Printer Friendly

Affiliation of authors in transportation and logistics academic journals: a reassessment.

Abstract

This article updates an ongoing study of author affiliation and institutional productivity based on articles published in peer-reviewed logistics, supply chain management, and transportation journals. Additionally, the authors consider the current status and future trends of journals in electronic format. Our findings show an increasing percentage of contributions by academic as opposed to nonacademic authors. We also find reasonable stability in the publication output of the top ten ranked institutions. However, several new universities, including non-North American schools, have entered the top twenty-five ranked institutions.

**********

In this article the authors provide the fourth update of a study that began twenty-five years ago and that analyzes the affiliation of authors who publish in logistics, supply chain, and transportation journals (Allen and Vellenga 1987; Carter et al. 2001; Gentry et al. 1995; Vellenga et al. 1981). The journals considered in this analysis relate primarily to the managerial, financial, economic, and marketing aspects of logistics, transportation, and supply chain management. Journals stressing the engineering, operations research, and planning areas of transportation have been omitted from the study. As with the four earlier studies, this inquiry addresses two enduring questions: (1) What are the relative contributions by authors from various affiliations to logistics, supply chain management, and transportation journals? and (2) Which universities' faculties are most productive based on the number of articles published in academic journals specializing in logistics, supply chain management, and transportation?

The study examines the time period from 1999-2004 and compares the results of this period with the five earlier periods. The six-year period was chosen to be consistent with the length of the time periods from the earlier studies. A discussion of the study's methodology is presented next, followed by a comparison of the contributions by authors from academic as opposed to nonacademic affiliations. Afterwards, the contributions by academic authors are investigated in greater detail to establish the relative productivity of specific university faculties and to ascertain the departmental affiliations of the authors. The article concludes with a discussion of the status and trends associated with electronic publications in logistics, supply chain management, and transportation.

METHODOLOGY

The time period 1999-2004 (six years) was chosen to be compatible with the time periods employed in the four earlier studies: a seven-year period (1967-1973) and a six-year period (1974-1979) for the first study; a six-year period (1980-1985) for the second study; a six-year period (1986-1991) for the third study; and a seven-year time period (1992-1998) for the fourth study. The same eight scholarly logistics, supply chain management, and transportation journals employed in the most recent study were used in the current investigation. The eight journals are International Journal of Logistics Management, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Journal of Business Logistics, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Journal of the Transportation Research Forum, Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, Transportation Research Part E, and Transportation Journal. The rationales for excluding particular journals (e.g., Transportation Research Record, Transportation Research, and International Journal of Transport Economics) were discussed in detail in the original study (Vellenga et al. 1981).

The next step in the methodology entailed collecting data regarding the affiliation of each author (for both academic and nonacademic authors). For academic contributors, data were also collected with respect to the institutional and departmental affiliation of each author. In keeping with the prior four studies, the total number of articles per academic institution and per type of department for academic affiliations was compiled. In the event of articles with more than one author, each author's academic institution was credited with an article. For example, for an article written by two authors from the same university, that academic institution was given credit for two articles. Distinct institutional affiliations were ascribed in cases where faculty members were affiliated with separate campuses of a university. As an example, an article authored by a faculty member at the main campus of the University of Nevada would be credited to the University of Nevada, Reno rather than the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

This study's methodological limitations were outlined extensively in the first study and for this reason are only succinctly reexamined (Vellenga et al. 1981). First, logistics, supply chain management, and transportation research appearing in economics and general business journals are excluded, potentially providing a minor bias against some universities on the assumption that certain faculty at these universities may have their articles published in widely recognized general journals (e.g., Decision Sciences and the Academy of Management Journal). Another limitation is that although information concerning faculty departmental affiliation was collected and is presented in this study, data on author affiliation with respect to department are not always available. However, these two limitations do not diminish the findings of the study given that its chief purpose is to examine the productivity of individual university faculties based on the number of articles published in the primary journals dedicated to supply chain management, logistics, and transportation.

An additional limitation concerns the crediting of a university for each co-authored article such that double, and possibly triple and quadruple, counting results. However, there is no a priori reason to assume that this methodology favors some universities in terms of measuring productivity. In fact, many schools promote collaboration across functions and disciplines. Nonetheless, another possible method of ranking the productivity is a weighted system where one point is given to sole authorship, 0.5 points to an article with two authors, 0.33 to an article with three authors, etc. We in fact performed a sensitivity analysis using such a modified methodology, and found no meaningful differences among the top twenty-five ranked institutions. There were only four changes in the rankings, all of which occurred in schools ranked between twenty and twenty-five.

ACADEMIC VERSUS NONACADEMIC AUTHORS

The analysis of the data from the eight logistics, supply chain management, and transportation journals began with a comparison between authors with an academic affiliation and authors with a nonacademic affiliation. This latter category included consultants, government employees, and industry practitioners. For the present time period (1999-2004), authors with an academic versus nonacademic affiliation represented 90.2 and 9.8 percent (respectively) of the articles for all eight journals. As shown in Figure 1, the relative contributions of academics are becoming even greater in terms of the percentage of articles in the most recent time frame. This discovery is consistent with the results from the four earlier studies. Some possible explanations for this progression were considered in the prior studies (Gentry et al. 1995; Vellenga et al. 1981). The present findings further validate the conclusion that academic contributors are under increasing pressure to publish in rigorous peer-reviewed journals in order to achieve promotion and tenure. The climates for nonacademic authors seldom provide incentives and rewards for scholarly publications.

Table 1 displays a detailed breakdown of the relative contributions of academic versus nonacademic authors, by journal, for each of the six time periods. For the 1999-2004 time period, these relative contributions range from 93.6 percent for the International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management to 78.0 percent for the Journal of the Transportation Research Forum. This range is comparable to the ranges for the time period 1992-1998. The unweighted means of the percentages of the six time periods reviewed in the five separate studies are displayed in the last column in Table 1, and show that the International Journal of Logistics Management had the highest percentage (86.8 percent) of articles by authors with an academic affiliation, while the Journal of the Transportation Research Forum had the lowest percentage (61.0 percent). These results are also similar to the findings in the most recent previous study.

PRODUCTIVITY OF ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONS

As shown in the four earlier studies, publications in top-tier journals remain as the principal criterion in evaluating the research productivity of academic institutions. The quantity of articles in the top-tier journals of a field is assessed by the number of articles in those academic journals which are most germane to that discipline. While additional criteria such as books, monographs, and proceedings and presentations at professional meetings are also weighed in evaluating faculty, refereed journal publications are clearly the most important standard. The rankings of academic institutions for the 1999-2004 time period are displayed in Table 2, by showing the number of times faculty from these institutions authored or co-authored articles published in the eight journals considered in this study.

Michigan State University maintained the top ranked position during the 1999-2004 time period. Further, like the earlier, 1992-1998 time frame, the university's margin of published articles versus the next highest ranked school, Arizona State, is substantial, with a gap of thirty-seven articles. The ranking of Arizona State also remained constant, in second place, while the University of Maryland rose from fifth place to third place, with a total of fifty-six articles. The Ohio State University jumped six positions to the number four rank, while Iowa State University fell from fourth to fifth place. These results suggest that the top five positions remained relatively constant, with the exception of the fourth place position held by The Ohio State University.

Only one school in the top ten (University of Oklahoma) did not appear in the top twenty-five in the earlier (1992-98) analysis. Seven of the universities that are ranked among the top ten schools in the current time period were also ranked among the top ten institutions in the next most recent time frame (1992-98). It can also be seen that there is a substantial decline between the number of articles published by the three top ranked universities and universities ranked fourth through thirteenth. One additional noticeable decrease in output takes place between the thirteenth and fourteenth ranked institutions, with the number of articles dropping from thirty-one to twenty-four. A concluding observation is that the nine lowest ranked universities among the top twenty-five appeared from outside of the top twenty-five in the two prior time periods. In contrast, only one of the top ten schools in the 1992-98 time frame, University of Georgia, does not appear among the top twenty-five ranked universities from the current time period, although eight schools in the sixteenth through twenty-fifth ranked positions in the 1992-1998 time period (University of Miami, Mississippi State University, Air Force Institute of Technology, Free University of Amsterdam, Auburn University, Northeastern University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and University of North Florida) do not appear in the top twenty-five ranked universities in the current time period. These findings suggest that while universities appearing in the upper half of the top twenty-five rankings are reasonably constant in terms of their output and performance, universities in the lower portion are less stable. These findings might be explained by the fact that institutions with larger logistics programs have a core faculty of researchers that is less impacted by the turnover of one or two researchers. Conversely, smaller programs are more likely to be significantly affected by the departure or arrival of one or two particularly prolific faculty members.

Table 3 displays those schools that were ranked in the top twenty-five in each of the six time frames. Only one university, The Pennsylvania State University, is ranked in the top ten in each of the five periods. This university, along with three other schools (University of Maryland, Arizona State University, and University of British Columbia), was ranked in the top twenty-five for all five time periods. The rankings of these four institutions, which are based on the total number of articles for the 1967-2004 time period, are shown in the last column of Table 3. The University of Maryland is ranked in first place with 343 total article counts and The Pennsylvania State University is ranked second with a total of 324 articles. A sharp decline then appears between these top-tier schools and those ranked third and fourth.

Consistency of Rankings across Journals

Table 4 displays universities in the top ten rankings in two or more of the journals for the 1999-2004 time frame. Iowa State University, Michigan State University, and the University of Maryland are ranked in the top ten schools in four journals and thus display the most consistency. It is worth noting that all three of these schools moved down from the earlier study, where Iowa State University and the University of Maryland were ranked in the top ten of six journals and Michigan State University was ranked in the top ten in five journals. The likely reason for this finding is that the original set of twelve journals from the earlier studies, which were included in Table 4 of the prior study, was modified to the current list of eight journals in the most recent study (Carter et al. 2001). A second possible explanation is that as more universities introduce logistics and supply chain management courses and create supply chain management concentrations and majors, researchers from a more disparate and less concentrated group of universities may be publishing in logistics, transportation, and supply chain management journals. It is also noted that all of the universities displayed in Table 4 also appear in the top twenty-five ranked schools shown in Table 2.

The top ranked universities, by journal, are as follows: International Journal of Logistics Management (The Ohio State University), International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management (University of Wales-Cardiff), Journal of Business Logistics (Michigan State University), Journal of the Transportation Research Forum (Kansas State University), Journal of Supply Chain Management (Arizona State University), Journal of Transport Economics and Policy (University of Chile), Transportation Journal (Iowa State University), Transportation Research Part E (University of Maryland). All of the universities ranked first in at least one journal were included in the top twenty-five overall rankings.

Like the prior study (Carter et al. 2001), this research collected and analyzed data with respect to the departmental affiliations of authors from academic institutions. The data concerning departmental affiliations are not as complete as the data regarding university affiliation. The summarized department data displayed in Table 5 show that affiliations with logistics/supply chain management (and transportation) are the most frequent, followed by marketing and supply chain management/logistics/transportation departments. This is the first time frame, of all six time periods, in which departmental affiliations encompassing the terms logistics, transportation, and supply chain management have clearly dominated the other departmental titles. Again, this may be explained by the rapid growth of supply chain management programs at academic institutions and the renaming of departments at some schools, as well as by changes to the current list of eight journals. The table also suggests the multidisciplinary character of logistics, supply chain, and transportation research, with additional departmental titles from the broader field of business such as management, marketing, operations, and economics, as well as from more dissimilar academic disciplines including engineering, mathematics, and geography. The top-ranked departments by journal are as follows: International Journal of Logistics Management (Marketing and Supply Chain Management/Logistics/Transportation), International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management (Decision Sciences/Operations/Management Information Systems/ Technology Management), Journal of Business Logistics (Marketing and Supply Chain Management/Logistics/Transportation), Journal of Supply Chain Management (Logistics/Supply Chain Management (& Transportation)), Journal of the Transportation Research Forum (Civil Engineering), Journal of Transport Economics and Policy (Economics), Transportation Journal (Logistics/Supply Chain Management (& Transportation)), Transportation Research Part E (Civil Engineering).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest reasonable stability in the top ten rankings of universities in terms of scholarly logistics, supply chain management, and transportation research. For the most part these schools have established logistics programs with a critical mass of at least three to five faculty. Conversely, there appears to be much less stability among those universities ranked in the bottom third of the top twenty-five. These findings support assertions made in the prior study (Carter et al. 2001) that universities likely require a critical mass of faculty in order to remain among the top twenty-five ranked schools.

As was the case in the most recent study, there is a further increase in non-North American universities appearing among the top twenty-five ranked institutions. Nine universities appear among the top twenty-five ranked institutions in the current time period, as opposed to four universities from the earlier (1992-1998) time frame. As was proposed in the last study, a likely explanation for this trend is that faculty members in non-North American universities are increasingly expected to publish in top-tier, scholarly journals in order to receive promotion and tenure. Additionally, the increased focus on global logistics and supply chain management, particularly in terms of cross-national studies, often fosters collaboration among faculty from different countries.

A LOOK TO THE FUTURE

The five studies of scholarly output in the leading academic supply chain, logistics, and transportation journals from 1967-2004 have only encompassed articles in traditional print journals that are available by subscription to libraries, organizations, and individuals for a fee. However, during the past decade we can observe an increasing interest in the use of electronic delivery methods for published research, especially in scientific fields (Bjork 2004; Tomney and Burton 1998). Therefore, it is important that researchers in supply chain management, logistics, and transportation keep abreast of these changes in the modes of dissemination of scholarly and scientific information (Larson et al. 2001).

One important consideration is peer acceptance of electronic and open access (OA) journals vis-a-vis the traditional print journals. The goal of the majority of academic researchers is to have their original scholarly work published in top-tier, peer-reviewed journals. Two primary concerns arise when we consider alternative formats and modes of publications. First, can these high quality standards be maintained in electric and open access outlets, and second, do these new outlets have the same level of prestige (Tomney and Burton 1998)? These concerns remain to be resolved. A survey by Tomney and Burton (1998) found that faculty under the age of forty were four times more likely to use electronic modes than those over age forty. Therefore, resistance to the use of electronic publications may decrease in the longer term.

Strengths and Weaknesses of Electronic Journals

Many advantages exist for electronic publishing. These include "velocity," or, in other words, very short lead times and faster turnaround times between the time of submission of a manuscript to the actual journal publication; rapid feedback and dialogue among authors, editors, and reviewers; and publications at the beginning of the research cycle rather than at the end (Larson et al. 2001). Other advantages include lower costs to subscribers (vis-a-vis print journals); the bypassing of costly intermediaries in the publishing process (for-profit publishing companies that charge several thousand of dollars for some journals); and avoidance of delays in publishing articles, late deliveries of print journals, and the log-jams that exist in the review process in many top-tier journals (often one to two years from original submission date) (Bjork 2004).

Some writers are especially critical of the very high prices of journals that are published by for-profit firms. Huge profits are gained from the academic community by the use of "free" referee services to insure juried journals. Bergstrom (2001) even suggests the boycotting of these "over-priced" journals. Others suggest that it is essential to maintain print journals and not post all articles on the Internet as this practice will lead to the disappearance of journals. It is essential to keep as wide a range of outlets in a discipline as possible (Shugan 2003).

Many barriers still exist to the use of electronic journals. As mentioned earlier, peer acceptance is an ongoing concern. Other issues include copyrights and legal rights of published works. Can the same safeguards exist in electronic publications? There are wide differences in information technology infrastructures that vary by author, group, and journal. Can these issues be harmonized?

Indexing and search problems are common. Academic reward systems may or may not accord equal status to e-journals. Many e-journals require author submission or publication fees, which is a foreign concept to many traditional, hard-copy journals. Finally, there are marketing and critical mass concerns for this new journal format (Bjork 2004; Tomney and Burton 1998).

Current Status and Trends of Electronic Publishing in Logistics, Supply Chain Management, and Transportation Journals

As previously discussed, the top-tier journals in our disciplines are in the traditional print format. However, we are beginning to see some changes. The first supply chain management electronic journal to appear was Supply Chain Forum: An International Journal, published by The Institute of Industrial Logistics of the Bordeaux School of Business, located in France. It is available in English as well as French (Larson et al. 2001). Subscription fees in 2005 were 300 euros for institutions and 55 euros for individuals (Supply Chain Forum 2005). There is a charge for each reprint for nonsubscribers.

More recently (2004) Transportation Quarterly (a publication of the Eno Transportation Foundation, Inc.) changed from a print format to an all-electronic journal and has published its first issue in the new format. In addition, the Journal of the Transportation Research Forum (JTRF) has instituted a new publication format in 2005. JTRF will maintain the current print edition and even intends to expand to three issues per year (from two issues per year at present). JTRF will also make its articles available in electronic form, initially to members only. (1) Finally, it is important to note that many of the current top-tier supply chain management and logistics journals are available from the Internet through various library subscription services. Faculty can print journal articles from their desktop computers. A common strategy is to delay the availability of the e-format articles for six months to a year after the original print version appears.

In conclusion, it is rapidly becoming apparent that there will be changes to the traditional modes of scholarly publication in all fields. More and more disciplines have embraced the change to electronic publications. There is evidence that younger faculty are more willing to participate in these newer formats. Are we willing to accept new electronic journals or change the formats of existing journals? This question may be answered, in part, based on the acceptance by university faculty and administrations of these formats as suitable for merit and promotion and tenure.
Figure 1. Relative Contributions to all Eight (a) Logistics,
Supply Chain Management, and Transportation Journals, by Type
of Affiliation

 Percent

 Academic Non-Academic

1967-73 57.9 42.1
1974-79 65.9 39.1
1980-85 68.9 31.1
1986-91 78.5 21.5
1992-98 82.0 18.0
1999-04 90.2 9.8

Table 1. Profile of Transportation and Logistics Journals with Respect
to Affiliation of Authors

Journal 1999-04 1992-98 (a) 1985-91 (a)
 % of articles % of articles % of articles
 written by written by written by
 authors from authors from authors from
 academic academic academic
 institutions institutions institutions

International Journal 90.3 83.3 --
of Logistics Management

International Journal 93.6 (b) 91.6 (b) 79.4
of Physical
Distribution and
Logistics Management

Journal of Business 93.0 88.3 89.1
Logistics

Journal of Supply Chain 91.4 91.3 86.5
Management

Journal of Transport 91.7 81.6 84.0
Economics and Policy

Journal of the 78.0 80.4 66.8
Transportation Research
Forum

Transportation Journal 92.8 89.5 90.4

Transportation Research 85.8 87.2 86.5
Part E: The Logistics
and Transportation
Review

Journal 1980-85 (a) 1974-79 (a)
 % of articles % of articles
 written by written by
 authors from authors from
 academic academic
 institutions institutions

International Journal -- --
of Logistics Management

International Journal 81.7 85.0 (b)
of Physical
Distribution and
Logistics Management

Journal of Business 75.0 --
Logistics

Journal of Supply Chain 83.7 80.1
Management

Journal of Transport 81.1 70.0
Economics and Policy

Journal of the 53.4 49.1
Transportation Research
Forum

Transportation Journal 76.4 73.6

Transportation Research 76.2 78.0
Part E: The Logistics
and Transportation
Review

 Unweighted
 average for 6
Journal 1967-73 (a) time periods
 % of articles % of articles
 written by written by
 authors from authors from
 academic academic
 institutions institutions

International Journal -- 86.8 (b)
of Logistics Management

International Journal 64.4 82.6
of Physical
Distribution and
Logistics Management

Journal of Business -- 86.4
Logistics

Journal of Supply Chain 80.6 (b) 85.6
Management

Journal of Transport 69.1 79.6
Economics and Policy

Journal of the 38.4 61.0
Transportation Research
Forum

Transportation Journal 63.5 81.0

Transportation Research 74.6 81.4
Part E: The Logistics
and Transportation
Review

(a) Data are from "Affiliation of Authors in Transportation and
Logistics Academic Journals--Another Look." Transportation Journal,
Winter/Spring 2001, Figure 1, p. 85.

(b) Indicates journal having the highest percentage of articles
from persons from academic institutions.

Table 2. Schools Ranked by Number of Articles in Transportation and
Logistics Journals for 1999-2004

 Rank Number of Rank
School 1999-04 Articles 1992-98 (a)

Michigan State University 1 95 1
Arizona State University 2 58 2
University of Maryland 3 56 5
The Ohio State University 4 44 10
Iowa State University 5 41 4
Cranfield School of 6 38 13
 Management
University of Oklahoma 7 37 NR
University of Wales (Cardiff) 8 36 6
Kansas State University 9 32 14
The Pennsylvania State 9 32 3
 University
University of Arkansas 9 32 15
University of Tennessee 9 32 11
Helsinki University of 13 31 NR
 Technology
University of British 14 24 7
 Columbia
John Carroll University 15 23 8
Eindenhoven University of 16 19 20
 Technology
University of Nevada, Reno 17 18 20
Copenhagen Business School 18 16 NR
University of California, 18 16 NR
 Irvine
Florida State University 20 15 NR
University of California, 20 15 NR
 Berkeley
National University of 22 14 NR
 Singapore
Texas A&M University 22 14 NR
University of Sydney 22 14 NR
Monash University 25 13 NR
University of Chile 25 13 NR

 Rank Rank Rank
School 1986-91 (b) 1980-85 (b) 1974-79 (b)

Michigan State University 2 8 NR
Arizona State University 8 13 13
University of Maryland 1 1 5
The Ohio State University 13 NR 23
Iowa State University 5 3 NR
Cranfield School of
 Management
University of Oklahoma
University of Wales (Cardiff) NR NR NR
Kansas State University NR NR NR
The Pennsylvania State 2 2 3
 University
University of Arkansas NR NR 7
University of Tennessee NR 12 6
Helsinki University of NR NR NR
 Technology
University of British 6 5 2
 Columbia
John Carroll University 9 NR NR
Eindenhoven University of
 Technology
University of Nevada, Reno
Copenhagen Business School NR NR NR
University of California, NR NR NR
 Irvine
Florida State University
University of California, NR 11 10
 Berkeley
National University of NR NR NR
 Singapore
Texas A&M University
University of Sydney
Monash University NR NR NR
University of Chile NR NR NR

 Change in Rank
 Rank Between 1992-98
School 1967-73 (b) and 1999-04

Michigan State University NR
Arizona State University 4
University of Maryland 14 +2
The Ohio State University 20 +6
Iowa State University NR -1
Cranfield School of +7
 Management
University of Oklahoma From outside top 25
University of Wales (Cardiff) NR -2
Kansas State University NR +5
The Pennsylvania State 4 -6
 University
University of Arkansas NR +6
University of Tennessee 19 +2
Helsinki University of NR From outside top 25
 Technology
University of British 9 -7
 Columbia
John Carroll University NR -7
Eindenhoven University of +4
 Technology
University of Nevada, Reno +3
Copenhagen Business School NR From outside top 25
University of California, NR From outside top 25
 Irvine
Florida State University From outside top 25
University of California, 10 From outside top 25
 Berkeley
National University of NR From outside top 25
 Singapore
Texas A&M University From outside top 25
University of Sydney From outside top 25
Monash University NR From outside top 25
University of Chile NR From outside top 25

Note: The methodology used in the study attributes an article to each
of the authors of a co-authored article.

(a) Data are from "Affiliation of Authors in Transportation and
Logistics Academic Journals--Another Look," Transportation Journal,
Volume 41, No. 2&3, Table 6, p. 91.

(b) Data are from "Affiliation of Authors in Transportation and
Logistics Academic Journals--Another Look," Transportation Journal,
Volume 41, No. 2&3, Table 2, p. 88.

NR = Not Ranked

Table 3. Schools Ranked in Top Twenty-Five in Each of Six Time Periods

 Rank Number of Rank
School 1999-04 Articles 1992-98

University of Maryland 3 56 5
Pennsylvania State University 9 32 3
Arizona State University 2 58 3
University of British
 Columbia 14 24 8

 Rank Rank Rank
School 1986-91 (a) 1980-85 (a) 1974-79 (a)

University of Maryland 1 1 5
Pennsylvania State University 2 2 3
Arizona State University 8 13 13
University of British
 Columbia 6 5 2

 Rank (b) Based
 on Total
 Number of
 Articles (1967-
 Rank 2004) (No. of
School 1967-73 (a) Articles) (c)

University of Maryland 14 1 (343)
Pennsylvania State University 4 2 (324)
Arizona State University 4 3 (253)
University of British
 Columbia 9 4 (247)

Note: One school was ranked in the top twenty-five in four out of the
five time periods. This is (with 1999-04 ranking, 1992-98 ranking,
1986-91 ranking, 1974-79 ranking, 1967-73 ranking): MIT
(NR, 16, 19, 5. 1, 1).

(a) Data are from "Affiliation of Authors in Transportation and
Logistics Academic Journals--Another Look," Transportation Journal,
Winter/Spring 2001, Table 3, p. 89.

(b) The ranking refers only to the four schools that appeared in each
of the six time periods.

(c) The methodology used in this and earlier studies by the authors
attributes an article to each of the authors of a co-authored article.

Table 4. Consistency of Rankings of Schools Across Transportation and
Logistics Journals (1999-04)

 Journals (a) (Rank of School
Ranking in Journal)

Ranked Top Ten in Four Journals
--Iowa State University JBL (10), TJ (1), TRE (2), TRF (8)
--Michigan State University IJPD&LM (3), JBL (1), JSCM (2),
 TJ (4)
--University of Maryland JBL (6), JSCM (5), TJ (3), THE (1)

Ranked Top Ten in Three Journals
--Arizona State University IJPD&LM (10), JBL (7), JSCM (1)
--University of Wales (Cardiff) IJLM (6), IJPD&LM (1), TRE (7)
--University of Arkansas JBL (5), TJ (6), TRE (2)
--University of British Columbia JTEP (2), TRE (2), TRF (5)
--University of Oklahoma IJLM (4), JBL (2), TRE (9)
--Ohio State University JTRF (10), JBL (5), IJPDLM (10)
--University of British Columbia JTRF (7), TRE (3), JTEP (1)

Ranked Top Tep in Two Journals
--Cranfield School of Management IJLM (2), IJPD&LM (3)
--Eindenhoven University of
 Technology IJLM (4), JSCM (7)
--Helsinki University of
 Technology IJLM (3), IJPD&LM (2)
--The Ohio State University IJLM (1), JBL (3)
--University of California,
 Berkeley JTEP (5), TRE (2)
--University of California, Irvine JTEP (50), TRE (2)
--University of Nevada, Reno IJLM (7), JBL (8)
--University of Sydney JTEP (4), TRE (9)
--University of Tennessee IJPD&LM (5), JBL (3)

(a) IJLM = International Journal of Logistics Management;
IJPDLM = International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics
Management; JBL = Journal of Business Logistics; JSCM = Journal of
Supply Chain Management; JTEP = Journal of Transport Economics and
Policy; JTRF = Journal of the Transportation Research Forum; TJ =
Transportation Journal; TRE = Transportation Research Part E.

Table 5. Top Academic Departments Represented

 % of all
 Departments
 Number Indicated

Logistics/Supply Chain Management 244 14.8
 (& Transportation)
Marketing & Supply Chain Management/ 208 12.7
 Logistics/Transportation
Marketing 184 11.2
Decision Sciences/Operations/Management 177 10.8
 Information Systems
Economics 159 9.7
Management 126 7.7
Civil Engineering 121 7.4
Business Administration 120 7.3
Industrial Engineering 76 4.6
Transportation (& Logistics) 67 4.1
Agriculture/Agricultural Economics 37 2.3
Urban/Regional Planning 24 1.5
Mathematics/Statistics 6 0.4
Geography 6 0.4
 1555 94.6


ENDNOTES

(1) Presentation by editor of JTRF, Michael W. Babcock, at TRF annual meeting in Washington, D.C., March 2005.

REFERENCES

Allen, Benjamin J. and David B. Vellenga, "Affiliation of Authors in Transportation and Logistics Academic Journals--An Update," Transportation Journal, Vol. 26, No. 3 (Spring 1987), pp. 39-47.

Bergstrom, Theodore C., "Free Labor for Costly Journals?" The Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 15, No. 4, Fall 2001, pp 183-198.

Bjork, Bo-Christer, "Open Access to Scientific Publications--An Analysis to the Barriers to Change?," Information Research, Vol. 9, No. 2, January, 2004, pp. 170-180.

Carter, Craig R., David B. Vellenga, Benjamin J. Allen, and Julie J. Gentry (2001), "Affiliation of Authors in Transportation and Logistics Academic Journals--Another Look," Transportation Journal, Vol. 41, No. 2 & 3 (2001), pp. 83-93.

Gentry, Julie J., Benjamin J. Allen, and David B. Vellenga, "Affiliation of Authors in Transportation and Logistics Academic Journals--Revisited," Transportation Journal, Vol. 34, No. 3 (Spring 1995), pp. 54-62.

Larson, Paul D., Arni Halldorsson, and Jacob B. Jebsky, "Escape! The Case for an Electronic Journal of Logistics Research," NOFOMA 2001 Proceedings, pp.362-371.

Shugan, Steven M., "Journal Rankings: Save the Outlets for Your Research," Marketing Science, Vol. 22, No. 4, Fall 2003, pp.437-441.

Supply Chain Forum, 2005. http://www.supplychainforum.com/abonnement.asp, accessed March 30, 2005.

Tomney, Hilary and Paul F. Burton, "Electronic Journals: A Study of Usage and Attitudes Among Academics," Journal of Information Science, Vol.24, No. 6, 1998, pp.419-429.

Vellenga, David B., Benjamin J. Allen, and Catherine D. Riley, "An Analysis of Author Affiliation for Publications in Transportation and Logistics Journals, 1967-1979," Transportation Journal, Vol. 21, No. 1 (Fall 1981), pp. 44-53.

Mr. Carter, EM-AST&L, is assistant professor of supply chain management and international business, College of Business Administration, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada 89557; e-mail crcarter@unr.edu. Mr. Vellenga, EM-AST&L, is distinguished visiting professor of global supply chain management, Maine Maritime Academy, Castine, Maine 04420; e-mail dvellenga@albion.edu. Ms. Gentry, EM-AST&L, is associate professor of marketing and transportation, Walton College of Business, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701; e-mail jgentry@walton.uark.edu. Mr. Allen, EM-AST&L, is distinguished professor of business and provost, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa 50011-2063; e-mail ballen@iastate.edu.
COPYRIGHT 2005 American Society of Transportation and Logistics, Inc.
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2005 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Carter, Craig R.; Vellenga, David B.; Gentry, Julie J.; Allen, Benjamin J.
Publication:Transportation Journal
Geographic Code:1USA
Date:Mar 22, 2005
Words:5649
Previous Article:The core shipper concept: a proactive strategy for motor freight carriers.
Next Article:Semantics? Service versus product in air transport.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2020 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters