Printer Friendly

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

Abstract

The authors update prior studies that evaluated the publication output of faculty members in refereed logistics, supply chain management, and transportation journals to identify current trends and changes. In addition a new weighted average metric is used to allocate credit to universities for co-authored articles. The rankings among the top-tier schools show comparable changes to prior periods in terms of the number of new entrants to the top twenty-five ranked universities. However, for the first time, non-North American universities have entered the top five rankings, indicating the increased global interest in and importance of logistics and supply chain management publications.

**********

The authors provide an update of a research stream that began in 1981, and which examines the affiliation of authors who publish in logistics, supply chain management, and transportation journals (Vellenga et al. 1981). The journals included in this examination encompass primarily the managerial, economic, financial, and marketing facets of logistics, supply chain management, and transportation, as opposed to the engineering, operations research, and urban planning aspects. As was the case with the earlier studies (Allen and Vellenga 1987; Carter et al. 2001; Carter et al. 2005; Gentry et al. 1995; Vellenga et al. 1981), the present study addresses two research questions: (1) What are the relative contributions of 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 these academic journals?

The study investigates the time period from 2005 through 2007, and contrasts the findings from this period with the six earlier periods. This study differs from the prior five studies, and addresses potential gaps in the logistics and supply chain management literature, in two important ways. First, the current study uses a three-year as opposed to a six-year time period. This use of a three-year time period provides more timely and valuable feedback to faculty concerning the output of their respective institutions. While a six- or seven-year time frame has been used in the prior studies in this research stream, a three-year time period is commonly used in other business disciplines including accounting, finance, international business, management, marketing, and operations management. In addition, we perform sensitivity analyses to demonstrate the validity of using a three-year time period.

Second, the current study also contrasts the use of an un-weighted approach, found in the prior five studies and in other studies in the field of logistics and supply chain management (e.g., Carter and Ellram 2003), with a weighted approach in which the credit for a published article is divided by the number of authors of that article. The use of a weighted approach can be viewed as being more equitable, since it credits universities with the actual number of articles published, as opposed to the number of authors appearing on the cover pages of the articles.

In the next section of the article, the authors describe the study's methodology. This is followed by an investigation of the relative output of specific university faculties. The authors then perform a sensitivity analysis, comparing the approach of awarding multiple credits to universities for articles with co-authors from the same institution--the methodology used in the five prior studies--to the approach of crediting output in a weighted fashion, based on the number of authors per article--a methodology that is widely used in similar, extant studies of other business disciplines. The article concludes with an assessment of the study's findings, including changes between the 2005-2007 time period and the prior period, and broader trends that appear within the field.

METHODOLOGY

The majority of the earlier studies employed six-year time periods (Carter et al. 2005; Vellenga et al. 1981; Allen and Vellenga 1987; Gentry et al. 1995). However, the time period 2005-2007 (three years) was chosen for the present analysis (1) to provide a more timely update and feedback to faculty concerning the output of their institutions; (2) because a three-year time period has been used in the extant literature in other business disciplines including accounting (e.g., Brown and Gardner 1985), economics (e.g., Pieters and Baumgartner 2002), marketing (e.g., Zinkhan, Roth, and Saxton 1992), and operations management (e.g., Vokura 1996); and (3) a three-year time period still provides adequate data to smooth short-term fluctuations in publication patterns (Phillips, Baumgartner, and Pieters 1999). The current investigation examined the same eight journals that were employed in the two most recent studies: 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 bases for the exclusion of specific journals (e.g., Transportation Research Record, Transportation Research, and International Journal of Transport Economics) can be found in the original study (Vellenga et al. 1981) and in Carter et al. (2001).

Next, data were collected concerning the general affiliation for each author across the eight journals and over the three-year time period. For authors with an academic affiliation, data were also amassed with respect to their institutional affiliations. Consistent with the five prior studies, the total number of articles per academic institution and departmental category was compiled. Also in keeping with the prior studies, each author's academic institution was initially credited with an article in the case of articles with two or more authors. In the event that faculty members were affiliated with separate campuses of a university, distinct institutional affiliations were assigned (e.g., University of Wisconsin versus University of Wisconsin, Eau Claire).

The methodological limitations of the present investigation were discussed extensively in the original study (Vellenga et al. 1981) and are therefore only briefly reexamined here. One limitation is that logistics, transportation, and supply chain management research that appears in economics and general business journals is excluded. This could potentially provide a bias against some universities based on the assumption that the faculty at these universities may have their articles published in widely recognized general journals such as Decision Sciences or the Academy of Management Journal. However, this limitation does not lessen the validity and relevance of the key findings of the study, as its main purpose is to examine the output of individual university faculties based on articles published in the primary journals dedicated to logistics, transportation, and supply chain management.

A second limitation relates to giving multiple credits to an academic institution for articles with co-authors from that same institution such that double (and even triple, quadruple, etc.) counting results. An alternative methodology, used in similar studies of other business disciplines, is to credit output in a weighted fashion, based on the number of authors per article (e.g., Aysen, Vitell, and Rose 2000 in marketing; Borokhovich et al. 1995 in finance; Dyckman and Zeff 1984 in accounting; Morrison and Inkpen 1991 in international business; Stahl, Leap, and Wei 1988 in management; and Young, Baird, and Pullman 1996 in operations management). Under this system, one point is credited to an institution for sole authorship, 0.5 points are given to each institution for an article with two authors, 0.33 points are credited to each author's institution for an article with three authors, etc. While there is no a priori basis for assuming that this methodology favors certain universities over others in terms of measuring output, we perform a sensitivity analysis using this more common, weighted approach, and present and compare the results of both approaches later in the article.

PRODUCTIVITY OF ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONS

As was expressed in the prior five studies, publications in top-tier journals continue to be the primary criterion in evaluating the research productivity of academic institutions. While books, monographs, and conference proceedings and presentations are also considered in faculty evaluations, refereed journal publications are clearly the most important standard. Table 1 displays the overall rankings of the top twenty-five academic institutions for the 2005-2007 time period, based on the number of times faculty from these institutions authored or coauthored articles in the eight journals.

Michigan State University continued to occupy the top ranked position during the 2005-2007 time period. However, the university's margin of published articles versus the next highest ranked schools during the 2005-2007 time period (29 percent more articles) is not nearly as high as was the case during the prior, 1999-2004 time period (64 percent more articles) (Carter et al. 2005, p. 59). One of the most notable changes displayed in Table 1 is the entrance of two non-U.S.-based universities into the top five ranked institutions. Cranfield University rose from sixth place to second place and Cardiff University rose four places to tie for fourth place with the University of Maryland. Also in the top five ranked institutions is the University of Tennessee, which rose from ninth place to second place.

Two schools in the top ten (University of Alabama and Imperial College of London) did not appear in the top twenty-five in the earlier (1999-2004) analysis. Unlike the prior time periods, there are not substantial declines or drop-offs within the table in terms of the number of articles published by institution. Rather, the decline in output is relatively gradual, with the exception of the decrease in output between Michigan State University and the second-ranked universities (Carter et al. 2005, 59).

A final observation is that fourteen of the universities appearing in Table 1 appeared from outside of the top twenty-five universities in the prior, 1999-2004 time period. However, all of the top five, and nine of the top ten, ranked institutions for the 2005-2007 time period were also ranked in the top twenty-five for the 1998-2004 time frame. These findings suggest that while institutions appearing in the top five and even the top ten ranked positions are reasonably constant in terms of their output and performance, the universities ranked eleventh or lower are less stable. These findings might be explained by the tact that universities with larger logistics programs have a critical mass of faculty (e.g., a minimum of four to five faculty and a formalized major) that is less affected by the turnover of one or two researchers. Conversely, smaller programs are more likely to be appreciably impacted, in terms of research output, by the arrival or departure of one or two exceptionally prolific faculty members.

Those universities that were ranked in the top twenty-five for all of the seven time frames are shown in Table 2. Only three universities (University of Maryland, The Pennsylvania State University, and Arizona State University) are included in this list of schools that have been consistently rated in the top twenty-five universities across seven time periods and more than forty years. The rankings of these three schools, which are based on the cumulative number of articles for the 1967-2007 time period, are displayed in the final column of Table 2. The University of Maryland is ranked in first place with a cumulative article count of 364, followed by The Pennsylvania State University (335) and Arizona State University (273).

CONSISTENCY OF RANKINGS ACROSS JOURNALS

Table 3 shows universities that were ranked in the top ten in two or more of the journals for the 2005-2007 time frame. Only Michigan State University was ranked among the top ten institutions in four journals, and only three schools-Arizona State University, University of Maryland, and University of Oklahoma-are ranked in the top ten schools in three journals. These findings are quite different from the prior study that examined the 1999-2004 time period. In that earlier study, three universities were ranked within the top ten in four journals, and seven universities were ranked among the top ten in three journals. As was suggested by Carter et al. (2005), this change may be due to the increasing number of universities that are introducing supply chain management and logistics courses and programs.

The top ranked institutions, by journal, are as follows: International Journal of Logistics Management (Cranfield University), International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management (University of Alabama and Molde University), Journal of Business Logistics (Michigan State University), Journal of the Transportation Research Forum (Kansas State University and Texas A&M University), Journal of Supply Chain Management (Arizona State University), Journal of Transport Economics and Policy (Imperial College of London and Vrije Universiteit), Transportation Journal (Mississippi State University), Transportation Research Part E (National Central University).

A WEIGHTED RANKING OF AUTHOR AFFILIATIONS

As noted earlier, a common means of assessing scholarly output in the overall field of business is to weight the contributions of authors by the number of authors per paper. We performed an additional analysis, where each paper's author's academic affiliation is awarded one point, divided by the number of authors of that paper. Thus one point was credited to a university in the case of sole authorship; 0.5 points were credited to each author's institution in the case of an article with two authors; 0.33 points were given to each author's university for an article with three authors; etc.

The results of the overall, modified rankings of the top twenty-five academic institutions for the 2005-2007 time period for the eight journals are displayed in Table 4. Also displayed in Table 4 are the non-weighted rankings of institutions that also appear in Table 1. The results displayed in Table 4 show that Cranfield University is ranked first using the weighted approach, moving from an unweighted, second ranked position. Cardiff University moved from fourth place to second place using the weighted approach, while Michigan State University moved from first place to third place, the University of Tennessee moved from second to fourth place, and the University of Maryland moved from fourth to fifth place. All of the top five ranked universities appearing in Table 4 are also ranked among the top five in Table 1, suggesting a reasonable stability between the use of a weighted versus an un-weighted approach across the top ranked schools. There is somewhat less stability in the universities ranked sixth through tenth, with three schools entering the top ten using the weighted approach: Iowa State University (from 22nd to 10th place), Lund University (from 22nd to 8th place), and University of Nevada, Reno (from 12th to 10th place). Additionally, five schools appearing in the top twenty-five ranked schools in Table 4 were not ranked in the top twenty-five institutions displayed in Table 1: Copenhagen Business School, John Carroll University, Monash University, University of Leeds, and University of Oregon.

One observation is that several of the institutions with doctoral programs in logistics moved down slightly in rank with the use of the weighted approach (e.g., Michigan State University, University of Maryland, University of Oklahoma, University of Tennessee, and The Pennsylvania State University), while several schools without logistics and supply chain management doctoral programs were ranked higher with the weighted approach (e.g., University of Alabama, University of Nevada, Reno, Iowa State University, and University of Oregon). This may be the result of faculty collaboration with doctoral students at the prior set of universities, which can lead to a greater number of authors per paper.

A Spearman rank correlation, using the rankings from Table 4 and the corresponding rankings from Table 1, yields a significant correlation coefficient of 0.66 (p<.01). It is not surprising that the results of the two ranking approaches are statistically significantly related, given that each measure output via authorship and institutional affiliation in the same set of eight journals. However, it is worthwhile to note that while the correlation coefficient of 0.66 is large, it is still far from a perfect correlation of 1.0.

As mentioned above, many studies in the field of business that examine journal publication patterns use the weighted method employed in our sensitivity analysis. Ultimately, and more importantly, the choice of whether to use an un-weighted or weighted approach should be guided not just by tradition or empirical results, but rather by substantive justification. The weighted approach can be viewed as being more equitable and a more valid assessment of the overall output of an academic institution.

This approach provides a more valid assessment of productivity by capturing both inputs (number of authors) and outputs (number of articles). Additionally, the use of a weighted methodology appears to provide a finer-grained approach to ranking institutional output-while there are nine schools tied for 22nd place in Table 1, using the un-weighted approach, our use of the weighted approach involves only one tie for 24th place, as shown in Table 4. We provide a more in-depth contrast of these two approaches next, by performing a sensitivity analysis across the twenty-two-year time period from 1986 through 2007.

SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

As noted earlier, three-year time periods have been used in extant research in other business disciplines including accounting, economics, marketing, and operations management, and have been shown to adequately smooth short-term fluctuations in publication patterns. To further examine the stability of a three-year time period, we compared the top twenty-five ranked institutions, using un-weighted data from the 2005-2007, 1999-2004, and 1992-1998 time periods, with the top twenty-five ranked institutions from the time periods immediately preceding these time periods in terms of the number of schools remaining in the top twenty-five ranking. Table 5 displays the results of these comparisons.

An examination of these un-weighted rankings reveals that sixteen schools ranked in the top twenty-five in the 2005-2007 time period were ranked in the top twenty-five in the earlier, 1999-2004 time period; fifteen schools ranked in the top twenty-five in the 1999-2004 time period were ranked in the earlier, 1992-1998 time period; and eleven schools ranked in the top twenty-five in the 1992-1998 time period were ranked in the earlier, 1986-1991 time period. These results suggest comparable stability of the three-year time period versus the six- and seven-year time periods concerning the number of schools entering versus remaining in the top twenty-five ranked institutions across time periods. We also analyzed the 2002-2004 time period data from the prior study, using a weighted ranking approach. Fourteen schools in the 2005-2007 weighted time period were ranked in the earlier, weighted, 2002-2004 time period. Again, these results suggest that the use of a three-year time period for our research provides comparable stability to the six- and seven-year time periods that have been used in past studies.

We performed an additional sensitivity analysis, based on the input of one the original manuscript's reviewers, who suggested that two of the eight journals--Journal of Transport Economics and Policy (JTEP) and Journal of the Transportation Research Forum (JTRF)--may not be as oriented toward a business perspective as the remaining six journals. The results of this sensitivity analysis, using the weighted data from the 2005-2007 time period, appear in Table 6. The weighted number of articles per university including all eight journals (column 3 of Table 6) and without JTEP and JTRF (column 5 of the table) are fairly similar, with a Pearson correlation equal to 0.84. We also examined the departmental affiliations of the universities that were not ranked in the top twenty-five due to the exclusion of JTEP and JTRF. Of these six universities, three schools had all publications in JTEP and/or JTRF authored by scholars in civil engineering and/or agricultural economics (Imperial College of London, Texas A&M University, and Florida State University), while the remaining three universities had all publications in JTEP and/or JTRF authored by professors in economics departments (University of Leeds, University of Oregon, and Monash University).

CONCLUSIONS

There is less of a gap between the number of articles attributed to the top ranked universities and the other schools ranked in the top five for the 2005-2007 time period, than was the case during the previous, 1999-2004 time frame. This is true for both the un-weighted and weighted approaches. A related finding is that there are a number of schools included in the top twenty-five for the 2005-2007 time period that were not included in the 1999-2004 time frame. Finally, the number of non-U.S.-based institutions included in the top twenty-five for the current study rose to eleven, compared to ten non-U.S.-based schools during the 1999-2004 time frame. And, while no non-U.S.-based schools appeared in the top five during the 1999-2004 time period, two schools appeared in the top five during the 2005-2007 time period, using both the un-weighted and weighted approaches. Further, compared to the earlier periods, when there were virtually no international schools in the top twenty-five (e.g., four schools in the top twenty-five during the 1992-1998 time period and three schools in the top twenty-five during the 1986-1991 time period), we continue to see non-U.S.-based institutions rise higher in the rankings.

Together, these findings suggest a lessening of the dominance of the traditional U.S.-based logistics and supply chain management programs. Such a reduction in the concentration of universities contributing to the field's top-tier scholarly journals suggests that knowledge is being generated from a more diffuse subset of universities. While there will always be an "invisible college" (Burt 1982) or network of universities contributing to a field's knowledge (Carter et al. 2007), the above findings should be viewed as a positive sign for the field. The study's findings suggest a lessening of a U.S.-based viewpoint, along with a greater proportion of contributions from scholars at universities outside of the group of traditional logistics and supply chain management programs that has dominated output during the prior time periods.

The primary addition to this reevaluation is the inclusion of a modified, weighted ranking system to assess institutional output. While the results of the un-weighted method are significantly correlated with those of the weighted method (r = 0.66), there are still enough changes in the results displayed in Table 4 to suggest that there may be some substantive differences between the approaches. More importantly, as noted earlier, the use of the weighted approach is a more equitable method of assessing the meaningful output and contribution of institutions and creates a more normalized unit of analysis--in effect the actual number of articles produced per institution. Lastly, in addition to our justification of using a three-year time period based on the extant literature, our sensitivity analysis demonstrated comparable stability concerning the number of new entrants to the top twenty-five-ranked schools using three- versus six- and seven-year time periods.

Future research in our series of studies might again contrast institutional output with and without the two journals examined in our sensitivity analysis--JTEP and JTRF. While the scope of these journals certainly overlaps with those of the remaining six journals, the substantive focus of the research appearing in JTEP and JTRF often examines issues outside of the core business disciplines, as indicated in part by the relatively high proportion of authors from agricultural economics, civil and environmental engineering, economics, and urban planning departments (approximately 75 percent of the authorship for each journal during the 2005-2007 time period).

Finally, an interesting avenue for future investigation might be to compare supply chain management research appearing in journals of related business disciplines including marketing, operations management, and strategic management to examine differences in methodologies and theoretical approaches, as well as academic affiliations. This approach would require a justification of which journals to include in such an analysis, and as an additional hurdle, a valid approach for coding and classifying which specific articles in these journals would fall under the rubric of "supply chain management" for any particular time period of analysis. While falling well outside of the scope of our research stream, such an analysis could provide important contrasts concerning the current state and evolution of our field.

REFERENCES

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

Bakir, A., S.J. Vitell, and G.M. Rose, "Publications in Major Marketing Journals: An Analysis of Scholars and Marketing Departments," Journal of Marketing Education, Vol. 22, No. 2 (2000), pp. 99-107.

Borokhovich, K.A., R. J. Bricker, K. R. Brunarski, and B. J. Simkins, "Finance Research Productivity and Influence," Journal of Finance. Vol. 50, (1995), pp. 1691-1717.

Brown, L.D. and J.C. Gardner, "Using Citation Analysis to Assess the Impact of Journals and Articles on Contemporary Accounting Research (CAR)," Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 23, No. 1 (1985), pp. 84-109.

Burt, R.S., "Stratification in Elite Sociological Methodology," in Toward a Structural Theory of Action, Academic Press, New York, 1982.

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

Carter, C.R., D. B. Vellenga, B.J. Allen, and J.J. Gentry, "Affiliation of Authors in Transportation and Logistics Academic Journals--A Reassessment," Transportation Journal, Vol. 44, No. 2, (2005), pp. 54-64.

Carter, C.R. and L.M. Ellram, "Thirty-five Years of the Journal of Supply Chain Management: Where Have We Been and Where Are We Going?" Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 39, No. 1, (2003), pp. 38-50.

Carter, C.R., R. Leuschner, and D. S. Rogers, "A Social Network Analysis of the Journal of Supply Chain Management: Knowledge Generation, Knowledge Diffusion. and Thought Leadership," Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 43, No. 2, (2007), pp. 15-28.

Dyckman, T. R. and S.A. Zeff, "Two Decades of the Journal of Accounting Research," Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 22, No. 1 (1984), pp. 225-297.

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

Morrison, A.J. and A. C. Inkpen, "An Analysis of Significant Contributions to the International Business Literature" Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 22, No. 1 (1991), pp. 143-153.

Pieters, R. and H. Baumgartner 2002, "Who Talks to Whom? Intra- and Interdisciplinary Communication of Economics Journals," Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 40, pp. 483-509.

Phillips, D.M., H. Baumgartner, and R. Pieters, "Influence in the Evolving Citation Network of the Journal of Consumer Research," Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 26, (1999), pp. 203-210.

Stahl, M. J., T.L. Leap, and Z.Z. Wei, "Publication in Leading Management Journals as a Measure of Institutional Research Productivity" Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 31, No. 3 (1988), pp. 707-720.

Vellenga, D. B., B.J. Allen, and C.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.

Vokura. R.J. 1996, "The Relative Importance of Journals Used in Operations Management Research," Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 14, No. 4 (1996), pp. 345-355.

Young, S.T., B.C. Baird, and M.E. Pullman, "POM Research Productivity in U.S. Business Schools," Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 14, No. 1 (1996), pp. 41-53.

Zinkhan, G.C., M.S. Roth, and M.J. Saxton, "Knowledge Development and Scientific Status in Consumer-Behavior Research," Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 19, No. 2 (1992), pp. 282-291.

Mr. Carter, EM-AST&L, is professor of supply chain management, College of Business Administration, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada 89557; e-mail crcarter@unr.edu. Ms. Easton is research fellow, College of Business Administration, University of Nevada; e-mail pleaston@coba.unr.edu. Mr. Vellenga, EM-AST&L, is visiting professor, Maine Maritime Academy, and visiting professor of business administration, LCC International University, Klaipeda, Lithuania; e-mail dvellenga@alumnimail.albion.edu. Mr. Allen, EM-AST&L, is president, University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls, Iowa 50613; e-mail ben.allen@uni.edu
Table 1. Schools Ranked by Number of Articles in Logistics, Supply
Chain Management, and Transportation Journals for 2005-2007

                                  Rank        Number of       Rank
School                           2005-07      Articles     1999-04 (a)

Michigan State University           l            31             l

Cranfield School of                 2            24             6
Management (UK)

University of Tennessee             2            24             9

University of Maryland              4            21             3

Cardiff University (UK)             4            21             8

Arizona State University            6            20             2

University of Alabama               7            18            NR

University of Oklahoma              7            18             7

Texas A&M University                9            14            22

Florida State University           10            13            20

Imperial College London (UK)       10            13            NR

Helsinki University of             12            12            13
Technology (Finland)

Mississippi State University       12            12            NR

University of Nevada, Reno         12            12            17

Chinese University of              15            11            NR
Hong Kong (Hong Kong)

National Central University        15            11            NR
(Taiwan)

The Ohio State University          15            11             4

The Pennsylvania State             15            11             9
University

Auburn University                  19            10            NR

University of North Florida        19            10            NR

Virginia Polytechnic               19            10            NR
Institution

Chalmers University of             22             9            NR
Technology (Sweden)

Delft University of                22             9            NR
Technology (Netherlands)

Hong Kong Polytechnic              22             9            NR
University (Hong Kong)

Iowa State University              22             9             5

Kansas State University            22             9             9

Lund University (Sweden)           22             9            NR

National Chiao Tung                22             9            NR
University (Taiwan)

University of Arkansas             22             9             9

University of North Texas          22             9            NR

                                  Rank          Rank          Rank
School                         1992-98 (b)   1986-91 (c)   1980-85 (d)

Michigan State University           1             2             8

Cranfield School of                13            NR            NR
Management (UK)

University of Tennessee            11            NR            12

University of Maryland              5             1             1

Cardiff University (UK)             6            NR            NR

Arizona State University            2             8            13

University of Alabama              NR            NR            NR

University of Oklahoma             NR            16            14

Texas A&M University               NR            22             4

Florida State University           NR            NR            NR

Imperial College London (UK)       NR            NR            NR

Helsinki University of             NR            NR            NR
Technology (Finland)

Mississippi State University       NR            NR            NR

University of Nevada, Reno         20            NR            NR

Chinese University of              NR            NR            NR
Hong Kong (Hong Kong)

National Central University        NR            NR            NR
(Taiwan)

The Ohio State University          10            13            NR

The Pennsylvania State              3             2             2
University

Auburn University                  NR            NR            NR

University of North Florida        25            16             7

Virginia Polytechnic               NR            11            14
Institution

Chalmers University of             NR            NR            NR
Technology (Sweden)

Delft University of                NR            NR            NR
Technology (Netherlands)

Hong Kong Polytechnic              NR            NR            NR
University (Hong Kong)

Iowa State University               4             5             3

Kansas State University            14            NR            NR

Lund University (Sweden)           NR            NR            NR

National Chiao Tung                NR            NR            NR
University (Taiwan)

University of Arkansas             15            NR            NR

University of North Texas          NR            NR            NR

                                  Rank          Rank
School                         1974-79 (c)   1967-73 (e)

Michigan State University          NR            NR

Cranfield School of                NR            NR
Management (UK)

University of Tennessee             6            19

University of Maryland              5            14

Cardiff University (UK)            NR            NR

Arizona State University           13             4

University of Alabama              NR            NR

University of Oklahoma             12            NR

Texas A&M University               NR             3

Florida State University           NR            NR

Imperial College London (UK)       NR            NR

Helsinki University of             NR            NR
Technology (Finland)

Mississippi State University       NR            NR

University of Nevada, Reno         NR            NR

Chinese University of              NR            NR
Hong Kong (Hong Kong)

National Central University        NR            NR
(Taiwan)

The Ohio State University          23            20

The Pennsylvania State              3             4
University

Auburn University                  NR            NR

University of North Florida        NR            NR

Virginia Polytechnic               NR            22
Institution

Chalmers University of             NR            NR
Technology (Sweden)

Delft University of                NR            NR
Technology (Netherlands)

Hong Kong Polytechnic              NR            NR
University (Hong Kong)

Iowa State University              NR            NR

Kansas State University            NR            NR

Lund University (Sweden)           NR            NR

National Chiao Tung                NR            NR
University (Taiwan)

University of Arkansas              7            NR

University of North Texas          NR            NR

                                     Change in Rank
                                     Between 1999-04
School                               and 2005-07

Michigan State University

Cranfield School of                        +4
Management (UK)

University of Tennessee                    +7

University of Maryland                     -1

Cardiff University (UK)                    +4

Arizona State University                   -4

University of Alabama               From outside top 25

University of Oklahoma

Texas A&M University                      +13

Florida State University                  +10

Imperial College London (UK)        From outside top 25

Helsinki University of                     +1
Technology (Finland)

Mississippi State University        From outside top 25

University of Nevada, Reno                 +5

Chinese University of               From outside top 25
Hong Kong (Hong Kong)

National Central University         From outside top 25
(Taiwan)

The Ohio State University                 -11

The Pennsylvania State                     -6
University

Auburn University                  From outside top 25

University of North Florida        From outside top 25

Virginia Polytechnic               From outside top 25
Institution

Chalmers University of             From outside top 25
Technology (Sweden)

Delft University of                From outside top 25
Technology (Netherlands)

Hong Kong Polytechnic              From outside top 25
University (Hong Kong)

Iowa State University                     -17

Kansas State University                   -13

Lund University (Sweden)           From outside top 25

National Chiao Tung                From outside top 25
University (Taiwan)

University of Arkansas                   -13

University of North Texas          From outside top 25

Note: The results presented in this table are based on an un-weighted
methodology that attributes an article to each of the authors of a
co-authored article.

(a) Data are from Carter et al. (2005, p. 59) (b) Data are from
Carter et al. (2001, p. 91); (c) Data are from Gentry et al.
(1995, p. 58); (d) Data are from Allen and Vellenga (1987, p. 45);
(e) Data are from Vellenga et al. (1981, p. 51)

NR = Not Ranked

Table 2. Schools Ranked in Top Twenty-Five in Each of Seven Time
Periods

                                Rank        Number of       Rank
School                         2005-07      Articles     1999-04 (a)

University of Maryland            4            21             3

Pennsylvania State               15            11             9
University

Arizona State University          6            20             2

                                Rank          Rank          Rank
School                       1992-98 (a)   1986-91 (a)   1980-85 (a)

University of Maryland            5             1             1

Pennsylvania State                3             2             2
University

Arizona State University          3             8            13

                                Rank          Rank
School                       1974-79 (a)   1967-73 (a)

University of Maryland            5            14

Pennsylvania State                3             4
University

Arizona State University         13             4

                                 Rank (b) Based on
                                 Total Number of
                                 Articles (1967-2007)
School                           (No. of Articles) (c)

University of Maryland                  1 (364)

Pennsylvania State                      2 (335)
University

Arizona State University                3 (273)

(a) Data are from Carter et al. (2005), p. 60

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

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

Table 3. Consistency of Rankings of Schools across Logistics, Supply
Chain Management, and Transportation Journals (2005-07)

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

Ranked Top Ten in Four Journals
-- Michigan State University        JBL (1), IJPDLM (3), TJ (6),
                                    JSCM (8)
Ranked Top Ten in Three Journals
-- Arizona State University         JSCM (1), TJ (6), IJPDLM (10)
-- University of Maryland           TJ (3), THE (5), JTEP (5)
-- University of Oklahoma           IJLM (3), JBL (7), THE (9)
Ranked Top Ten in Two Journals
-- Cardiff University               IJLM (2), IJPDLM (7)
-- Chinese University of            TJ (6), IJPDLM (10)
   Hong Kong
-- Cranfield School of              IJLM (1), IJPDLM (10)
   Management
-- Florida State University         JTRF (3), IJLM (6)
-- Helsinki University of           IJPDLM (3), IJLM (4)
   Technology
-- Imperial College of London       JTEP (1), THE (7)
-- North Carolina A&T University    TJ (6), JTRF (7)
-- The Pennsylvania State           TJ (6), JSCM (9)
   University
-- Texas A&M University             JTRF (1), THE (5)
-- Texas Christian University       JSCM (3), JBL (7)
-- University of Alabama            IJPDLM (1), JBL (3)
-- University of Kentucky           JBL (7), JTRF (7)
-- University of Nevada, Reno       JSCM (5), IJPDLM (10)
-- University of North Florida      TJ (6), JBL (7)
-- University of Tennessee          JBL (2), IJPDLM (10)
-- Virginia Polvtechnic and         JTRF (7), THE (7)
   State Univ.

(a) JLM = 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; THE = Transportation Research Part E.

Table 4. Modified
Ranking of Schools by Number of Articles in Logistics, Supply
Chain Management, and Transportation Journals for 2005-07

Weighted                                         Unweighted   Weighted
Rank                                             Number of    Number of
2005-2007   University                            Articles    Articles

1           Cranfield University                     24         11.17
2           Cardiff University                       21         9.58
3           Michigan State University                31         9.45
4           University of Tennessee                  24         9.33
5           University of Maryland                   21         8.00
6           Arizona State University                 20         7.67
7           Imperial College London                  13         6.08
8           Lund University                          9          5.92
9           University of Alabama                    18         5.68
10          University of Nevada, Reno               12         5.42
10          Iowa State University                    9          5.42
12          University of Leeds                      6          5.33
13          University of Oklahoma                   18         5.27
14          National Chiao Tung University           9          5.17
15          The Ohio State University                11         4.58
16          John Carroll University                  7          4.50
16          National Central University              11         4.50
16          Pennsylvania State University            11         4.50
16          University of Oregon                     8          4.50
20          Texas A & M University                   14         4.42
21          Helsinki University of Technology        12         4.25
22          Chalmers University of Technology        9          4.17
22          Monash University                        7          4.17
24          Copenhagen Business School               8          4.08
24          Florida State University                 13         4.08

Weighted                                          Unweighted
Rank                                                 Rank
2005-2007   University                            2005-2007 *

1           Cranfield University                       2
2           Cardiff University                         4
3           Michigan State University                  1
4           University of Tennessee                    2
5           University of Maryland                     4
6           Arizona State University                   6
7           Imperial College London                   10
8           Lund University                           22
9           University of Alabama                      7
10          University of Nevada, Reno                12
10          Iowa State University                     22
12          University of Leeds                      NR **
13          University of Oklahoma                     7
14          National Chiao Tung University            22
15          The Ohio State University                 15
16          John Carroll University                   NR
16          National Central University               15
16          Pennsylvania State University             15
16          University of Oregon                      NR
20          Texas A & M University                     9
21          Helsinki University of Technology         12
22          Chalmers University of Technology         22
22          Monash University                         NR
24          Copenhagen Business School                NR
24          Florida State University                  10

* From Table 2.

** NR: Not ranked in unweighted top 25 from Table 2.

Table 5. Comparison of Top-25 Rankings Across Time Periods

                                                  Number of Schools
                                                  in the Current
                                                  Top-25 Ranking
                                                  (column 1) from
Time Period of                                    the Prior Time
Top-25 Ranking           Prior Time Period        Period (column 2)

2005-2007 (unweighted)   1999-2004 (unweighted)   16
1999-2004 (unweighted)   1992-1998 (unweighted)   15
1992-1998 (unweighted)   1986-1991 (unweighted)   11

2005-2007 (weighted)     2002-2004 (weighted)     14

Table 6. Weighted Ranking of Schools, With and Without the Journal
of Transport Economics and Policy (JTEP) and Journal of the
Transportation Research Forum (JTRF)

Weighted                                        Weighted
  Rank                                          Number of
2005-2007                                       Articles
 (All 8                                          (All B
Journals)   University                          Journals)

1           Cranfield University                  11.17
2           Cardiff University                    9.58
3           Michigan State University             9.45
4           University of Tennessee               9.33
5           University of Maryland                8.00
6           Arizona State University              7.67
7           Imperial College London               6.08
8           Lund University                       5.92
9           University of Alabama                 5.68
10          University of Nevada, Reno            5.42
10          Iowa State University                 5.42
12          University of Leeds                   5.33
13          University of Oklahoma                5.27
14          National Chiao Tung University        5.17
15          The Ohio State University             4.58
16          John Carroll University               4.50
16          National Central University           4.50
16          Pennsylvania State University         4.50
16          University of Oregon                  4.50
20          Texas A & M University                4.42
21          Helsinki University of Technology     4.25
22          Chalmers University of Technology     4.17
22          Monash University                     4.17
24          Copenhagen Business School            4.08
24          Florida State University              4.08

Weighted      Weighted       Weighted
  Rank          Rank        Number of
2005-2007    2005-2007       Articles
 (All 8       (Without       (Without
Journals)   JTEP & JTRF)   JTEP & JTRF)

1                1            11.17
2                2             9.58
3                3             9.45
4                4             8.83
5                10            5.00
6                5             7.66
7               N/R            3.42
8                6             5.92
9                8             5.34
10               7             5.42
10               17            4.08
12              N/R            2.00
13               9             5.27
14               11            4.67
15               12            4.58
16               21            3.50
16               13            4.50
16               13            4.50
16              N/R            1.50
20              N/R            1.25
21               15            4.25
22               16            4.17
22              N/R            3.17
24               17            4.08
24              N/R            2.08

NR: Not ranked in unweighted top 25 from Table 1.
COPYRIGHT 2009 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 2009 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Carter, Craig R.; Easton, P. Liane; Vellenga, David B.; Allen, Benjamin J.
Publication:Transportation Journal
Date:Jan 1, 2009
Words:6647
Previous Article:The independence of independents: influences on commercial driver intentions to commit unsafe acts.
Next Article:Ocean shipping in the Great Lakes: an analysis of industry transportation cost savings.
Topics:

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