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

Which Factors Drive the Decision to Boycott and Opt Out of Research Rankings?

  • Michael Berlemann
  • Justus Haucap

This note contains an empirical analysis of the decision of German-speaking business scholars to boycott and opt out of the best known research ranking of business scholars, initiated and published by Germany’s largest business daily, Handelsblatt. Our analysis indicates that scientists who are more senior (already have a longer academic career) and scientists who have been either less successful or less eager to publish their research in internationally well renown journals with high impact factors are more likely to boycott the research ranking. In addition, scientists who have already been appointed to a professorship are more likely to boycott the ranking, while academics having obtained a Ph.D. (instead of a German-style doctorate) are less prone to supporting the boycott. Finally, researchers specializing in various more quantitatively oriented subjects (such as finance and operations research) are less likely to boycott the ranking, while researchers in some less quantitatively oriented subjects (such as business organization) are more likely supporting the boycott.

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://www.cesifo-group.de/portal/page/portal/DocBase_Content/WP/WP-CESifo_Working_Papers/wp-cesifo-2012/wp-cesifo-2012-11/cesifo1_wp3997.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by CESifo Group Munich in its series CESifo Working Paper Series with number 3997.

as
in new window

Length:
Date of creation: 2012
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:ces:ceswps:_3997
Contact details of provider: Postal: Poschingerstrasse 5, 81679 Munich
Phone: +49 (89) 9224-0
Fax: +49 (89) 985369
Web page: http://www.cesifo.de
Email:


More information through EDIRC

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. Bruno S. Frey & Katja Rost, 2008. "Do Rankings Reflect Research Quality?," CESifo Working Paper Series 2443, CESifo Group Munich.
  2. Michael Graber & Andrey Launov & Klaus Wälde, 2008. "Publish or Perish? The Increasing Importance of Publications for Prospective Economics Professors in Austria, Germany and Switzerland," German Economic Review, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 9, pages 457-472, November.
  3. Glenn Ellison, 2002. "The Slowdown of the Economics Publishing Process," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 110(5), pages 947-993, October.
  4. Jörg Schläpfer & Matthias Krapf, 2012. "How Nobel Laureates Would Perform in the Handelsblatt Ranking," KOF Working papers 12-318, KOF Swiss Economic Institute, ETH Zurich.
  5. Susanne Warning & Christian Wiermann & Günther G. Schulze, 2008. "What and how long does it take to get tenure? The Case of Economics and Business Administration in Austria, Germany and Switzerland?," Discussion Paper Series 6, Department of International Economic Policy, University of Freiburg, revised Jul 2008.
  6. Andrew J. Oswald, 2007. "An Examination of the Reliability of Prestigious Scholarly Journals: Evidence and Implications for Decision-Makers," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 74(293), pages 21-31, 02.
  7. Ulf Schrader & Thorsten Hennig-Thurau, 2009. "VHB-JOURQUAL2: Method, Results, and Implications of the German Academic Association for Business Research's Journal Ranking," BuR - Business Research, German Academic Association for Business Research, vol. 2(2), pages 180-204, December.
  8. Frey, Bruno S, 2003. " Publishing as Prostitution?--Choosing between One's Own Ideas and Academic Success," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 116(1-2), pages 205-23, July.
  9. Glenn Ellison, 2011. "Is Peer Review In Decline?," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 49(3), pages 635-657, 07.
  10. Ofer H. Azar, 2005. "The Review Process in Economics: Is It Too Fast?," Southern Economic Journal, Southern Economic Association, vol. 72(2), pages 482–491, October.
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:ces:ceswps:_3997. 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: (Julio Saavedra)

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.