Academic journal article Management International Review

Fifteen Good Years: An Analysis of Publications in Management International Review

Academic journal article Management International Review

Fifteen Good Years: An Analysis of Publications in Management International Review

Article excerpt

Abstract:

* This article presents a content analysis of Management International Review for the fifteen-year period 1993-2007. A total of 360 papers appearing in the journal during that period were analyzed to identify the key trends in the evolution of Management International Review.

* The five major themes addressed included an examination of the nature of authorship, an identification and ranking of the most prolific authors, an evaluation of the characteristics of the articles, recognition of the most influential articles based on the number of citations they received, and an uncovering of the specific thematic areas within the published articles.

* The study combines publishing productivity and citation analyses. The conclusions derived from the study are presented and some guidelines for future research provided.

Keywords: Content analysis. Scholarly literature. Prolific authors. Citation analysis

Introduction

In the year 2005 Management International Review (MIR) celebrated 45 years of service to the fields of International Management and Business. It is a refereed journal that aims to advance and disseminate knowledge of international applied research in business and management. One of the top three business journals (with Journal of International Business Studies [JIBS] and Journal of World Business [JWB]), focused on publishing international business research (DuBois/Reeb 2000), the journal is among the five "core journals" in the sub-discipline of international business (International Business Review and Multinational Business Review are the other two (Dubois/Reeb 2000)).

There has been only one attempt to date at an historical analysis of the corpus of publications in the journal. Chandy and Gopalakrishna (1992) studied research contributions to this journal from 1976 to 1990. They surveyed 481 papers and ranked individual authors and institutions based on their work in the journal. Since then no systematic historical analysis has concentrated solely on MIR, although two papers have jointly considered MIR, JIBS, and JWB (Kumar/Kundu 2004, Xu/Yalcinkaya/Seggie 2008).

The aim of this review is to identify the key trends in the evolution of MIR over the fifteen-year period 1993-2007, specifically: (a) the nature of authorship; (b) the most prolific authors ranked according to their outputs; (c) the characteristics of the articles; (d) the most influential articles based on the number of citations; (e) the specific thematic areas covered by published articles (cf Pasadeos et al. 1998).

The remainder of the article first describes the methodology employed to perform a bibliographic analysis of Management International Review, followed by a description of the results with regard to each of the above objectives. Then conclusions derived from the study are presented and some guidelines for future research are provided.

Methodology

We employed two criteria in deciding which publications should be included in the analysis: (a) Time period. Articles published during 1993-2007 (a period not previously considered). (b) Manuscript type. Only research articles--editorials, book reviews, comments and replies were eliminated. While these are important contributions, we regarded them as not being equivalent to research articles. A four part coding protocol "content analysis" (Krippendorf 2004) was developed: (a) author demographics--numbers of authors, institutions, authors' country base(s), authors' disciplines, location of authors, number, and type of authors' discipline; (b) manuscript characteristics--number of tables/graphs, pages, and references; (c) research themes. For the analysis of the research themes in the articles published in MIR in 1993-2007, all articles were firstly classified by primary discipline areas, and then further narrowed down to sub-disciplines, with each article classified accordingly (similar to Inkpen and Beamish's [1994] study of JIBS). …

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed

Oops!

An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.