When journal quality counts: a tale of the research productivity story of two premier Jesuit business schools in India

This paper computes research productivity of 108 faculty from XLRI and XIMB across five quality threshold (CABS-all, ABDC-all, CABS Top 4, ABDC Top3, and CABS Top 3) using data envelopment analysis. Four revelations emerge. First, XLRI’s apparent productivity edge over XIMB stems from heavier teaching loads at XIMB, not faculty talent. Second, while CABS and ABDC rankings converge at low threshold (broad) level, they diverge significantly at higher (stricter) thresholds. Third, threshold stringency, not the ranking source, primarily drives rank volatility. Adopting the strictest CABS Top 3 reconfigures productivity rankings drastically, displacing 73% of faculty by over ten positions. Fourth, redefining disadvantage as rank incoherence rather than absolute productivity loss reveals a disciplinary cleavage: Marketing and Operations Management retain internal cohesion, whereas Information Systems, Accounting & Finance, and Organizational Behavior & Human Resources Management experience a decoupling of broad-list success from top-tier eminence due to severe faculty attrition. As regards policy implications, XIMB must urgently expand its research faculty cohort and reduce excessive teaching loads to improve research productivity. To rectify linear research-incentive inequities, we propose a multi-layered reward mechanism that values mid-tier publications while directing its heaviest investment toward impactful research.