IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

How Journal Rankings can suppress Interdisciplinary Research – A Comparison between Innovation Studies and Business & Management

  • Ismael Rafols
  • Loet Leydesdorff
  • Alice O'Hare
  • Paul Nightingale
  • Andy Stirling

This study provides new quantitative evidence on how journal rankings can disadvantage interdisciplinary research during research evaluations. Using publication data, it compares the degree of interdisciplinarity and the research performance of innovation studies units with business and management schools in the UK. Using various mappings and metrics, this study shows that: (i) innovation studies units are consistently more interdisciplinary than business and management schools; (ii) the top journals in the Association of Business Schools’ rankings span a less diverse set of disciplines than lower ranked journals; (iii) this pattern results in a more favourable performance assessment of the business and management schools, which are more disciplinary-focused. Lastly, it demonstrates how a citation-based analysis challenges the ranking-based assessment. In summary, the investigation illustrates how ostensibly ‘excellence-based’ journal rankings have a systematic bias in favour of mono-disciplinary research. The paper concludes with a discussion of implications of these phenomena, in particular how resulting bias is likely to affect negatively the evaluation and associated financial resourcing of interdisciplinary organisations, and may encourage researchers to be more compliant with disciplinary authority.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://www3.druid.dk/wp/20110005.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by DRUID, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Industrial Economics and Strategy/Aalborg University, Department of Business Studies in its series DRUID Working Papers with number 11-05.

as
in new window

Length:
Date of creation: 2011
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:aal:abbswp:11-05
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.druid.dk/

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

as in new window
  1. Ismael Rafols & Alan Porter & Loet Leydesdorff, 2009. "Overlay Maps of Science: a New Tool for Research Policy," SPRU Working Paper Series 179, SPRU - Science and Technology Policy Research, University of Sussex.
  2. Leydesdorff, Loet & Rafols, Ismael, 2011. "Indicators of the interdisciplinarity of journals: Diversity, centrality, and citations," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 87-100.
  3. Grit Laudel & Gloria Origgi, 2006. "Introduction to a special issue on the assessment of interdisciplinary research," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 15(1), pages 2-4, April.
  4. Fagerberg, Jan & Verspagen, Bart, 2009. "Innovation studies--The emerging structure of a new scientific field," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 218-233, March.
  5. R. Martin, Ben & Nightingale, Paul & Yegros-Yegros, Alfredo, 2011. "Science and Technology Studies: Exploring the Knowledge Base," INGENIO (CSIC-UPV) Working Paper Series 201110, INGENIO (CSIC-UPV).
  6. Fagerberg, Jan & Fosaas, Morten & Sapprasert, Koson, 2012. "Innovation: Exploring the knowledge base," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(7), pages 1132-1153.
  7. van Rijnsoever, Frank J. & Hessels, Laurens K., 2011. "Factors associated with disciplinary and interdisciplinary research collaboration," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 463-472, April.
  8. Katz, J. Sylvan & Martin, Ben R., 1997. "What is research collaboration?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 1-18, March.
  9. Philip Lowe & Jeremy Phillipson, 2009. "Barriers to research collaboration across disciplines: scientific paradigms and institutional practices," Environment and Planning A, Pion Ltd, London, vol. 41(5), pages 1171-1184, May.
  10. Jan Youtie & Maurizio Iacopetta & Stuart Graham, 2008. "Assessing the nature of nanotechnology: can we uncover an emerging general purpose technology?," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 33(3), pages 315-329, June.
  11. Andy Stirling, 2007. "A General Framework for Analysing Diversity in Science, Technology and Society," SPRU Working Paper Series 156, SPRU - Science and Technology Policy Research, University of Sussex.
  12. Heinze, Thomas & Shapira, Philip & Rogers, Juan D. & Senker, Jacqueline M., 2009. "Organizational and institutional influences on creativity in scientific research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 610-623, May.
  13. Veronica Boix Mansilla, 2006. "Assessing expert interdisciplinary work at the frontier: an empirical exploration," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 15(1), pages 17-29, April.
  14. David Roessner, 2000. "Quantitative and qualitative methods and measures in the evaluation of research," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 9(2), pages 125-132, August.
  15. Cummings, Jonathon N. & Kiesler, Sara, 2007. "Coordination costs and project outcomes in multi-university collaborations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(10), pages 1620-1634, December.
  16. Marcella Corsi & Carlo D'Ippoliti & Federico Lucidi, 2010. "Pluralism at Risk?," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 69(5), pages 1495-1529, November.
  17. Scott E. Page, 2007. "Prologue to The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies
    [The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and So
    ," Introductory Chapters, Princeton University Press.
  18. Nicolas CARAYOL & Thuc Uyen NGUYEN THI, 2004. "Why do Academic Scientists Engage in Interdisciplinary Research ?," Working Papers of BETA 2004-17, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
  19. Ismael Rafols & Martin Meyer, 2008. "Diversity and network coherence as indicators of interdisciplinarity: Case studies in bionanoscience," SPRU Working Paper Series 167, SPRU - Science and Technology Policy Research, University of Sussex.
  20. Luis Sanz-Menéndez & Mar�a Bordons & M Angeles Zulueta, 2001. "Interdisciplinarity as a multidimensional concept: its measure in three different research areas," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 10(1), pages 47-58, April.
  21. Kiss, Istvan Z. & Broom, Mark & Craze, Paul G. & Rafols, Ismael, 2010. "Can epidemic models describe the diffusion of topics across disciplines?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 4(1), pages 74-82.
  22. Frederic S. Lee, 2007. "The Research Assessment Exercise, the state and the dominance of mainstream economics in British universities," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 31(2), pages 309-325, March.
  23. Wagner, Caroline S. & Roessner, J. David & Bobb, Kamau & Klein, Julie Thompson & Boyack, Kevin W. & Keyton, Joann & Rafols, Ismael & Börner, Katy, 2011. "Approaches to understanding and measuring interdisciplinary scientific research (IDR): A review of the literature," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 14-26.
  24. Alan L Porter & J David Roessner & Alex S Cohen & Marty Perreault, 2006. "Interdisciplinary research: meaning, metrics and nurture," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 15(3), pages 187-195, December.
  25. Oswald, Andrew J., 2006. "An Examination of the Reliability of Prestigious Scholarly Journals: Evidence and Implications for Decision-makers," IZA Discussion Papers 2070, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
  26. Martin, Ben R. & Irvine, John, 1993. "Assessing basic research : Some partial indicators of scientific progress in radio astronomy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 106-106, April.
  27. Rhoten, Diana & Pfirman, Stephanie, 2007. "Women in interdisciplinary science: Exploring preferences and consequences," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 56-75, February.
  28. J Sylvan Katz, 2000. "Scale-independent indicators and research evaluation," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 27(1), pages 23-36, February.
  29. Rinia, E. J. & van Leeuwen, Th. N. & van Vuren, H. G. & van Raan, A. F. J., 2001. "Influence of interdisciplinarity on peer-review and bibliometric evaluations in physics research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 357-361, March.
  30. Liv Langfeldt, 2006. "The policy challenges of peer review: managing bias, conflict of interests and interdisciplinary assessments," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 15(1), pages 31-41, April.
  31. Philip Lowe & Jeremy Phillipson, 2006. "Reflexive Interdisciplinary Research: The Making of a Research Programme on the Rural Economy and Land Use," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(2), pages 165-184, 07.
  32. deS. Price, Derek, 1984. "The science/technology relationship, the craft of experimental science, and policy for the improvement of high technology innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 3-20, February.
  33. Paul Nightingale & Alister Scott, 2007. "Peer review and the relevance gap: Ten suggestions for policy-makers," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 34(8), pages 543-553, October.
  34. Tommy Clausen & Jan Fagerberg & Magnus Gulbrandsen, 2012. "Mobilizing for Change: A Study of Research Units in Emerging Scientific Fields," Working Papers on Innovation Studies 20120319, Centre for Technology, Innovation and Culture, University of Oslo.
  35. Zhou, Ping & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2011. "Fractional counting of citations in research evaluation: A cross- and interdisciplinary assessment of the Tsinghua University in Beijing," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(3), pages 360-368.
  36. Claire Donovan, 2007. "Introduction: Future pathways for science policy and research assessment: Metrics vs peer review, quality vs impact," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 34(8), pages 538-542, October.
  37. Bhupatiraju, Samyukta & Nomaler, Önder & Triulzi, Giorgio & Verspagen, Bart, 2012. "Knowledge flows – Analyzing the core literature of innovation, entrepreneurship and science and technology studies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(7), pages 1205-1218.
  38. Huutoniemi, Katri & Klein, Julie Thompson & Bruun, Henrik & Hukkinen, Janne, 2010. "Analyzing interdisciplinarity: Typology and indicators," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 79-88, February.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aal:abbswp:11-05. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Keld Laursen)

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.