Abstract
This article examines the influence of citation impact on scholarship. Citation analysis allows authors to determine how often their work has been cited by others. It has become a performance metric for scholars of the influence and relevance of their work. However, the authors contends there is very little research to understand citation rates. They conclude that the pressure from journals and universities for prestige is the key element driving citation rates. Increased information technology is expected to continue this trend into the future.
REFERENCES
- Baldi, 1998 1998. Normative versus social constructivist processes in the allocation of citations: A network-analytic model. American Sociological Review, 63: 829–846. Google Scholar
- Bedeian, 2002 2002. Caveat emptor: The Gourman Report. Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 39(1): 32–33. Google Scholar
- Bedeian and Feild, 1980 1980. Academic stratification in graduate management programs: Departmental prestige and faculty hiring patterns. Journal of Management, 6: 99–115. Google Scholar
- Beyer, Chanove and Fox, 1995 1995. The review process and the fates of manuscripts submitted to AMJ. Academy of Management Journal, 38: 1219–1260.Link , Google Scholar
- Borokhovich, Bricker and Simkins, 1999 1999. Financial Management's success as an academic journal. Financial Management, 28(X): 76–82. Google Scholar
- Cable and Murray, 1999 1999. Tournament vs. sponsored mobility determinants of job search success. Academy of Management Journal, 42: 439–449.Abstract , Google Scholar
- Campion, 1993 1993. Article review checklist: A criterion checklist for reviewing research articles in applied psychology. Personnel Psychology, 46: 705–719. Google Scholar
- Christenson and Sigelman, 1985 1985. Accrediting knowledge: Journal stature and citation impact in social science. Social Science Quarterly, 66: 964–975. Google Scholar
- Cohen and Cohen, 1983 1983. Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Google Scholar
- Cole and Cole, 1972 1972. The Ortega hypothesis. Science, 178: 368–375. Google Scholar
- Cole, 1979 1979. Age and scientific performance. American Journal of Sociology, 84: 958–977. Google Scholar
- Cole and Cole, 1967 1967. Scientific output and recognition: A study in the operation of the reward system in science. American Sociological Review, 32: 377–390. Google Scholar
- Cole and Cole, 1973 1973. Social stratification in science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
- Cook and Campbell, 1979 1979. Quasi-experimentation: Design & analysis issues for field studies. Chicago: Rand-McNally. Google Scholar
- Crane, 1965 1965. Scientists at major and minor universities: A study of productivity and recognition. American Sociological Review, 30: 699–714. Google Scholar
- Cronin, 1984 1984. The citation process. London: Taylor Graham. Google Scholar
- Diamond, 1986 1986. What is a citation worth? Journal of Human Resources, 21: 200–215. Google Scholar
- Donohue and Fox, 2000 2000. A multi-method evaluation of journals in the decision and management sciences by US academics. Omega, 28: 17–36. Google Scholar
- Dusansky and Vernon, 1998 1998. Rankings of U.S. economics departments. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 12: 157–170. Google Scholar
- Endler, Rushton and Roediger, 1978 1978. Productivity and scholarly impact. American Psychologist, 33: 1064–1082. Google Scholar
- Fee, Hadlock and Pierce, 2005 2005. Business school rankings and business school deans: A study of nonprofit governance. Financial Management, 34: 143–166. Google Scholar
- Frank and Cook, 1995 1995. The winner-take-all society. New York: Free Press. Google Scholar
- Garfield, 1955 1955. Citation indexes for science: A new dimension in documentation through association of ideas. Science, 122: 108–111. Google Scholar
- Garfield, 1987 1987. Mapping the world of science: Is citation analysis a legitimate evaluation tool? In Jackson D. N.Rushton J. P. (Eds.), Scientific excellence: 18–39. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Google Scholar
- Garfield, 2006 2006. The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. Journal of the American Medical Association, 295: 90–93. Google Scholar
- Gilbert, 1977 1977. Referencing as persuasion. Social Studies of Science, 7: 113–122. Google Scholar
- Glass, 1955 1955. News and notes. Science, 21: 583–596. Google Scholar
- Glick, McKelvey, Cooper, Huber and Zmud, 1997 1997. 1997 INFORMS committee review of Organization Science: Survey feedback from surveys of journal reputations (Unpublished report). INFORMS. Google Scholar
- Glick, Miller and Cardinal, In press In press. Making a life in the field of organization science. Journal of Organizational Behavior. Google Scholar
- Gomez-Mejia and Balkin, 1992 1992. Determinants of faculty pay: An agency theory perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 35: 921–955.Link , Google Scholar
- Gottfredson, 1978 1978. Evaluating psychological research reports: Dimensions, reliability, and correlates of quality judgments. American Psychologist, 33: 920–934. Google Scholar
- Gourman, 1997 1997. The Gourman report. Los Angeles: National Education Standards. Google Scholar
- Helmreich, Spence, Beane, Lucker and Matthews, 1980 1980. Making it in academic psychology: Demographic and personality correlates of attainment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39: 896–908. Google Scholar
- Huff, 1998 1998. Writing for scholarly publication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Google Scholar
- Johnson and Podsakoff, 1994 1994. Journal influence in the field of management: An analysis using Salancik's index in a dependency network. Academy of Management Journal, 37: 1392–1407.Abstract , Google Scholar
- Judge, 2003 2003. Marginalizing the Journal of Applied Psychology. Industrial Psychologist, 40(1): 56–59. Google Scholar
- Kerr, Tolliver and Petree, 1977 1977. Manuscript characteristics which influence acceptance for management and social science journals. Academy of Management Journal, 20: 132–141.Abstract , Google Scholar
- LaBand, 1986 1986. Article popularity. Economic Inquiry, 24: 173–180. Google Scholar
- LaBand and Piette, 1994 1994. A citation analysis of the impact of blinded peer review. Journal of the American Medical Association, 272: 147–149. Google Scholar
- Lundberg, 2003 2003. The “omnipotent” Science Citation Index impact factor. Medical Journal of Australia, 178: 253–254. Google Scholar
- Martins, 2005 2005. A model of the effects of reputational rankings on organizational change. Organization Science, 16: 701–720. Google Scholar
- Merton, 1957 1957. Priorities in scientific discovery: A chapter in the sociology of science. American Sociology Review, 22: 635–659. Google Scholar
- Merton, 1963 1963. Resistance to the systematic study of multiple discoveries in science. Archives Europeennes de Sociologie, 4: 237–282. Google Scholar
- Merton, 1968 1968. The Matthew effect in science. Science, 159: 56–63. Google Scholar
- Mitra, 1970 1970. The bibliographic reference: A review of its role. Annals of Library Science, 17: 117–123. Google Scholar
- Monastersky, 2005 2005. The number that's devouring science. Chronicle of Higher Education, 52(8): A12. Google Scholar
- Newman and Cooper, 1993 1993. Determinants of academic recognition: The case of the Journal of Applied Psychology. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78: 518–526. Google Scholar
- Nunnally, 1978 1978. Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill. Google Scholar
- Perkel, 2005 2005. The future of citation analysis. Scientist, 19: 24–25. Google Scholar
- Perreault and Leigh, 1989 1989. Reliability of nominal data based on qualitative judgments. Journal of Marketing Research, 26: 135–148. Google Scholar
- Peters and Ceci, 1982 1982. Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 5: 187–255. Google Scholar
- Pfeffer, 1993 1993. Barriers to the advance of organizational science: Paradigm development as a dependent variable. Academy of Management Review, 18: 599–620.Link , Google Scholar
- Powell and Owen-Smith, 1998 1998. Universities and the market for intellectual property in the life sciences. Journal of Policy Analysis & Management, 17: 253–277. Google Scholar
- Rossiter, 1993 1993. The Matilda effect in science. Social Studies of Science, 23: 325–341. Google Scholar
- Rousseau and McCarthy, 2007 2007. Educating managers from an evidence-based perspective. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 6: 84–101.Link , Google Scholar
- Seglen, 1997 1997. Why the impact factor should not be used for evaluating research. British Medical Journal, 314: 498–502. Google Scholar
- Shadish, Tolliver, Gray and Sengupta, 1995 1995. Author judgments about works they cite. Social Studies of Science, 25: 477–498. Google Scholar
- Slaughter and Leslie, 1997 1997. Academic capitalism: Politics, policies, and the entrepreneurial university. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Google Scholar
- Starbuck, 2005 2005. How much better are the most-prestigious journals? The statistics of academic publication. Organization Science, 16: 180–200. Google Scholar
- Tahai and Meyer, 1999 1999. A revealed preference study of management journals' direct influences. Strategic Management Journal, 20: 279–296. Google Scholar
- Turner and Rojouan, 1991 1991. Evaluating input/output relationships in a regional research network using co-word analysis. Scientometrics, 22: 139–154. Google Scholar
- Van Maanen, 1995 1995. Style as theory. Organization Science, 6: 133–143. Google Scholar
- Zell, 2005 2005. Pressure for relevancy at top-tier business schools. Journal of Management Inquiry, 14: 271–274. Google Scholar