08832323.2010.520757
Journal of Education for Business
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
The Gatekeepers of Business Education Research:
An Institutional Analysis
Frank R. Urbancic
To cite this article: Frank R. Urbancic (2011) The Gatekeepers of Business Education
Research: An Institutional Analysis, Journal of Education for Business, 86:5, 302-310, DOI:
10.1080/08832323.2010.520757
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2010.520757
Published online: 21 Jun 2011.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 117
View related articles
Citing articles: 1 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji]
Date: 11 January 2016, At: 22:19
JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS, 86: 302–310, 2011
C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
Copyright
ISSN: 0883-2323 print / 1940-3356 online
DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2010.520757
The Gatekeepers of Business Education Research:
An Institutional Analysis
Frank R. Urbancic
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:19 11 January 2016
University of South Alabama, Mobile, Alabama, USA
The author ranked the academic standing of universities based on faculty representation to the
editorial boards of business education journals. Previous studies that ranked institutions for
editorial board representation focused on journals that primarily favor publication of basic and
applied research contributions. As a result, prior research has accorded either very minimal
or no consideration for journals that publish learning and pedagogical research. This author
addressed the aforementioned shortcoming by extending the editorial board ranking method
to include 1,279 editorial board affiliations for 31 business education journals. The rankings
provide a comparative perspective on institutional affiliations and participation in the peer
review process for business education research.
Keywords: business education research, editorial boards, journals, ranking academic institutions, reputation
The reported results of studies that rank the relative standing
of academic institutions provide relevant feedback as a basis for faculties to monitor the progress and relative status of
their programs (Kaufman, 1984; Mittermaier, 1991). According to Urbancic (2004) the prestige associated with attaining
the highest ranks can prove valuable to a program in terms of
attracting quality students, excellent faculty, increased budget allocations, and externally generated financial support.
Chan and Fok (2003) and Gibbons and Fish (1991) discussed
a number of different methods that have been used to rank
academic standing, including an established method based
on editorial board representation for scholarly journals. This
method recognizes that selection for appointment to the editorial board of a journal is an honor that confers status not
only to the individual, but also to the appointee’s university.
However, the problem with previously published studies that
ranked institutions based on editorial board representation is
a tendency to focus exclusively on journals devoted to basic and applied types of business research. As a result, prior
studies have disregarded the journals that publish research
contributions to learning and pedagogy. The purpose of this
Correspondence should be addressed to Frank R. Urbancic, University of South Alabama, Mitchell College of Business, Department of
Accounting, 307 University Boulevard,, Mobile, AL 36688, USA. E-mail:
furbanci@usouthal.edu
study was to address the aforementioned shortcoming by
extending application of the editorial board ranking method
to the area of business education research.
The need for this study relates to the precept that quality
teaching in higher education is an imperative for business
academicians. The standards for accreditation by the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB)
International emphasize that “Student learning is the central
activity of higher education” (Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business [AACSB] International, 2008,
p. 59). The standards of AACSB International add further
importance to the learning mission by an explicit recognition of contributions to learning and pedagogical research
as one of three major categories of intellectual contributions, along with contributions to practice (applied research)
and discipline-based scholarship (basic research). Therefore,
learning and pedagogical research that serves to advance
teaching quality has significant value, as do the journals that
publish the research and the editorial board members responsible for assuring journal quality.
The remainder of this article is organized into six sections.
First, I assess the limitations of the study. Second, I review
research studies related to the editorial method of journal
analysis. Research questions are presented in the third section. In the fourth section I describe the methodology and
procedure for the study. Results and discussion are presented
in the fifth section. Last, I provide concluding comments and
recommendations for future researchers.
GATEKEEPERS OF BUSINESS EDUCATION RESEARCH
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:19 11 January 2016
Limitations
There were three limitations to this study. First, the analysis
was restricted to the editorial boards of business education
research journals for the areas of accounting, economics,
finance, management, and marketing. The study therefore
excluded other outlets for publication available in education
journals that are outside of the primary business disciplines.
However, the significance of this limitation is minimal because education journals outside of the business journals are
less likely to publish research with an emphasis on business
education.
A second limitation of the study was attributable to
differences in the size of journal editorial boards. For
example, 6 of the 31 journals examined for this study
were specialty journals with fewer than 20 editorial board
members each. By contrast, the three largest boards included
for this study were Academy of Management Learning &
Education (97 members), Journal of Marketing Education
(89), and Issues in Accounting Education (79). Such wide
variations in board size among the journals could possibly
bias the relative ranking of some institutions based on
membership dominance for a particular journal or discipline.
Third, the editorial board method assumes that editors
primarily invite scholars with strong publication and citation records to serve on the boards of academic journals.
However, some members with lesser research accomplishments could be chosen primarily for their dependability in
submitting timely reviews. An editor may also extend invitations based more on convenience or collegiality rather
than scholarship. For example, board invitations could be
extended to one or more faculty members of the editor’s
school or to coauthors of the editor. Editors might also call
on longtime friends known from their time together as fellow
PhD students. The extent of these practices could vary between different journals, but their overall impact is assumed
to be negligible for purposes of the editorial board ranking
method. Editors are ultimately responsible for maintaining
and enhancing a journal’s reputation for quality. For this reason, editors have an incentive for offering board memberships
to accomplished scholars.
Related Research
According to AACSB International (2005), the relative academic standing of business schools has taken on increased
significance in recent years. Consequently, the business
school rankings, as annually reported in the popular press by
Businessweek, U.S. News and World Report, and Wall Street
Journal, generate substantial interest and controversy among
the various constituents of business education (AACSB International). In addition to the popular press, other rankings
of academic standing can be developed by applying various
methods such as counting the number of published articles
by faculty, determining the number of citations to published
research, or conducting opinion surveys to measure peer
303
ratings and perceptions of quality (Chan & Fok, 2003;
Gibbons & Fish, 1991; Kurtz & Boone, 1988; Mittermaier,
1991; Urbancic, 2004; Volkan, Colley, & Boone, 1993). According to Urbancic, the inherent subjectivity of the survey
method places it at a disadvantage relative to the more objective methods. The methods that involve counts of published
articles or citation analysis gain objectivity, but these methods involve a tediously elaborate process for data collection.
The editorial board method avoids the aforementioned drawbacks, and presents a unique perspective on the relative ranks
of institutions with business education programs.
Considerable power over a discipline is vested in the editorial board members of academic journals. The process of
editorial review serves as a quality control checkpoint on the
body of knowledge for a discipline, and editorial board members are widely regarded as the gatekeepers of the academy
(Crane, 1967; Kerr, Tolliver, & Petree, 1977; Lee, 1997).
As gatekeepers, their decisions control the type of research
that is published, determines the success of academicians as
scholars, and sustain journal quality. According to Gilmore,
Carson, and Perry (2006), journal editors endeavor to enhance journal reputation, and for this reason they are highly
selective in offering appointments to the editorial board.
Krishnan and Bricker (2004) determined that the value
added by a journal to its published articles is a function of the journal’s editorial board reputation as measured
by scholarly productivity. In a study of finance journals,
Tanner (2000) observed that a journal’s quality correlated
highly with the citation records of its referees. Based on
their study of accounting journals, Beattie and Ryan (1989)
observed that the members of editorial boards are far more
frequently cited than other researchers. Hardin, Liano, Chan,
and Fok (2008) examined the scholarly accomplishments
of the editorial board members for the highest journals in
finance and concluded that selection to the board of a topfive journal required substantial research achievement. Rynes
(2006) asserted that scholars with strong publication and citation records are the most obvious candidates to receive an
editorial board invitation to an academic journal. So in effect
the editorial board method encompasses the other methods
used to rank the institutional affiliations of academicians such
as citation counts or article counts, but without the need to
confront problems such as errors in citation databases and
adjusting for coauthorship credit.
A study by Trieschmann, Dennis, Northcraft, and Niemi
(2000) added validity and relevance to the use of editorial
board memberships as a basis for an assessment of academic
quality by demonstrating a positive correlation between the
numbers of memberships held for the best basic research
journals in business and the published rankings of business
schools. Other studies have emphasized that a ranking based
on editorial board representation reflects the quality of faculties and their visibility relative to other institutions, but it
is much easier to obtain than rankings based on other criteria (Gibbons & Fish, 1991; Mittermaier, 1991; Volkan et al.,
304
F. R. URBANCIC
TABLE 1
Previously Published Studies of Editorial Board Representation
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:19 11 January 2016
Study
Area
Number of journals reviewed
Brinn & Jones, 2008
Accounting
48
Volkan, Colley & Boone, 1993
Accounting
54
Mittermaier, 1991
Gibbons & Fish, 1991
Chan & Fok, 2003
Kaufman, 1984
Chan, Fok & Lai, 2005
Urbancic, 2005
Kurtz & Boone, 1988
Urbancic, 2004
Boone, Gibson & Kurtz, 1988
Accounting
Economics
Finance
Finance
International business
Marketing
Marketing
Real estate
Transportation
13
25
16
10
30
8
13
3
6
1993). However, editorial board membership is not a perfect
ranking measure. The task of reviewing papers is burdensome
(Brinn & Jones, 2008). According to Chan, Fung, and Lai
(2005), good researchers may choose not to be on editorial
boards because of time constraints or for other reasons. As
a result, limited participation on an editorial board does not
necessarily imply that the nonranked schools are of lesser
quality. Therefore, a ranking of institutions based on editorial board memberships is intended to compliment rather
than replace other types of rankings for academic quality.
Previously published studies of editorial board memberships have presented rankings for the institutional affiliations
of faculty representatives in the areas of accounting (Brinn
& Jones, 2008; Mittermaier, 1991; Volkan et al., 1993),
economics (Gibbons & Fish, 1991), finance (Chan & Fok,
2003; Kaufman, 1984), international business (Chan et al.,
2005), marketing (Kurtz & Boone, 1988; Urbancic, 2005),
real estate (Urbancic, 2004), and transportation (Boone,
Gibson, & Kurtz, 1988). As seen in Table 1, the aforementioned studies of editorial board representation in business
vary in terms of the area and the number of journals reviewed. A common shortcoming of these studies is their
focus on journal outlets that primarily favor publication of
basic and applied research contributions. As a result, prior
studies have accorded very minimal or no consideration at all
to journals that publish learning and pedagogical research.
For example, business education journals were completely
excluded from analysis by seven of the 11 studies listed in
Table 1. Only four of the studies in Table 1 included an education journal for analysis, and in those studies the education
journal(s) was or were substantially outnumbered by the basic and applied journals reviewed. This lack of recognition
for business education journals is unfortunate in light of the
importance attributed to education research. For example,
St. Pierre, Wilson, Ravenscroft, and Rebele (2009) asserted
Education journals reviewed
Accounting Education (UK)
Accounting Educators’ Journal
Issues in Accounting Education
Journal of Accounting Education
Accounting Educators’ Journal
Issues in Accounting Education
Journal of Accounting Education
Issues in Accounting Education
None
None
None
None
None
Journal of Marketing Education
None
None
that “Careful attention to what we teach, how we teach it,
and how we can accommodate and facilitate students’ learning is a most worthy endeavor” (p. 129). Therefore, journal
publication in that endeavor should be recognized and valued on a basis that accords parity of esteem with other types
of research. Within this context, the present study helps by
providing information from an appraisal based on editorial
board members for journals that publish business education
research.
Research Questions
Hawes and Keillor (2002) and Polonsky, Mittelstaedt, and
Moore (2008) contended that mission should be a primary
consideration in evaluations of research relative to academic
standing. The standards for accreditation by AACSB International (2008) recognize that priorities may vary, and the
mission of an institution should determine the appropriate
balance of activity among the three different types of intellectual contributions in terms of basic, applied, and education
research. Just as institutions may have different missions,
more relevant information about the relative academic standing of participants in the business research process can be
provided by analyses that separately examine each of the
three types of intellectual contributions. However, as noted
previously, prior studies of editorial boards in business have
only examined journals that publish basic and applied types
of research. Therefore, the purpose of the present study was
to address the aforementioned shortcoming by extending application of the editorial board ranking method to journals
that primarily publish business education research. Findings
from this extended application contribute another perspective on the relative academic standing of business schools in
a mission-based accreditation environment.
GATEKEEPERS OF BUSINESS EDUCATION RESEARCH
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:19 11 January 2016
Based on the preceding discussion, the following research
questions were investigated:
Research Question 1: Which institutions’ faculties rank
highly for the most memberships to the editorial boards
of journals devoted to the publication of business education research?
Research Question 2: How is the ranking for editorial board
representation changed by adjusting for differences in
the numbers of faculty members at business schools?
Research Question 3: Which institutions’ faculties rank
highly in terms of their memberships to the greatest
number of different journal editorial boards?
Research Question 4: How do the leading business education
research gatekeeper institutions compare to nationally
ranked business school programs?
METHOD
Application of the editorial method begins with identifying
the specific journal boards to include for analysis. For this
study, I reviewed the descriptions of manuscript topics and
guidelines of the journals provided by Cabell’s 2009 Directory of Publishing Opportunities in accounting, economics,
finance, management, and marketing to identify scholarly
journals that extensively publish business education research
articles. Application of this approach (supplemented by an
Internet search for additional information about each journal’s editorial board) produced a set of 31 refereed journals.
An alphabetical list of the journals appears in Table 2. The
list excluded professional training journals (e.g., Journal of
Executive Education, Journal of Leadership Education). The
analysis also excluded journals based outside of the United
States. The data collected for analysis consisted of the institutional affiliations of the editors and editorial review board
members of all 31 journals.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Institutional Affiliation Rank Based
on Memberships
Research Question 1 involves which institutions’ faculties
rank highly for the most memberships to the editorial boards
of journals devoted to the publication of business education
research. Findings provided by an analysis of the institutional
affiliations of editorial board members for business education journals were based on a total of 1,279 editorial board
members with affiliation to 527 institutions for 2009. The
total of 527 institutions included 509 academic institutions
and 18 nonacademic institutions (e.g., banking, consulting,
manufacturing) and each one of the nonacademic institutions had only one journal board member, for a total of 18. A
majority of members (1,261) were affiliated with academic
305
TABLE 2
Business Education Journals
List of business education research journal titles
Academy of Management Learning
& Education
Accounting Educators’ Journal
Accounting Information Systems
Educator Journal
Advances in Accounting Education
Advances in Financial Education
Business Education Digest
Decision Sciences Journal of
Innovative Education
Global Perspectives on Accounting
Education
INFORMS Transactions on
Education
International Journal of Information
and Operations Management
Education
Issues in Accounting Education
Journal for Advancement of
Marketing Education
Journal for Economic Educators
Journal of Accounting Education
Journal of Applied Finance
Journal of Applied Research for
Business Instruction
Journal of Economic Education
Journal of Economics and Finance
Education
Journal of Education for Business
Journal of Financial Education
Journal of Hospitality & Tourism
Education
Journal of Human Resources
Education
Journal of Industrial Organization
Education
Journal of Informatics Education
Research
Journal of Information Systems
Education
Journal of Legal Studies Education
Journal of Management Education
Journal of Marketing Education
Journal of Real Estate Practice and
Education
Journal of Teaching in International
Business
Marketing Education Review
institutions. The 509 academic institutions consisted of 363
universities located in the United States, and 146 non-U.S.
universities. A list of the institutions with the most memberships is presented in Table 3. Only institutions with six or
more editorial board memberships are listed in Table 3. Application of this criterion yielded a list of 48 universities, and
all of the universities were accredited in business by AACSB
International. Because all of the journals reviewed are based
in the United States, it is not surprising to see that all 48
institutions listed in Table 3 are U.S. universities. Although
fewer in number and not listed in Table 3, some non-U.S.
universities are notable for multiple memberships. For example, the University of Melbourne, with 4 representatives
on the editorial boards of the business education journals, had
the most memberships of the 146 non-U.S. universities. And
following Melbourne was a group of non-U.S. universities,
each with 3 memberships: Auckland, Bond, Hong Polytechnic, National University Singapore, Simon Fraser, University
of Hong Kong, and Waikato.
As the top group, the 48 universities in Table 3 account
for only 9% of the 527 institutions in this study, but with
379 board representatives these 48 universities hold 30%
of the 1,279 editorial board memberships. James Madison
University, at 15, has the most faculty representatives to the
editorial boards of journals that publish business education
research. Rounding out the top group of universities with 11
members each are Indiana, Kansas State, Michigan, Middle
306
F. R. URBANCIC
TABLE 3
Institutional Affiliation of Editorial Board Members for Business Education Journals
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:19 11 January 2016
Institution
Number of board members
James Madison University
15
Indiana University
Kansas State University
University of Michigan
Middle Tennessee State
Northern Illinois University
11
11
11
11
11
Southern Illinois at Carbondale
10
Baylor University
University of Central Florida
University of Delaware
Florida Atlantic University
Georgia Southern University
Illinois State University
Michigan State University
Mississippi State University
University of Richmond
Stanford University
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
University of Connecticut
DePaul University
Miami University of Ohio
New York University
Texas Tech University
8
8
8
8
8
Institution
Number of board members
Auburn University
Babson College
Bowling Green State University
Clemson University
George Washington University
Georgia State University
University of Nevada at Las Vegas
New Mexico State University
Northeastern University
Texas A&M University
Texas Christian University
Virginia Commonwealth
Western Michigan University
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
University of Akron
Ball State University
Brigham Young University
Case Western Reserve University
University of Denver
University of Georgia
Massachusetts at Amherst
University of Missouri at Columbia
North Carolina at Chapel Hill
University of Notre Dame
Pennsylvania State University
San Diego State University
UCLA
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
Note. Top 48 academic institutions combined = 379. Remaining 461 academic institutions combined = 882. The 18 nonacademic institutions combined =
18. Total number of institutions = 1,279.
Tennessee State, and Northern Illinois, followed by Southern
Illinois University with 10 board members. Based on Table
3’s data, the combined group of 48 universities averaged
7.9 (379/48) editorial board memberships each. By comparison, the average for the remaining 461 universities with editorial board representation was substantially lower, at only
1.9 (882/461) members.
A Rank Based on Size-Adjusted Memberships
Research Question 2 involved how the ranking for editorial
board representation changed by adjusting for differences in
the numbers of faculty members at business schools. Because some of the institutions listed in Table 3 had a very
large number of business school faculty, it was relevant to
consider the desirability of an editorial board ranking based
on a size adjustment for differences in the numbers of faculty.
There were contrasting viewpoints on this issue. According to
Mittermaier (1991) and Kaufman (1984), a size-adjusted
ranking was not relevant to the purpose of a ranking
for editorial board representation. Mittermaier stated that
“Prospective students, faculty members, and donors are likely
to choose an institution based on its overall visibility, and visibility would be measured by total editorial board membership
rather than membership adjusted for size” (p. 230). On the
other hand, in their editorial board study of finance journals,
Chan and Fok (2003) provided size-adjusted data and showed
that faculty size has a significant influence on relative ranking
positions. Both of the aforementioned viewpoints have merit.
Therefore, in this study I made a compromise by assigning
rank based on application of a size-adjustment ratio (number
of business faculty divided by the number of board memberships), but only for universities with at least six or more
editorial board memberships. This compromise approach to
ranking avoids a sacrifice of visibility for the sake of achieving a comprehensively applied size adjustment.
Size-adjustment ratios were computed using the total
number of full-time business school faculty per AACSB
International Data Direct divided by the total number of
editorial board memberships. Table 4 presents the top 40
institutions for editorial board memberships to business education journals by rank according to their size-adjusted ratios.
Numerically lower ratios are associated with higher ranking in Table 4. Southern Illinois University led all other
universities in rank based on an outstanding 4.00 ratio.
In other words, Southern Illinois had a full-time business
faculty of 40 and held 10 editorial board memberships. Notably, the first six universities at the top of Table 4 also
GATEKEEPERS OF BUSINESS EDUCATION RESEARCH
TABLE 4
Top 40 Ranking of Editorial Board Member Affiliations
Based on Size-Adjustment Ratios
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:19 11 January 2016
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Institution
Southern Illinois at Carbondale
Kansas State University
University of Richmond
Mississippi State University
James Madison University
Northern Illinois University
University of Akron
University of Missouri at Columbia
Texas Christian University
New Mexico State University
Clemson University
University of Delaware
Illinois State University
Texas Tech University
University of Nevada at Las Vegas
Case Western Reserve University
Stanford University
Middle Tennessee State University
Bowling Green State University
Georgia Southern University
Western Michigan University
Ball State University
Auburn University
Michigan State University
San Diego State University
Virginia Commonwealth University
University of Connecticut
University of Central Florida
Baylor University
University of Michigan
University of Denver
Massachusetts at Amherst
Indiana University
Florida Atlantic University
Miami University of Ohio
University of Georgia
UCLA
George Washington University
Northeastern University
University of Notre Dame
Ratio
4.00
4.55
7.22
8.11
8.27
8.55
10.33
10.33
10.57
10.71
10.86
11.22
11.44
11.50
11.71
11.83
12.11
12.18
12.29
13.11
13.14
13.17
13.29
13.44
13.50
13.57
13.63
13.78
13.89
14.91
15.83
16.33
16.36
16.44
17.13
17.17
17.33
17.71
17.86
18.83
appear in the top-rated groups of Table 3 and include Southern Illinois (4.00), Kansas State (4.55), Richmond (7.22),
Mississippi State (8.11), James Madison (8.27), and Northern Illinois (8.55). Following this group are five universities
that improved significantly in Table 4, compared with their
position in Table 3, and include Akron (10.33), Missouri
at Columbia (10.33), Texas Christian (10.57), New Mexico
State (10.71), and Clemson (10.86). The other extreme consists of five universities that ranked much lower in Table 4
relative to their position among the top groups in Table 3.
This group of universities includes Central Florida (13.78),
Baylor (13.89), Michigan (14.91), Indiana (16.36), and
Florida Atlantic (16.44). Finally, despite holding six or more
editorial board memberships, several universities did not
307
have a low enough ratio to qualify for listing among the
top universities in Table 4. This group consists of DePaul,
Babson, Georgia State, Texas A&M, Brigham Young, North
Carolina at Chapel Hill, and Pennsylvania State. Also, at
the time of the study, full-time faculty data for New York
University was not provided by AACSB International.
Institutional Representation on Multiple Editorial
Boards
Research Question 3 involved which institutions’ faculties
ranked highly in terms of their memberships to the greatest
number of different journal editorial boards. This question
relates to editorial board ranking studies by Boone et al.
(1988) and Gibbons and Fish (1991), wherein it was recommended that an assessment of institutional affiliation with
journal editorial boards include consideration for the number
of different journals with which a university achieves representation. Findings for this research question are presented in
Table 5 and include a list of universities that have attained faculty representation on at least six or more different business
education journal editorial boards. This criterion was met
by only 28 universities (5%) from the 527 institutions with
editorial board representation. Illinois State University
TABLE 5
Institutional Representation on Multiple Editorial
Boards
Institution
Illinois State University
James Madison University
Kansas State University
Southern Illinois at Carbondale
University of Central Florida
DePaul University
Florida Atlantic University
Indiana University
Miami University of Ohio
University of Michigan
Michigan State University
Mississippi State University
University of Richmond
Virginia Commonwealth University
Auburn University
Ball State University
Baylor University
Clemson University
University of Delaware
Georgia Southern University
Middle Tennessee State University
University of Missouri at Columbia
New York University
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Northern Illinois University
University of Notre Dame
Stanford University
Texas A&M University
Number of boards
9
8
8
8
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:19 11 January 2016
308
F. R. URBANCIC
topped all other universities by virtue of representation to
nine different business education journals. Following Illinois
State in Table 5 are three universities that were also highly
ranked in Table 3. These universities with representation to
eight journals each are James Madison, Kansas State, and
Southern Illinois at Carbondale. A further comparison of
data between Tables 5 and 3 revealed several changes in the
relative positions of universities. This positional realignment
can be better understood by considering the number of board
memberships a university has concentrated with an individual
journal(s). The data for Northern Illinois University and Illinois State University served as examples of journal concentration and the change in rank positions between Tables 5 and
3. Data obtained for Northern Illinois University consisted
of seven memberships for two journals and one membership
to each one of four additional journals. Therefore, Northern
Illinois, with its total of 11 board memberships, is highly positioned per Table 3, but because of representation on only six
different journal boards Northern Illinois is placed lower in
Table 5. On the other hand, Illinois State University had a
total of nine memberships, but held no more than one membership for any journal board. Therefore, Illinois State leads
all other universities in Table 5 with nine different boards
even though its relative position is lower in Table 3 by comparison to Northern Illinois.
Comparison With Nationally Ranked Business
Programs
Research Question 4 involved how the leading business education research gatekeeper institutions compared to nationally ranked business school programs. A perspective on this
question was attained from a comparison in terms of Businessweek’s national ranking for institutions. The comparison with Businessweek data in Table 6 is provided for the
48 institutions from Table 3 with the greatest visibility as
measured by the most editorial board representatives to the
business education research journals. Table 6 lists the numerical rankings for best business school undergraduate,
full-time MBA, and part-time MBA programs according to
Businessweek (2009a, 2009b). More than half (26 of 48) of
the schools listed in Table 6 had achieved national recognition for their business school programs. These 26 nationally
ranked business schools exemplify a dual commitment to
quality education and an emphasis on the importance of research that advances learning and pedagogy in business. The
University of Michigan epitomizes this commitment, based
on elite ranks of 4, 5, and 5 for the three types of business
programs, respectively. Other institutions notable for elite
rank in Table 6 are Notre Dame (number 2 for undergraduate business), Brigham Young (number 5 for undergraduate
business), Stanford (number 6 for full-time MBA program),
and UCLA (number 2 for part-time MBA program). The
University of Richmond, a smaller business school, had nine
TABLE 6
Leading Business Education Research Gatekeeper
Institutions in Relation to Nationally Ranked Business
School Program
Nationally Ranked Business School Programs
Institution
James Madison University
Indiana University
Kansas State University
University of Michigan
Middle Tennessee State U.
Northern Illinois University
Southern Illinois at
Carbondale
Baylor University
University of Central Florida
University of Delaware
Florida Atlantic University
Georgia Southern University
Illinois State University
Michigan State University
Mississippi State University
University of Richmond
Stanford University
University of Connecticut
DePaul University
Miami University of Ohio
New York University
Texas Tech University
Auburn University
Babson College
Bowling Green State
University
Clemson University
George Washington
University
Georgia State University
Nevada at Las Vegas
New Mexico State University
Northeastern University
Texas A&M University
Texas Christian University
Virginia Commonwealth U.
Western Michigan University
University of Akron
Ball State University
Brigham Young University
Case Western Reserve
University
University of Denver
University of Georgia
Massachusetts at Amherst
Missouri at Columbia
North Carolina at Chapel Hill
University of Notre Dame
Pennsylvania State
University
San Diego State University
UCLA
Best
undergraduate
Board
members business
Best
Best
full-time part-time
MBA
MBA
15
11
11
11
11
11
10
44
20
15
4
5
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
8
8
8
8
8
7
7
7
45
38
36
12
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
17
6
41
18
15
13
23
32
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
6
6
6
6
5
23
35
29
52
27
37
34
5
39
22
14
53
60
13
2
38
17
20
14
2
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:19 11 January 2016
GATEKEEPERS OF BUSINESS EDUCATION RESEARCH
board members and was highly ranked in undergraduate program (number 12) and part-time MBA program (number 17).
New York University had eight board members and was nationally ranked in all three types of business programs.
The editorial board approach yielded 22 business schools
in Table 6 that did not have a nationally ranked program according to the Businessweek data. This disparity was inherent
to the present study’s exclusive focus on business education
journals for its methodology. Businessweek relied on methodology for its ranking that differed substantially from the approach used for this study. Businessweek used nine measures
to determine the ranks for undergraduate business program.
Some of these measures included student surveys, corporate
recruiter surveys, starting salaries, student–faculty ratios, and
number of internships. To determine the best MBA programs,
Businessweek relied on three components: survey of graduates (45%), survey of corporate recruiters (45%), and intellectual capital (10%). Despite the substantial methodological differences, it is notable that a majority of institutions
were common between the top schools per Businessweek
and the business education editorial board leaders of this
study.
Concluding Comments
Previous studies that ranked institutions based on editorial
board representation disregarded journal outlets for research
contributions in learning and pedagogy. As a consequence,
an important component of academic mission has been previously ignored. In the present study this inequity was rectified
by examining faculty representation on the editorial boards
of business education journals. First, the research results of
this study suggest that nearly one third of all editorial board
memberships are held by a relatively small group of academic
institutions. However, the collective journal presence for this
group of institutions does not constitute an elitist dominance
of the editorial boards because there is an extensive board
representation held by institutions outside of the lead group.
Second, the results from this study also indicate that members
affiliated with U.S. universities are the primary gatekeepers
of published business education research. Nonetheless, results also indicate that research in learning and pedagogy is
shaped by significant participation in the review process by
non-U.S. academic institutions in terms of faculty representation on journal editorial boards. Finally, the results show that
the relative positions of universities included in the rankings
were significantly changed by an adjustment for differences
in the number of faculty for business schools. Therefore, a
more balanced perspective of editorial review board rank is
provided by adjustment for faculty size.
Studies that use the editorial board method to rank institutions assume that each membership to a journal review
board signifies an equal role in the gatekeeper process, when
in fact some members may review more papers than do other
members. Therefore, future researchers should investigate
309
the extent of actual differences in the review activity of board
members for an appropriate multiyear time period as a basis
for refinement to ranking based on editorial board memberships. Additional research is also needed to learn more
about how editorial review board members are chosen. This
research could be accomplished through a survey of journal editors. Aggregate information that provides an overview
of the qualifications, background, and experience of board
members would add to an understanding of the peer-review
process. In conclusion, the extent of representation by faculty
on editorial boards reflects positively on program quality, enhances academic reputation, and increases visibility relative
to other institutions. Therefore, a ranking based on editorial
board memberships complements other types of academic
rankings based on opinion surveys, publication counts, or
citation analysis.
REFERENCES
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business International.
(2005). The business school ranking dilemma. Tampa, FL: Author.
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business International.
(2008). Eligibility procedures and accreditation standards for business
accreditation. Tampa, FL: Author.
Beattie, V. A., & Ryan, J. R. (1989). Performance indices and related measures of journal perception in accounting. British Accounting Review, 21,
267–278.
Boone, L. E., Gibson, D. R., & Kurtz, D. L. (1988). Rating logistics and
transportation faculty on the basis of editorial review board memberships.
Logistics and Transportation Review, 24, 384–390.
Brinn, T., & Jones, M. J. (2008). The composition of editorial boards in
accounting: A UK perspective. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability
Journal, 21(1), 5–35.
Businessweek. (2009a). The top undergraduate business programs.
Retrieved
from
http://bwnt.businessweek.com/interactive reports/
undergrad bschool 2009/
Businessweek. (2009b). Top full-time and part-time MBA programs. Retrieved from http://www.businessweeek.com/bschools/rankings/
Cabell, D. W. E. (2009). Cabell’s directory of publishing opportunities.
Beaumont, TX: Cabell.
Chan, K. C., & Fok, R. C. W. (2003). Membership on editorial boards and
finance department rankings. Journal of Financial Research, 26, 405–420.
Chan, K. C., Fung, H., & Lai, P. (2005). Membership on editorial boards
and rankings of schools with international business orientation. Journal
of International Business Studies, 36(1), 452–469.
Crane, D. (1967). The gatekeepers of science: some factors affecting the
selection of articles for scientific journals. American Sociologist, 2,
195–201.
Gibbons, J. D., & Fish, M. (1991). Rankings of economics faculties and
representation on editorial boards of top journals. Journal of Economic
Education, 22, 361–372.
Gilmore, A., Carson, D., & Perry, C. (2006). Academic publishing: Best
practices for editors, guest editors, authors and reviewers. European Business Review, 18, 468–478.
Hardin, W. G., Liano, K., Chan, K. C., & Fok, R. C. (2008). Finance editorial board membership and research productivity. Review of Quantitative
Finance and Accounting, 31, 225–240.
Hawes, J., & Keillor, B. (2002). Assessing marketing journals: A missionbased approach. Journal of the Academy of Business Education, 3(2),
70–86.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:19 11 January 2016
310
F. R. URBANCIC
Kaufman, G. G. (1984). Rankings of finance departments by faculty representation on editorial boards of professional journals: A note. Journal of
Finance, 39, 1189–1197.
Kerr, S., Tolliver, J., & Petree, D. (1977). Manuscript characteristics
which influence acceptance for management and social science journals.
Academy of Management Journal, 20(1), 132–141.
Krishnan, C. N. V., & Bricker, R. (2004). Top finance journals: Do they add
value? Journal of Economics and Finance, 28, 361–378.
Kurtz, D. L., & Boone, L. E. (1988). Rating marketing faculties on the basis
of editorial review board memberships. Journal of Marketing Education,
10(1), 64–68.
Lee, T. (1997). The editorial gatekeepers of the accounting academy. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 10(1), 11–30.
Mittermaier, L. J. (1991). Representation on the editorial boards of academic
accounting journals: An analysis of accounting faculties and doctoral
programs. Issues in Accounting Education, 6, 221–238.
Polonsky, M., Mittelstaedt, J., & Moore, J. (2008). Benchmarking publishing
activity of U.S. colleges and universities across the leading journals: A
grouped evaluation. Journal of Advancement for Marketing Education,
12(1), 19–31.
Rynes, S. L. (2006). Getting on board with AMJ: Balancing quality and
innovation in the review process. Academy of Management Journal, 49,
1097–1102.
St. Pierre, K., Wilson, R., Ravenscroft, S., & Rebele, J. (2009). The role of
accounting education research in our discipline: An editorial. Issues in
Accounting Education, 24, 123–130.
Tanner, G. (2000). Referee characteristics and journal quality. Financial
Practice and Education, 10(1), 123–131.
Trieschmann, J. S., Dennis, A. R., Northcraft, G. B., & Niemi, A. W. (2000).
Serving multiple constituencies in business schools: MBA program versus
research performance. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 1130–1141.
Urbancic, F. R. (2004). Editorial board membership: An alternative method
for ranking real estate programs. Journal of Real Estate Practice and
Education, 7(1), 53–63.
Urbancic, F. R. (2005). Faculty representation on the editorial boards of
leading marketing journals: An update of marketing department rankings.
Marketing Education Review, 15(2), 61–69.
Volkan, A. G., Colley, J. R., & Boone, L. E. (1993). Editorial review board
membership: A consistent method of ranking accounting programs. Accounting Educators’ Journal, 5(1), 79–94.
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
The Gatekeepers of Business Education Research:
An Institutional Analysis
Frank R. Urbancic
To cite this article: Frank R. Urbancic (2011) The Gatekeepers of Business Education
Research: An Institutional Analysis, Journal of Education for Business, 86:5, 302-310, DOI:
10.1080/08832323.2010.520757
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2010.520757
Published online: 21 Jun 2011.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 117
View related articles
Citing articles: 1 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji]
Date: 11 January 2016, At: 22:19
JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS, 86: 302–310, 2011
C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
Copyright
ISSN: 0883-2323 print / 1940-3356 online
DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2010.520757
The Gatekeepers of Business Education Research:
An Institutional Analysis
Frank R. Urbancic
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:19 11 January 2016
University of South Alabama, Mobile, Alabama, USA
The author ranked the academic standing of universities based on faculty representation to the
editorial boards of business education journals. Previous studies that ranked institutions for
editorial board representation focused on journals that primarily favor publication of basic and
applied research contributions. As a result, prior research has accorded either very minimal
or no consideration for journals that publish learning and pedagogical research. This author
addressed the aforementioned shortcoming by extending the editorial board ranking method
to include 1,279 editorial board affiliations for 31 business education journals. The rankings
provide a comparative perspective on institutional affiliations and participation in the peer
review process for business education research.
Keywords: business education research, editorial boards, journals, ranking academic institutions, reputation
The reported results of studies that rank the relative standing
of academic institutions provide relevant feedback as a basis for faculties to monitor the progress and relative status of
their programs (Kaufman, 1984; Mittermaier, 1991). According to Urbancic (2004) the prestige associated with attaining
the highest ranks can prove valuable to a program in terms of
attracting quality students, excellent faculty, increased budget allocations, and externally generated financial support.
Chan and Fok (2003) and Gibbons and Fish (1991) discussed
a number of different methods that have been used to rank
academic standing, including an established method based
on editorial board representation for scholarly journals. This
method recognizes that selection for appointment to the editorial board of a journal is an honor that confers status not
only to the individual, but also to the appointee’s university.
However, the problem with previously published studies that
ranked institutions based on editorial board representation is
a tendency to focus exclusively on journals devoted to basic and applied types of business research. As a result, prior
studies have disregarded the journals that publish research
contributions to learning and pedagogy. The purpose of this
Correspondence should be addressed to Frank R. Urbancic, University of South Alabama, Mitchell College of Business, Department of
Accounting, 307 University Boulevard,, Mobile, AL 36688, USA. E-mail:
furbanci@usouthal.edu
study was to address the aforementioned shortcoming by
extending application of the editorial board ranking method
to the area of business education research.
The need for this study relates to the precept that quality
teaching in higher education is an imperative for business
academicians. The standards for accreditation by the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB)
International emphasize that “Student learning is the central
activity of higher education” (Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business [AACSB] International, 2008,
p. 59). The standards of AACSB International add further
importance to the learning mission by an explicit recognition of contributions to learning and pedagogical research
as one of three major categories of intellectual contributions, along with contributions to practice (applied research)
and discipline-based scholarship (basic research). Therefore,
learning and pedagogical research that serves to advance
teaching quality has significant value, as do the journals that
publish the research and the editorial board members responsible for assuring journal quality.
The remainder of this article is organized into six sections.
First, I assess the limitations of the study. Second, I review
research studies related to the editorial method of journal
analysis. Research questions are presented in the third section. In the fourth section I describe the methodology and
procedure for the study. Results and discussion are presented
in the fifth section. Last, I provide concluding comments and
recommendations for future researchers.
GATEKEEPERS OF BUSINESS EDUCATION RESEARCH
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:19 11 January 2016
Limitations
There were three limitations to this study. First, the analysis
was restricted to the editorial boards of business education
research journals for the areas of accounting, economics,
finance, management, and marketing. The study therefore
excluded other outlets for publication available in education
journals that are outside of the primary business disciplines.
However, the significance of this limitation is minimal because education journals outside of the business journals are
less likely to publish research with an emphasis on business
education.
A second limitation of the study was attributable to
differences in the size of journal editorial boards. For
example, 6 of the 31 journals examined for this study
were specialty journals with fewer than 20 editorial board
members each. By contrast, the three largest boards included
for this study were Academy of Management Learning &
Education (97 members), Journal of Marketing Education
(89), and Issues in Accounting Education (79). Such wide
variations in board size among the journals could possibly
bias the relative ranking of some institutions based on
membership dominance for a particular journal or discipline.
Third, the editorial board method assumes that editors
primarily invite scholars with strong publication and citation records to serve on the boards of academic journals.
However, some members with lesser research accomplishments could be chosen primarily for their dependability in
submitting timely reviews. An editor may also extend invitations based more on convenience or collegiality rather
than scholarship. For example, board invitations could be
extended to one or more faculty members of the editor’s
school or to coauthors of the editor. Editors might also call
on longtime friends known from their time together as fellow
PhD students. The extent of these practices could vary between different journals, but their overall impact is assumed
to be negligible for purposes of the editorial board ranking
method. Editors are ultimately responsible for maintaining
and enhancing a journal’s reputation for quality. For this reason, editors have an incentive for offering board memberships
to accomplished scholars.
Related Research
According to AACSB International (2005), the relative academic standing of business schools has taken on increased
significance in recent years. Consequently, the business
school rankings, as annually reported in the popular press by
Businessweek, U.S. News and World Report, and Wall Street
Journal, generate substantial interest and controversy among
the various constituents of business education (AACSB International). In addition to the popular press, other rankings
of academic standing can be developed by applying various
methods such as counting the number of published articles
by faculty, determining the number of citations to published
research, or conducting opinion surveys to measure peer
303
ratings and perceptions of quality (Chan & Fok, 2003;
Gibbons & Fish, 1991; Kurtz & Boone, 1988; Mittermaier,
1991; Urbancic, 2004; Volkan, Colley, & Boone, 1993). According to Urbancic, the inherent subjectivity of the survey
method places it at a disadvantage relative to the more objective methods. The methods that involve counts of published
articles or citation analysis gain objectivity, but these methods involve a tediously elaborate process for data collection.
The editorial board method avoids the aforementioned drawbacks, and presents a unique perspective on the relative ranks
of institutions with business education programs.
Considerable power over a discipline is vested in the editorial board members of academic journals. The process of
editorial review serves as a quality control checkpoint on the
body of knowledge for a discipline, and editorial board members are widely regarded as the gatekeepers of the academy
(Crane, 1967; Kerr, Tolliver, & Petree, 1977; Lee, 1997).
As gatekeepers, their decisions control the type of research
that is published, determines the success of academicians as
scholars, and sustain journal quality. According to Gilmore,
Carson, and Perry (2006), journal editors endeavor to enhance journal reputation, and for this reason they are highly
selective in offering appointments to the editorial board.
Krishnan and Bricker (2004) determined that the value
added by a journal to its published articles is a function of the journal’s editorial board reputation as measured
by scholarly productivity. In a study of finance journals,
Tanner (2000) observed that a journal’s quality correlated
highly with the citation records of its referees. Based on
their study of accounting journals, Beattie and Ryan (1989)
observed that the members of editorial boards are far more
frequently cited than other researchers. Hardin, Liano, Chan,
and Fok (2008) examined the scholarly accomplishments
of the editorial board members for the highest journals in
finance and concluded that selection to the board of a topfive journal required substantial research achievement. Rynes
(2006) asserted that scholars with strong publication and citation records are the most obvious candidates to receive an
editorial board invitation to an academic journal. So in effect
the editorial board method encompasses the other methods
used to rank the institutional affiliations of academicians such
as citation counts or article counts, but without the need to
confront problems such as errors in citation databases and
adjusting for coauthorship credit.
A study by Trieschmann, Dennis, Northcraft, and Niemi
(2000) added validity and relevance to the use of editorial
board memberships as a basis for an assessment of academic
quality by demonstrating a positive correlation between the
numbers of memberships held for the best basic research
journals in business and the published rankings of business
schools. Other studies have emphasized that a ranking based
on editorial board representation reflects the quality of faculties and their visibility relative to other institutions, but it
is much easier to obtain than rankings based on other criteria (Gibbons & Fish, 1991; Mittermaier, 1991; Volkan et al.,
304
F. R. URBANCIC
TABLE 1
Previously Published Studies of Editorial Board Representation
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:19 11 January 2016
Study
Area
Number of journals reviewed
Brinn & Jones, 2008
Accounting
48
Volkan, Colley & Boone, 1993
Accounting
54
Mittermaier, 1991
Gibbons & Fish, 1991
Chan & Fok, 2003
Kaufman, 1984
Chan, Fok & Lai, 2005
Urbancic, 2005
Kurtz & Boone, 1988
Urbancic, 2004
Boone, Gibson & Kurtz, 1988
Accounting
Economics
Finance
Finance
International business
Marketing
Marketing
Real estate
Transportation
13
25
16
10
30
8
13
3
6
1993). However, editorial board membership is not a perfect
ranking measure. The task of reviewing papers is burdensome
(Brinn & Jones, 2008). According to Chan, Fung, and Lai
(2005), good researchers may choose not to be on editorial
boards because of time constraints or for other reasons. As
a result, limited participation on an editorial board does not
necessarily imply that the nonranked schools are of lesser
quality. Therefore, a ranking of institutions based on editorial board memberships is intended to compliment rather
than replace other types of rankings for academic quality.
Previously published studies of editorial board memberships have presented rankings for the institutional affiliations
of faculty representatives in the areas of accounting (Brinn
& Jones, 2008; Mittermaier, 1991; Volkan et al., 1993),
economics (Gibbons & Fish, 1991), finance (Chan & Fok,
2003; Kaufman, 1984), international business (Chan et al.,
2005), marketing (Kurtz & Boone, 1988; Urbancic, 2005),
real estate (Urbancic, 2004), and transportation (Boone,
Gibson, & Kurtz, 1988). As seen in Table 1, the aforementioned studies of editorial board representation in business
vary in terms of the area and the number of journals reviewed. A common shortcoming of these studies is their
focus on journal outlets that primarily favor publication of
basic and applied research contributions. As a result, prior
studies have accorded very minimal or no consideration at all
to journals that publish learning and pedagogical research.
For example, business education journals were completely
excluded from analysis by seven of the 11 studies listed in
Table 1. Only four of the studies in Table 1 included an education journal for analysis, and in those studies the education
journal(s) was or were substantially outnumbered by the basic and applied journals reviewed. This lack of recognition
for business education journals is unfortunate in light of the
importance attributed to education research. For example,
St. Pierre, Wilson, Ravenscroft, and Rebele (2009) asserted
Education journals reviewed
Accounting Education (UK)
Accounting Educators’ Journal
Issues in Accounting Education
Journal of Accounting Education
Accounting Educators’ Journal
Issues in Accounting Education
Journal of Accounting Education
Issues in Accounting Education
None
None
None
None
None
Journal of Marketing Education
None
None
that “Careful attention to what we teach, how we teach it,
and how we can accommodate and facilitate students’ learning is a most worthy endeavor” (p. 129). Therefore, journal
publication in that endeavor should be recognized and valued on a basis that accords parity of esteem with other types
of research. Within this context, the present study helps by
providing information from an appraisal based on editorial
board members for journals that publish business education
research.
Research Questions
Hawes and Keillor (2002) and Polonsky, Mittelstaedt, and
Moore (2008) contended that mission should be a primary
consideration in evaluations of research relative to academic
standing. The standards for accreditation by AACSB International (2008) recognize that priorities may vary, and the
mission of an institution should determine the appropriate
balance of activity among the three different types of intellectual contributions in terms of basic, applied, and education
research. Just as institutions may have different missions,
more relevant information about the relative academic standing of participants in the business research process can be
provided by analyses that separately examine each of the
three types of intellectual contributions. However, as noted
previously, prior studies of editorial boards in business have
only examined journals that publish basic and applied types
of research. Therefore, the purpose of the present study was
to address the aforementioned shortcoming by extending application of the editorial board ranking method to journals
that primarily publish business education research. Findings
from this extended application contribute another perspective on the relative academic standing of business schools in
a mission-based accreditation environment.
GATEKEEPERS OF BUSINESS EDUCATION RESEARCH
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:19 11 January 2016
Based on the preceding discussion, the following research
questions were investigated:
Research Question 1: Which institutions’ faculties rank
highly for the most memberships to the editorial boards
of journals devoted to the publication of business education research?
Research Question 2: How is the ranking for editorial board
representation changed by adjusting for differences in
the numbers of faculty members at business schools?
Research Question 3: Which institutions’ faculties rank
highly in terms of their memberships to the greatest
number of different journal editorial boards?
Research Question 4: How do the leading business education
research gatekeeper institutions compare to nationally
ranked business school programs?
METHOD
Application of the editorial method begins with identifying
the specific journal boards to include for analysis. For this
study, I reviewed the descriptions of manuscript topics and
guidelines of the journals provided by Cabell’s 2009 Directory of Publishing Opportunities in accounting, economics,
finance, management, and marketing to identify scholarly
journals that extensively publish business education research
articles. Application of this approach (supplemented by an
Internet search for additional information about each journal’s editorial board) produced a set of 31 refereed journals.
An alphabetical list of the journals appears in Table 2. The
list excluded professional training journals (e.g., Journal of
Executive Education, Journal of Leadership Education). The
analysis also excluded journals based outside of the United
States. The data collected for analysis consisted of the institutional affiliations of the editors and editorial review board
members of all 31 journals.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Institutional Affiliation Rank Based
on Memberships
Research Question 1 involves which institutions’ faculties
rank highly for the most memberships to the editorial boards
of journals devoted to the publication of business education
research. Findings provided by an analysis of the institutional
affiliations of editorial board members for business education journals were based on a total of 1,279 editorial board
members with affiliation to 527 institutions for 2009. The
total of 527 institutions included 509 academic institutions
and 18 nonacademic institutions (e.g., banking, consulting,
manufacturing) and each one of the nonacademic institutions had only one journal board member, for a total of 18. A
majority of members (1,261) were affiliated with academic
305
TABLE 2
Business Education Journals
List of business education research journal titles
Academy of Management Learning
& Education
Accounting Educators’ Journal
Accounting Information Systems
Educator Journal
Advances in Accounting Education
Advances in Financial Education
Business Education Digest
Decision Sciences Journal of
Innovative Education
Global Perspectives on Accounting
Education
INFORMS Transactions on
Education
International Journal of Information
and Operations Management
Education
Issues in Accounting Education
Journal for Advancement of
Marketing Education
Journal for Economic Educators
Journal of Accounting Education
Journal of Applied Finance
Journal of Applied Research for
Business Instruction
Journal of Economic Education
Journal of Economics and Finance
Education
Journal of Education for Business
Journal of Financial Education
Journal of Hospitality & Tourism
Education
Journal of Human Resources
Education
Journal of Industrial Organization
Education
Journal of Informatics Education
Research
Journal of Information Systems
Education
Journal of Legal Studies Education
Journal of Management Education
Journal of Marketing Education
Journal of Real Estate Practice and
Education
Journal of Teaching in International
Business
Marketing Education Review
institutions. The 509 academic institutions consisted of 363
universities located in the United States, and 146 non-U.S.
universities. A list of the institutions with the most memberships is presented in Table 3. Only institutions with six or
more editorial board memberships are listed in Table 3. Application of this criterion yielded a list of 48 universities, and
all of the universities were accredited in business by AACSB
International. Because all of the journals reviewed are based
in the United States, it is not surprising to see that all 48
institutions listed in Table 3 are U.S. universities. Although
fewer in number and not listed in Table 3, some non-U.S.
universities are notable for multiple memberships. For example, the University of Melbourne, with 4 representatives
on the editorial boards of the business education journals, had
the most memberships of the 146 non-U.S. universities. And
following Melbourne was a group of non-U.S. universities,
each with 3 memberships: Auckland, Bond, Hong Polytechnic, National University Singapore, Simon Fraser, University
of Hong Kong, and Waikato.
As the top group, the 48 universities in Table 3 account
for only 9% of the 527 institutions in this study, but with
379 board representatives these 48 universities hold 30%
of the 1,279 editorial board memberships. James Madison
University, at 15, has the most faculty representatives to the
editorial boards of journals that publish business education
research. Rounding out the top group of universities with 11
members each are Indiana, Kansas State, Michigan, Middle
306
F. R. URBANCIC
TABLE 3
Institutional Affiliation of Editorial Board Members for Business Education Journals
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:19 11 January 2016
Institution
Number of board members
James Madison University
15
Indiana University
Kansas State University
University of Michigan
Middle Tennessee State
Northern Illinois University
11
11
11
11
11
Southern Illinois at Carbondale
10
Baylor University
University of Central Florida
University of Delaware
Florida Atlantic University
Georgia Southern University
Illinois State University
Michigan State University
Mississippi State University
University of Richmond
Stanford University
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
University of Connecticut
DePaul University
Miami University of Ohio
New York University
Texas Tech University
8
8
8
8
8
Institution
Number of board members
Auburn University
Babson College
Bowling Green State University
Clemson University
George Washington University
Georgia State University
University of Nevada at Las Vegas
New Mexico State University
Northeastern University
Texas A&M University
Texas Christian University
Virginia Commonwealth
Western Michigan University
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
University of Akron
Ball State University
Brigham Young University
Case Western Reserve University
University of Denver
University of Georgia
Massachusetts at Amherst
University of Missouri at Columbia
North Carolina at Chapel Hill
University of Notre Dame
Pennsylvania State University
San Diego State University
UCLA
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
Note. Top 48 academic institutions combined = 379. Remaining 461 academic institutions combined = 882. The 18 nonacademic institutions combined =
18. Total number of institutions = 1,279.
Tennessee State, and Northern Illinois, followed by Southern
Illinois University with 10 board members. Based on Table
3’s data, the combined group of 48 universities averaged
7.9 (379/48) editorial board memberships each. By comparison, the average for the remaining 461 universities with editorial board representation was substantially lower, at only
1.9 (882/461) members.
A Rank Based on Size-Adjusted Memberships
Research Question 2 involved how the ranking for editorial
board representation changed by adjusting for differences in
the numbers of faculty members at business schools. Because some of the institutions listed in Table 3 had a very
large number of business school faculty, it was relevant to
consider the desirability of an editorial board ranking based
on a size adjustment for differences in the numbers of faculty.
There were contrasting viewpoints on this issue. According to
Mittermaier (1991) and Kaufman (1984), a size-adjusted
ranking was not relevant to the purpose of a ranking
for editorial board representation. Mittermaier stated that
“Prospective students, faculty members, and donors are likely
to choose an institution based on its overall visibility, and visibility would be measured by total editorial board membership
rather than membership adjusted for size” (p. 230). On the
other hand, in their editorial board study of finance journals,
Chan and Fok (2003) provided size-adjusted data and showed
that faculty size has a significant influence on relative ranking
positions. Both of the aforementioned viewpoints have merit.
Therefore, in this study I made a compromise by assigning
rank based on application of a size-adjustment ratio (number
of business faculty divided by the number of board memberships), but only for universities with at least six or more
editorial board memberships. This compromise approach to
ranking avoids a sacrifice of visibility for the sake of achieving a comprehensively applied size adjustment.
Size-adjustment ratios were computed using the total
number of full-time business school faculty per AACSB
International Data Direct divided by the total number of
editorial board memberships. Table 4 presents the top 40
institutions for editorial board memberships to business education journals by rank according to their size-adjusted ratios.
Numerically lower ratios are associated with higher ranking in Table 4. Southern Illinois University led all other
universities in rank based on an outstanding 4.00 ratio.
In other words, Southern Illinois had a full-time business
faculty of 40 and held 10 editorial board memberships. Notably, the first six universities at the top of Table 4 also
GATEKEEPERS OF BUSINESS EDUCATION RESEARCH
TABLE 4
Top 40 Ranking of Editorial Board Member Affiliations
Based on Size-Adjustment Ratios
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:19 11 January 2016
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Institution
Southern Illinois at Carbondale
Kansas State University
University of Richmond
Mississippi State University
James Madison University
Northern Illinois University
University of Akron
University of Missouri at Columbia
Texas Christian University
New Mexico State University
Clemson University
University of Delaware
Illinois State University
Texas Tech University
University of Nevada at Las Vegas
Case Western Reserve University
Stanford University
Middle Tennessee State University
Bowling Green State University
Georgia Southern University
Western Michigan University
Ball State University
Auburn University
Michigan State University
San Diego State University
Virginia Commonwealth University
University of Connecticut
University of Central Florida
Baylor University
University of Michigan
University of Denver
Massachusetts at Amherst
Indiana University
Florida Atlantic University
Miami University of Ohio
University of Georgia
UCLA
George Washington University
Northeastern University
University of Notre Dame
Ratio
4.00
4.55
7.22
8.11
8.27
8.55
10.33
10.33
10.57
10.71
10.86
11.22
11.44
11.50
11.71
11.83
12.11
12.18
12.29
13.11
13.14
13.17
13.29
13.44
13.50
13.57
13.63
13.78
13.89
14.91
15.83
16.33
16.36
16.44
17.13
17.17
17.33
17.71
17.86
18.83
appear in the top-rated groups of Table 3 and include Southern Illinois (4.00), Kansas State (4.55), Richmond (7.22),
Mississippi State (8.11), James Madison (8.27), and Northern Illinois (8.55). Following this group are five universities
that improved significantly in Table 4, compared with their
position in Table 3, and include Akron (10.33), Missouri
at Columbia (10.33), Texas Christian (10.57), New Mexico
State (10.71), and Clemson (10.86). The other extreme consists of five universities that ranked much lower in Table 4
relative to their position among the top groups in Table 3.
This group of universities includes Central Florida (13.78),
Baylor (13.89), Michigan (14.91), Indiana (16.36), and
Florida Atlantic (16.44). Finally, despite holding six or more
editorial board memberships, several universities did not
307
have a low enough ratio to qualify for listing among the
top universities in Table 4. This group consists of DePaul,
Babson, Georgia State, Texas A&M, Brigham Young, North
Carolina at Chapel Hill, and Pennsylvania State. Also, at
the time of the study, full-time faculty data for New York
University was not provided by AACSB International.
Institutional Representation on Multiple Editorial
Boards
Research Question 3 involved which institutions’ faculties
ranked highly in terms of their memberships to the greatest
number of different journal editorial boards. This question
relates to editorial board ranking studies by Boone et al.
(1988) and Gibbons and Fish (1991), wherein it was recommended that an assessment of institutional affiliation with
journal editorial boards include consideration for the number
of different journals with which a university achieves representation. Findings for this research question are presented in
Table 5 and include a list of universities that have attained faculty representation on at least six or more different business
education journal editorial boards. This criterion was met
by only 28 universities (5%) from the 527 institutions with
editorial board representation. Illinois State University
TABLE 5
Institutional Representation on Multiple Editorial
Boards
Institution
Illinois State University
James Madison University
Kansas State University
Southern Illinois at Carbondale
University of Central Florida
DePaul University
Florida Atlantic University
Indiana University
Miami University of Ohio
University of Michigan
Michigan State University
Mississippi State University
University of Richmond
Virginia Commonwealth University
Auburn University
Ball State University
Baylor University
Clemson University
University of Delaware
Georgia Southern University
Middle Tennessee State University
University of Missouri at Columbia
New York University
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Northern Illinois University
University of Notre Dame
Stanford University
Texas A&M University
Number of boards
9
8
8
8
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:19 11 January 2016
308
F. R. URBANCIC
topped all other universities by virtue of representation to
nine different business education journals. Following Illinois
State in Table 5 are three universities that were also highly
ranked in Table 3. These universities with representation to
eight journals each are James Madison, Kansas State, and
Southern Illinois at Carbondale. A further comparison of
data between Tables 5 and 3 revealed several changes in the
relative positions of universities. This positional realignment
can be better understood by considering the number of board
memberships a university has concentrated with an individual
journal(s). The data for Northern Illinois University and Illinois State University served as examples of journal concentration and the change in rank positions between Tables 5 and
3. Data obtained for Northern Illinois University consisted
of seven memberships for two journals and one membership
to each one of four additional journals. Therefore, Northern
Illinois, with its total of 11 board memberships, is highly positioned per Table 3, but because of representation on only six
different journal boards Northern Illinois is placed lower in
Table 5. On the other hand, Illinois State University had a
total of nine memberships, but held no more than one membership for any journal board. Therefore, Illinois State leads
all other universities in Table 5 with nine different boards
even though its relative position is lower in Table 3 by comparison to Northern Illinois.
Comparison With Nationally Ranked Business
Programs
Research Question 4 involved how the leading business education research gatekeeper institutions compared to nationally ranked business school programs. A perspective on this
question was attained from a comparison in terms of Businessweek’s national ranking for institutions. The comparison with Businessweek data in Table 6 is provided for the
48 institutions from Table 3 with the greatest visibility as
measured by the most editorial board representatives to the
business education research journals. Table 6 lists the numerical rankings for best business school undergraduate,
full-time MBA, and part-time MBA programs according to
Businessweek (2009a, 2009b). More than half (26 of 48) of
the schools listed in Table 6 had achieved national recognition for their business school programs. These 26 nationally
ranked business schools exemplify a dual commitment to
quality education and an emphasis on the importance of research that advances learning and pedagogy in business. The
University of Michigan epitomizes this commitment, based
on elite ranks of 4, 5, and 5 for the three types of business
programs, respectively. Other institutions notable for elite
rank in Table 6 are Notre Dame (number 2 for undergraduate business), Brigham Young (number 5 for undergraduate
business), Stanford (number 6 for full-time MBA program),
and UCLA (number 2 for part-time MBA program). The
University of Richmond, a smaller business school, had nine
TABLE 6
Leading Business Education Research Gatekeeper
Institutions in Relation to Nationally Ranked Business
School Program
Nationally Ranked Business School Programs
Institution
James Madison University
Indiana University
Kansas State University
University of Michigan
Middle Tennessee State U.
Northern Illinois University
Southern Illinois at
Carbondale
Baylor University
University of Central Florida
University of Delaware
Florida Atlantic University
Georgia Southern University
Illinois State University
Michigan State University
Mississippi State University
University of Richmond
Stanford University
University of Connecticut
DePaul University
Miami University of Ohio
New York University
Texas Tech University
Auburn University
Babson College
Bowling Green State
University
Clemson University
George Washington
University
Georgia State University
Nevada at Las Vegas
New Mexico State University
Northeastern University
Texas A&M University
Texas Christian University
Virginia Commonwealth U.
Western Michigan University
University of Akron
Ball State University
Brigham Young University
Case Western Reserve
University
University of Denver
University of Georgia
Massachusetts at Amherst
Missouri at Columbia
North Carolina at Chapel Hill
University of Notre Dame
Pennsylvania State
University
San Diego State University
UCLA
Best
undergraduate
Board
members business
Best
Best
full-time part-time
MBA
MBA
15
11
11
11
11
11
10
44
20
15
4
5
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
8
8
8
8
8
7
7
7
45
38
36
12
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
17
6
41
18
15
13
23
32
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
6
6
6
6
5
23
35
29
52
27
37
34
5
39
22
14
53
60
13
2
38
17
20
14
2
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:19 11 January 2016
GATEKEEPERS OF BUSINESS EDUCATION RESEARCH
board members and was highly ranked in undergraduate program (number 12) and part-time MBA program (number 17).
New York University had eight board members and was nationally ranked in all three types of business programs.
The editorial board approach yielded 22 business schools
in Table 6 that did not have a nationally ranked program according to the Businessweek data. This disparity was inherent
to the present study’s exclusive focus on business education
journals for its methodology. Businessweek relied on methodology for its ranking that differed substantially from the approach used for this study. Businessweek used nine measures
to determine the ranks for undergraduate business program.
Some of these measures included student surveys, corporate
recruiter surveys, starting salaries, student–faculty ratios, and
number of internships. To determine the best MBA programs,
Businessweek relied on three components: survey of graduates (45%), survey of corporate recruiters (45%), and intellectual capital (10%). Despite the substantial methodological differences, it is notable that a majority of institutions
were common between the top schools per Businessweek
and the business education editorial board leaders of this
study.
Concluding Comments
Previous studies that ranked institutions based on editorial
board representation disregarded journal outlets for research
contributions in learning and pedagogy. As a consequence,
an important component of academic mission has been previously ignored. In the present study this inequity was rectified
by examining faculty representation on the editorial boards
of business education journals. First, the research results of
this study suggest that nearly one third of all editorial board
memberships are held by a relatively small group of academic
institutions. However, the collective journal presence for this
group of institutions does not constitute an elitist dominance
of the editorial boards because there is an extensive board
representation held by institutions outside of the lead group.
Second, the results from this study also indicate that members
affiliated with U.S. universities are the primary gatekeepers
of published business education research. Nonetheless, results also indicate that research in learning and pedagogy is
shaped by significant participation in the review process by
non-U.S. academic institutions in terms of faculty representation on journal editorial boards. Finally, the results show that
the relative positions of universities included in the rankings
were significantly changed by an adjustment for differences
in the number of faculty for business schools. Therefore, a
more balanced perspective of editorial review board rank is
provided by adjustment for faculty size.
Studies that use the editorial board method to rank institutions assume that each membership to a journal review
board signifies an equal role in the gatekeeper process, when
in fact some members may review more papers than do other
members. Therefore, future researchers should investigate
309
the extent of actual differences in the review activity of board
members for an appropriate multiyear time period as a basis
for refinement to ranking based on editorial board memberships. Additional research is also needed to learn more
about how editorial review board members are chosen. This
research could be accomplished through a survey of journal editors. Aggregate information that provides an overview
of the qualifications, background, and experience of board
members would add to an understanding of the peer-review
process. In conclusion, the extent of representation by faculty
on editorial boards reflects positively on program quality, enhances academic reputation, and increases visibility relative
to other institutions. Therefore, a ranking based on editorial
board memberships complements other types of academic
rankings based on opinion surveys, publication counts, or
citation analysis.
REFERENCES
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business International.
(2005). The business school ranking dilemma. Tampa, FL: Author.
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business International.
(2008). Eligibility procedures and accreditation standards for business
accreditation. Tampa, FL: Author.
Beattie, V. A., & Ryan, J. R. (1989). Performance indices and related measures of journal perception in accounting. British Accounting Review, 21,
267–278.
Boone, L. E., Gibson, D. R., & Kurtz, D. L. (1988). Rating logistics and
transportation faculty on the basis of editorial review board memberships.
Logistics and Transportation Review, 24, 384–390.
Brinn, T., & Jones, M. J. (2008). The composition of editorial boards in
accounting: A UK perspective. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability
Journal, 21(1), 5–35.
Businessweek. (2009a). The top undergraduate business programs.
Retrieved
from
http://bwnt.businessweek.com/interactive reports/
undergrad bschool 2009/
Businessweek. (2009b). Top full-time and part-time MBA programs. Retrieved from http://www.businessweeek.com/bschools/rankings/
Cabell, D. W. E. (2009). Cabell’s directory of publishing opportunities.
Beaumont, TX: Cabell.
Chan, K. C., & Fok, R. C. W. (2003). Membership on editorial boards and
finance department rankings. Journal of Financial Research, 26, 405–420.
Chan, K. C., Fung, H., & Lai, P. (2005). Membership on editorial boards
and rankings of schools with international business orientation. Journal
of International Business Studies, 36(1), 452–469.
Crane, D. (1967). The gatekeepers of science: some factors affecting the
selection of articles for scientific journals. American Sociologist, 2,
195–201.
Gibbons, J. D., & Fish, M. (1991). Rankings of economics faculties and
representation on editorial boards of top journals. Journal of Economic
Education, 22, 361–372.
Gilmore, A., Carson, D., & Perry, C. (2006). Academic publishing: Best
practices for editors, guest editors, authors and reviewers. European Business Review, 18, 468–478.
Hardin, W. G., Liano, K., Chan, K. C., & Fok, R. C. (2008). Finance editorial board membership and research productivity. Review of Quantitative
Finance and Accounting, 31, 225–240.
Hawes, J., & Keillor, B. (2002). Assessing marketing journals: A missionbased approach. Journal of the Academy of Business Education, 3(2),
70–86.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:19 11 January 2016
310
F. R. URBANCIC
Kaufman, G. G. (1984). Rankings of finance departments by faculty representation on editorial boards of professional journals: A note. Journal of
Finance, 39, 1189–1197.
Kerr, S., Tolliver, J., & Petree, D. (1977). Manuscript characteristics
which influence acceptance for management and social science journals.
Academy of Management Journal, 20(1), 132–141.
Krishnan, C. N. V., & Bricker, R. (2004). Top finance journals: Do they add
value? Journal of Economics and Finance, 28, 361–378.
Kurtz, D. L., & Boone, L. E. (1988). Rating marketing faculties on the basis
of editorial review board memberships. Journal of Marketing Education,
10(1), 64–68.
Lee, T. (1997). The editorial gatekeepers of the accounting academy. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 10(1), 11–30.
Mittermaier, L. J. (1991). Representation on the editorial boards of academic
accounting journals: An analysis of accounting faculties and doctoral
programs. Issues in Accounting Education, 6, 221–238.
Polonsky, M., Mittelstaedt, J., & Moore, J. (2008). Benchmarking publishing
activity of U.S. colleges and universities across the leading journals: A
grouped evaluation. Journal of Advancement for Marketing Education,
12(1), 19–31.
Rynes, S. L. (2006). Getting on board with AMJ: Balancing quality and
innovation in the review process. Academy of Management Journal, 49,
1097–1102.
St. Pierre, K., Wilson, R., Ravenscroft, S., & Rebele, J. (2009). The role of
accounting education research in our discipline: An editorial. Issues in
Accounting Education, 24, 123–130.
Tanner, G. (2000). Referee characteristics and journal quality. Financial
Practice and Education, 10(1), 123–131.
Trieschmann, J. S., Dennis, A. R., Northcraft, G. B., & Niemi, A. W. (2000).
Serving multiple constituencies in business schools: MBA program versus
research performance. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 1130–1141.
Urbancic, F. R. (2004). Editorial board membership: An alternative method
for ranking real estate programs. Journal of Real Estate Practice and
Education, 7(1), 53–63.
Urbancic, F. R. (2005). Faculty representation on the editorial boards of
leading marketing journals: An update of marketing department rankings.
Marketing Education Review, 15(2), 61–69.
Volkan, A. G., Colley, J. R., & Boone, L. E. (1993). Editorial review board
membership: A consistent method of ranking accounting programs. Accounting Educators’ Journal, 5(1), 79–94.