
53 Dresden 11 93
53 Hohenheim 13 36
55 Paderborn 10 41
56 Konstanz 7 39
57 Osnabruck 8 51
58 Leipzig 11 --
58 Rostock 9 93
60 Wien 0 56
61 Dusseldorf 9 93
62 Leipzig 8 --
63 Stuttgart 8 36
64 Hamburg 11 17
65 Kaiserslautern 6 63
66 Siegen 16 43
67 Gottingen 13 38
67 Luneburg 12 46
69 Bamberg 8 32
69 Munchen 9 44
71 Oestrich-Winkel 19 88
72 Halle-Wittenberg 9 93
72 Ilmenau 6 --
72 Klagenfurt 8 72
75 Bremen 10 60
76 Lausanne 47 45
77 Witten-Herdecke 8 --
78 Clausthal-Zellerfeld 4 67
79 Frankfurt/Oder --
80 Zurich --
81 Oldenburg 49
82 Kassel 91
82 Maribor, SLO --
82 Neuchatel --
85 Chemnitz --
86 Boston, USA 80
87 Rotterdam --
88 Erfurt --
89 Berlin 53
89 Cambridge, USA --
89 Heidelberg 93
89 Istanbul, TR --
89 Potsdam --
89 Wuppertal 83
95 Uppsala, S --
96 Bergen. N 93
96 Genf 67
96 Hamburg-Harburg --
96 Urbana-Champaign, 72
 USA
100 Philadelphia, USA 93
101 Ann Arbor, USA --
101 Berlin --
101 Birmingham, UK --
101 Boston, USA --
101 Charlottesville, USA 134
101 Columbus, USA --
101 Cottbus --
101 Durham, USA --
101 Frederiksberg, DK --
101 Groningen, NL 81
101 Helsinki, SF 67
101 Kobe, J 71
101 Krems --
101 Leicester, UK --
101 Louvain, B --
101 Namur, B 93
101 Oviedo, E --
101 Oxford, UK --
101 Beijing, PRC --
101 Pittsburgh, USA --
101 Santa Cruz, USA --
101 Santiago de Chile, --
 RCH
101 St. Petersburg, RUS --
101 Stillwater, USA --
101 Strasbourg, F 83
101 Tokyo, J --

Table 3. Professional Affiliation of Authors

 University Research
 Professors Assistants Practitioners Others Total

BFuP 125.00 77.00 118.00 16.00 336.00
DBW 273.00 78.00 36.00 10.00 397.00
DU 133.00 97.00 38.00 6.00 274.00
JfB 57.00 97.00 27.00 6.00 187.00
ZfB 229.00 237.00 87.00 39.00 592.00
ZfbF/sbr 184.00 178.00 100.00 7.00 469.00

Total 1001.00 764.00 406.00 84.00 2255.00

 University Research
 Professors Assistants Practitioners Others Total

BFuP 37.20% 22.92% 35.12% 4.76% 100.0%
DBW 68.77% 19.65% 9.07% 2.52% 100.0%
DU 48.54% 35.40% 13.87% 2.19% 100.0%
JfB 30.48% 51.87% 14.44% 3.21% 100.0%
ZfB 38.68% 40.03% 14.70% 6.59% 100.0%
ZfbF/sbr 39.23% 37.95% 21.32% 1.49% 100.0%

Total 44.39% 33.88% 18.00% 3.73% 100.0%

Table 4. Share of Authors with Academic Qualification

 Doctorate No Doctorate Total

BFuP 251.00 85.00 336.00
DBW 312.00 85.00 397.00
DU 226.00 48.00 274.00
JfB 140.00 47.00 187.00
ZfB 473.00 119.00 592.00
ZibF/sbr 375.00 94.00 469.00

Total 1777.00 478.00 2255.00

 Doctorate No Doctorate Total

BFuP 74.70% 25.30% 100.0%
DBW 78.59% 21.41% 100.0%
DU 82.48% 17.52% 100.0%
JfB 74.87% 25.13% 100.0%
ZfB 79.90% 20.10% 100.0%
ZibF/sbr 79.96% 20.04% 100.0%

Total 78.80% 21.20% 100.0%

Table 5. Connection of Appearances with University Location of Editors

 BFuP DBW DU

University affiliation Clausthal Augsburg Basel
of editors Greifswald Bochum Bern
 Koln Erl.-Nurnberg Fribourg
 Passau Koln HS St. Gallen
 Linz Zurich
 Mannheim
 U Munchen
 Munster

Points of contributors 40.15 66.45 103.13
affiliated with
editors' universities

Total appearances 336 397 274

Percentage of 11.95 16.74 37.64
appearances ([C.sub.1])

Percentage of 2.99 2.09 7.53
appearances / Number of
editors' universities
([C.sub.1a])

 JfB ZfB ZfbF/sbr

University affiliation Graz HU Berlin Bochum
of editors Innsbruck Bonn Frankfurt
 Linz Hagen Graz
 HS St. Gallen Jena Kiel
 U Wien U Munchen Koln
 WU Wien Zurich Konstanz
 Mannheim
 U Munchen

Points of contributors 161.13 40.90 121.44
affiliated with
editors' universities

Total appearances 187 592 469

Percentage of 86.17 6.91 25.89
appearances ([C.sub.1])

Percentage of 14.36 1.15 3.24
appearances / Number of
editors' universities
([C.sub.1a])

Table 6. Concentration of Authors in Journals

 BFuP DBW DU JfB ZfB ZfbF/sbr

[C.sub.2] 3.67% 2.60% 4.68% 10.45% 3.80% 2.55%
[C.sub.3] 9.35% 7.26% 12.92% 20.72% 9.11% 7.10%


Endnotes

* indicates practitioners.

(1) This data were given to us by the "Verband fur Hochschullehrer fur Betriebswirtschaft e.V." (Association of University Professors of Management).

(2) Note that in the German context a doctoral degree is the necessary entry qualification for an academic career; a post-doctoral research qualification ("Habilitation") had been the precondition for the career of a university professor (Professorial ranks [C.sub.2], [C.sub.3], C4 are equivalent to Assistant, Associate, Full Professor) in the majority of the fields. But this is changing since the rank of Junior Professor has been introduced. Also it should be noted that unlike in the Anglo-American context many executives carry a doctoral degree.

(3) E.g. Chandy/Gopalakrishna (1992) for Management International Review.

(4) E.g. Heck/Cooley (1988) for finance journals.

References

Barry, T. E., Publication Productivity in the Three Leading U.S. Advertising Journals, Inaugural Issues through 1988, Journal of Advertising, 19, 1, 1990, pp. 52-60.

Bolsenkotter, H., Ansatze zur Erfassung and Beurteilung von Forschungsleistung, in: Fisch, R./Daniel, H.-D. (eds.), Messung und Forderung yon Forschungsleistung: Person, Team, Institution, Konstanz: Universitatsverlag 1986, pp. 41-49.

Buchholz, K., Criteria for the Analysis of Scientific Quality, Sociometrics, 32, 2, 1995, pp. 195-218.

Buttner, T./Kraus, M./Rincke, J., Hochschulranglisten als Qualitatsindikatoren im Wettbewerb der Hochschulen, Arbeitspapier des Zentrums fur europaische Wirtschaftsforschung, Mannheim: ZEW 2002.

Campbell, D. F. J., Evaluation of University Research: Strategies for Austria, Plattform--Technologie--Evaluierung, without volume, 10, 2000, pp. 7-11.

Chandy, P. R./Gopalakrishna, P., A Content Analysis of Contributions to the Management International Review Journal, Management International Review, 32, 3, 1992, pp. 273-283.

Daniel, H.-D., Evaluation von Forschungsinstitutionen in Deutschland, Plattform--Technologie--Evaluierung, without volume, 2000, 10, pp. 2-6.

Daniel, H.-D., Forschungsleistungen wissenschaftlicher Hochschulen im Vergleich, in Daniel, H.-D./Fisch, R. (eds.), Evaluation von Forschung, Konstanz: Universitatsverlag 1988a, pp. 93-104.

Daniel, H.-D., Methodische Probleme institutsvergleichender Analysen der Forschungsproduktivitat, in: Daniel, H.-D./Fisch, R. (eds.), Evaluation von Forschung, Konstanz: Universitatsverlag 1988b, pp. 215-241.

Dilger, A., Pladoyer fur einen Sozialwissenschaftlichen Zitationsindex, Die Betriebswirtschaft, 60, 4, 2000, pp. 473-484.

Einstein, A., Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Korper, Annalen der Physik, 17, 1916, pp. 891-921.

Fabel, O./Hesse, F., Befragungsstudie vs. Publikationsanalyse, Die Betriebswirtschaft, 59, 2, 1999, pp. 196-204.

Fisch, R./Daniel, H.-D. (eds.), Messung und Forderung von Forschungsleistung: Person, Team, Institution, Konstanz: Unversitatsverlag 1986.

Heck, J. L./Cooley, P. L., Most Frequent Contributors to the Finance Literature, Financial Management, 17, 3, 1988, pp. 100-108.

Heckhausen, H., Zur Lage der Psychologie Psychologische Rundschau, 34, 1, 1983, pp. 1-20.

Hennig-Thurau, T./Walsh, G./Schrader, U., VHB-JOURQUAL: Ein Ranking von betriebswirtschaftlich relevanten Zeitschriften auf der Grundlage yon Expertenurteilen, Working Paper No. 1 of the Chair of Marketing and Media of the Bauhaus-University of Weimar, Weimar 2003b.

Hennig-Thurau, T./Walsh, G./Schrader, U., VHB-JOURQUAL: Ein Ranking van betriebswirtschaftlich relevanten Zeitschriften auf der Grundlage yon Urteilen der VHB-Mitglieder, http://www.v-h-b.de.

Hufner, K./Rau, E. (1989), Publikationsbedingungen in den Wirtschaftswissenschaften: Die Eignung des Zeitschriftenmarktes zur Beurteilung wissenschaftlicher Leistungen, Die Betriebswirtschaft, 49, 6, 1989, pp. 727-741.

Jaspers, K., Die Idee der Universitat, in Jaspers, K./Rossmann, K. (eds.), Die Idee der Universitat, Berlin: Springer 1961, pp. 41-165.

Kieser, A., Going Dutch: Was lehren niederlandische Erfahrungen mit der Evaluation universitarer Forschung?, Die Betriebswirtschaft, 58, 2, 1998, pp. 208-224.

Klingemann, H., Ein Beitrag zur Methode der Messung individueller wissenschaftlicher Leistung: Dargestellt am Beispiel der Kernforschungsanlage Julich, Zeitschrift fur Soziologie, 3, 4, 1974, pp. 356-374.

Kostoff, R. N., Science and Technology Metrics, Arlington 1998.

Kromrey, H., Studierendenbefragung als Evaluation der Lehre?: Anforderungen an Methodik und Design, in: Engel, U. (ed.), Hochschulranking: Zur Qualitatsbewertung van Studium und Lehre, Frankfurt 2001, pp. 11-47.

Lerbinger, P., Der Studentenberg als Hemmschuh der Forschung: Eine empirische Untersuchung der Beitrage deutscher Hochschulen in betriebswirtschaftlichen Zeitschriften, Zeitschrift fur Betriebswirtschaft, 55, 8, 1985, pp. 848-858.

Macharzina, K./Wolf, J./Oesterle, M.-J., Quantitative Evaluation of German Research Output in Business Administration, Management International Review, 33, 1, 1993, pp. 65-83.

Montada, L./Krampen, G./Burkard, P., Personliche und soziale Orientierungslagen yon Hochschullehrern/innen der Psychologie zu Evaluationskriterien uber eigene berufliche Leistungen, Psychologische Rundschau, 50, 2, 1999, pp. 69-89.

Rau, E., Produktivitat und Reputation als Indikatoren universitarer Forschungsleistung, in: Fisch, R./Daniel, H.-D. (eds.), Messung und Forderung von Forschungsleistung, Konstanz 1986, pp. 61-88.

Schlinghoff, A., Personalauswahl an Universitaten: Ein deutsch-amerikanischer Vergleich der Berufungspraxis wirtschaftswissenschaftlicher Fakultaten, Working Paper of the Institute of Business Administration, University of Cologne, Cologne 2001.

Schlinghoff, A./Backes-Gellner, U., Publikationsindikatoren and die Stabilitat wirtschaftswissenschaftlicher Zeitschriftenrankings, Zeitschrift fur betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung, 54, 6, 2002, pp. 343-362.

Scrinzi, A., Evaluation at the Austrian Academy of Sciences, Plattform--Technologie--Evaluierung, without volume, 2000, 10, pp. 12-18.

Spiegel-Rosing, I., Zur Messung der Forschungsleistung yon Institutionen: Wissenschaftliche Produktivitat westdeutscher Universitaten, in: Bundesministerium fur Bildung and Wissenschaft (ed.), Beitrage zur Messung van Forschungsleistung: Institutionen, Gruppen und Einzelpersonen, Bonn: Gersbach 1975, pp. 15-80.

Ursprung, H. W., Schneewittchen im Land der Klapperschlangen: Evaluation eines Evaluators, Working Paper of the Fachbereich Wirtschaftswissenschaften, University of Constance, Constance 2003.

Vitt, J., Schlusselerfinder in der industriellen Forschung und Entwicklung, Wiesbaden: Gabler 1998.

Wanner, R. A./Lewis, L. S./Gregorio, D. I., Research Productivity in Academia: A Comparative Study of the Sciences, Social Sciences and Humanities, Sociology in Education, 54, 3, 1981, pp. 238-253.

Welsch, H./Ehrenheim, V., Ausbildung des wissenschaftlichen Nachwuchses: Zur Produktivitat volkswirtschaftlicher Fachbereiche in Deutschland, Osterreich und der Schweiz, Zeitschrift fur Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften, 11, 3, 1999, pp. 455-473.

Authors

Professor Dr. Dr. h.c. Klaus Macharzina, Chair of Management, and Director, Center for Export and Technology Management (EXTEC), University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany. Professor Dr. Joachim Wolf, Chair of Organization Theory and Design, University of Kiel, Germany.

Dipl.-Psych. Anne Rohn, Doctoral Candidate, University of Kiel, Germany.
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gabler Verlag
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2004 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

 Reader Opinion

Title:

Comment:



 

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Macharzina, Klaus; Wolf, Joachim; Rohn, Anne
Publication:Management International Review
Geographic Code:4EUGE
Date:Jul 1, 2004
Words:10432
Previous Article:The competition of international corporate governance systems--a German perspective.
Next Article:Biblio Service.
Topics:


Related Articles
Quantitative evaluation of German research output in business administration.
International comparative evaluation of North-American and German research output in business and management.
A comment on 'Quantitative Evaluation of German Research Output in Business Administration.' (response to article by Macharzina et. al. on this...
Benchmarking in sponsored programs administration: using the web to analyze nationwide data collection results. (Shop Talk).
Enhancing supply decisions through the use of efficient marginal costs models.
International organization of R&D and technology acquisition performance of high-tech business units (1).
Do motivation and equity ownership matter in board of directors' evaluation of CEO performance.
Evaluation research: an overview.
Mixed methods in international business research: a value-added perspective.

Terms of use | Copyright © 2014 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters