Abstract
This study provides a global perspective on citations of articles published in ten business ethics journals between 1999 and 2012 and establishes three findings. First, the results indicate that Journal of Business Ethics and Business and Society are the two top business ethics journals based on the distribution of normalized citations received. Second, although North America, particularly the US, remains the top producer of business ethics research, it has been surpassed by Europe in terms of weighted normalized research citations received in 2012, implying a potential diminishing global role of US influence in business ethics research over time. Third, the top-ranked US institutions have reduced their business ethics research impact in recent years, while the European institutions have sharply increased theirs.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
We gratefully acknowledge this suggestion made by a reviewer.
Hirsch (2005) proposes the h-index, which measures the impact of a journal that has at least h citations from its h number of articles in a given year. Harzing and van der Wal (2008) suggest the h-index is a more accurate citation impact measure than the Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) journal impact factor. Egghe (2006) suggests the g-index as a modification of the h-index to consider both the over-cited works and overall citation consistency. Specifically, the g-index is derived from all articles of a journal which are “ranked in decreasing order of the number of citations that they received: the g-index is the (unique) largest number such that the top g articles received (together) a total at least g2 citations” [Egghe (2006), p. 131]. Sidiropoulos et al. (2007) propose the hc-index to account for the age of articles that appear in a journal. It places more weight on recently published articles. H-index, g-index, and hc-index approaches examine research quality at the journal level.
The Journal of Accounting, Ethics, and Public Policy included in Serenko and Bonis (2009) ceased publication and the Business and Professional Ethics Journal is not included in this study.
We argue that the coercive citation practice among business ethics journals should not be a problem. Unlike other disciplines with a large number of journals, business ethics has only a small number of journals in which citations tend to concentrate within a few journals. Naturally, authors cite these few business ethics journals more frequently. Editors do not need to specifically require submitting authors to cite their journals as a prerequisite for publication acceptance.
The results using citations that exclude journal self-citations (EJNCs) are not reported here but are available upon request.
We thank a reviewer for pointing out that no business ethics journal appears in the University of Texas-Dallas 24 journals ranking list. Both lists are the important source of information for remuneration, tenure, and promotion at some schools.
Weighted number of articles (WA) is the count of total number of articles using the number of authors as the weights. For instance, Authors A and B publish an article together. Author A is affiliated with Institutions X and Y, while Author B is affiliated with Institution Z. Then, Institutions X, Y, and Z are credited with 0.25, 0.25, and 0.5 WA, respectively.
References
Albrecht, C., Thompson, J. A., & Hoopes, J. L. (2011). Productivity and prestige in business ethics research: A report and commentary on the state of the field. Business and Society, 50(4), 580–606.
Albrecht, C., Thompson, J. A., Hoopes, J. L., & Rodrigo, P. (2010). Business ethics journal rankings as perceived by business ethics scholars. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(2), 227–237.
Beets, S. D., Lewis, B. R., & Brower, H. H. (2013). The quality of business ethics journals: An assessment based on application. Business and Society, forthcoming,. doi:10.1177/0007650313478974.
Borokhovich, K. A., Bricker, R. J., Brunarski, K. R., & Simkins, B. J. (1995). Finance research productivity and influence. Journal of Finance, 50(5), 1691–1717.
Borokhovich, K. A., & Chung, R. (2000). Financial research: Evidence from recent graduates of doctoral programs. Financial Practice and Education, 10(2), 85–92.
Brooker, G., & Shinoda, P. (1976). Peer ratings of graduate programs for business. Journal of Business, 49, 240–251.
Chan, K. C., Chang, C. H., & Chang, Y. C. (2013a). Ranking of finance journals: Some Google Scholar citation perspectives. Journal of Empirical Finance, 21, 241–250.
Chan, K. C., Chang, C. H., & Chen, C. R. (2011). Financial research in the European region: A long-term assessment (1990–2008). European Financial Management, 17(2), 391–411.
Chan, K. C., Chen, C. R., & Lung, P. (2007). One-and-a-half decades of global research output in finance: 1990–2004. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, 28(4), 417–439.
Chan, K. C., Chen, C. R., & Steiner, T. L. (2002). Production in the finance literature, institutional reputation, and labor mobility in academia: A global perspective. Financial Management, 31(1), 131–156.
Chan, K. C., & Fok, R. (2003). Membership on editorial boards and finance department rankings. Journal of Financial Research, 26(2), 405–420.
Chan, K. C., Fung, H., & Yau, J. (2010). Business ethics research: A global perspectives. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(1), 39–53.
Chan, K. C., Fung, H.-G., & Yau, J. (2013b). Predominant sources and contributors of influential business ethics research: Evidence and implications from a threshold citation analysis. Business Ethics: A European Review, 22(3), 263–276.
Choi, C. J., Kim, S. W., & Kim, J. B. (2010). Globalizing business ethics research and the ethical need to include the bottom-of-the-pyramid countries: Redefining the global triad as business systems and institutions. Journal of Business Ethics, 94(2), 299–306.
Chow, C. W., Hadddad, K., Singh, G., & Wu, A. (2007). On using journal rank to proxy for an article’s contribution or value. Issues in Accounting Education, 22, 411–427.
Corley, K. G., & Gioia, D. A. (2011). Building theory about theory building: What constitutes a theoretical contribution. Academy of Management Review, 36(1), 12–32.
Currie, R. R., & Pandher, G. S. (2011). Finance journal rankings and tiers: An active scholar assessment methodology. Journal of Banking & Finance, 35(1), 7–20.
Davis, M. S. (1971). That’s interesting: Towards a phenomenology of sociology and a sociology of phenomenology. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 1, 309–344.
Egghe, L. (2006). Theory and practise of the g-index. Scientometrics, 69(1), 131–152.
Freeman, R. B. & Huang, W. (2014). Collaborating with people like me: Ethnic co-authorship within the US, NBER Working Paper 19905, http://www.nber.org/papers/w19905.
Garfield, E. (1973). Citation frequency as a measure of research activity and performance. Essays of an Information Scientist, 1, 406–408.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. New York: Aldine Publishing.
Harzing, A.-W., & van der Wal, R. (2008). A google scholar h-index for journals: A better metric to measure journal impact in economics and business? In Proceedings of the Academy of Management Annual Meeting.
Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 103 (46), 16569–16572.
Holland, D., & Albrecht, C. (2013). The worldwide academic field of business ethics: Scholars’ perceptions of the most important issues. Journal of Business Ethics, 117(4), 777–788.
Kaufman, G. (1984). Rankings of finance departments by faculty representation on editorial boards of professional journals: A note. Journal of Finance, 39(5), 1189–1197.
Klemkosky, R. C., & Tuttle, D. L. (1977). A ranking of doctoral programs by financial research contributions of graduates. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 12(2), 491–497.
Meho, L. I., & Yang, Y. (2007). Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of Science vs. Scopus and Google Scholar. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58, 2105–2125.
Serenko, A., & Bonis, N. (2009). A citation-based ranking of the business ethics scholarly journals. International Journal of Business Governance and Ethics, 4(4), 390–399.
Sidiropoulos, A., Katsaros, D., & Manolopoulos, Y. (2007). Generalized h-index for disclosing latent facts in citation networks. Scientometrics, 72(2), 253–280.
Singh, G., Haddad, K., & Chow, C. W. (2007). Are articles in “top” management journals necessarily of higher quality? Journal of Management Inquiry, 16(4), 319–331.
Smith, S. D. (2004). Is an article in a top journal a top article? Financial Management, 33, 133–149.
Wilhite, A. W., & Fong, F. A. (2012). Coercive citation in academic publishing. Science, 335(6068), 542–543. doi:10.1126/science.1212540.
Xu, N., Poon, W., & Chan, K. C. (2014). Contributing institutions and authors in international business research: A quality-based assessment. Management International Review, 54, 735–755.
Xu, N., Chan, K. C., & Chang, C.-H. (2015). A quality-based global assessment of financial research. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting. doi:10.1007/s11156-014-0480-2.
Acknowledgments
We acknowledge the helpful comments from two anonymous reviewers. The usual caveats apply.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Chan, K.C., Fung, A., Fung, HG. et al. A Citation Analysis of Business Ethics Research: A Global Perspective. J Bus Ethics 136, 557–573 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2533-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2533-9