08832323.2013.863750
Journal of Education for Business
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
A Ranking Analysis of the Management Schools in
Greater China (2000–2010): Evidence From the SSCI
Database
Mingjun Hou, Peihua Fan & Heng Liu
To cite this article: Mingjun Hou, Peihua Fan & Heng Liu (2014) A Ranking Analysis of the
Management Schools in Greater China (2000–2010): Evidence From the SSCI Database, Journal
of Education for Business, 89:5, 230-240, DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2013.863750
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2013.863750
Published online: 03 Jul 2014.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 69
View related articles
View Crossmark data
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: 20:41
JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS, 89: 230–240, 2014
Copyright Ó Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0883-2323 print / 1940-3356 online
DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2013.863750
A Ranking Analysis of the Management Schools
in Greater China (2000–2010): Evidence
From the SSCI Database
Mingjun Hou and Peihua Fan
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:41 11 January 2016
Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an, China
Heng Liu
Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China
The authors rank the management schools in Greater China (including Mainland China,
Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Macau) based on their academic publications in the Social
Sciences Citation Index management and business journals from 2000 to 2010. Following K.
Ritzberger’s (2008) and X. Yu and Z. Gao’s (2010) ranking method, the authors develop six
indices to rank institutions from several aspects, including both the quantity and quality of
publications. By doing so, they provide a clear viewpoint about which institutions achieve
high levels of academic performance in management and business research. They also find
that (a) there is still a large gap in research rankings between business schools in Mainland
China and in Hong Kong; (b) some institutions perform well in quantity rankings but poorly
in quality rankings; (c) the development of the general management and operation
disciplines are much more mature than that of the finance and accounting disciplines in
Greater China; and (d) most outstanding institutions cooperate with developed countries at a
moderate level. The authors state their contributions and future directions as well.
Keywords: Greater China, management schools, ranking analysis
Universities all around the world are given two important
responsibilities for society: knowledge creation and knowledge dissemination (Mudambi, Peng, & Weng, 2008). In
Chinese universities, knowledge dissemination through
teaching has received long-term attention. As China has
gone through tremendous change in its education system,
universities in China are increasingly focusing on knowledge creation through scientific research and academic publication (Au, 2007). In particular, publication in leading
management journals is regarded as the main output of
management research and a key indicator of a school’s
overall capacity to produce knowledge, as well as of its academic reputation (Peng & Zhou, 2006).
Correspondence should be addressed to Peihua Fan, Xi’an Jiaotong
University, School of Management, Box. 2269, No. 28, Xianning West
Road, Xi’an 710049, China. E-mail: fanpeihua@163.com
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be
found online at www.tandfonline.com/vjeb.
Several scholars have already ranked research institutions
or scholars, both globally and within China, by their publications in economic journals and management journals
(Kalaitzidakis, Mamuneas, & Stengos, 2003; Mudambi
et al., 2008; Yu & Gao, 2010). For instance, both Kalaitzidakis et al. (2003) and Coupe (2003) ranked the world’s top
100 institutions by their publications in a list of international
economic journals. Yu and Gao similarly ranked economic
research institutions in China based on their publications
from 2000 to 2009 in the Social Sciences Citation Index
(SSCI) database and found a large gap in the research
capacity of institutions between Mainland China and Hong
Kong, specifically in the field of economics. In the fields of
business and management, Mudambi et al. (2008) ranked
the top 130 Asia Pacific business schools by their publication productivity. There are also some ranking studies of
economics and management in other regions such as the
United States (Chan & Liano, 2009), Central and Eastern
Europe (Meyer & Peng, 2005), and Western Europe
(Baden-Fuller, Ravazzolo, & Schweizer, 2000).
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:41 11 January 2016
A RANKING ANALYSIS OF THE MANAGEMENT SCHOOLS IN GREATER CHINA
In spite of this proliferation of research in publication
ranking, there are some limitations in existing findings.
First, few studies rank the management schools in China
based on their research publications in recent years.
Mudambi et al. (2008) ranked the research productivity of
Asian Pacific business schools with the help of three databases: the University of Texas at Dallas’s listing of 24 leading business journals (UTD-24), seven top management
journals in the University of Texas at Dallas’s database,
and five Asia Pacific management journals. However, their
studies did not use the SSCI database, which is a more systematic database to do comparative studies, and their methodologies were constrained by use of direct counting as a
methodology.
Second, some ranking studies do not differentiate the
quality of publication when counting the numbers of publication. However, the quality of a publication is very important for the ranking process (Yu & Gao, 2010). For
instance, from the perspective of academic standard, an
article published in the Academy of Management Journal
(where the impact factor in 2010 was 5.250) may have a
much greater contribution than an article published in International Journal of Technology Management (where the
impact factor in 2010 was 0.519). In fact, while publication
counts reflect the output quantity of universities (Xu et al.,
2008), it is publication citations that reflect the output quality of universities (Peng & Zhou, 2006).
Third, a fairly large number of articles are affiliated with
more than one institution, which should be distributed in
proportion to each institution. However, some ranking studies do not make this distinction (Mudambi et al., 2008).
To avoid these problems, we therefore conclude that both
the quantity and quality of publications can indicate the differences between academic levels of universities, and we
use the methodologies developed by Ritzberger (2008) and
Yu and Gao (2010) to do an undated ranking analysis of
management schools in Greater China area. To achieve this
goal, we collected relevant data of articles that had been
published by institutions in Greater China area (Mainland
China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Macau) in business and
management journals listed in the SSCI database over the
past 11 years (2000.1–2010.12). We also provided a comprehensive analysis based on this data by combining publications counts with the impact factor of journals. Finally,
we developed an updated ranking of management schools
in Greater China, finding some interesting results.
This study makes three novel contributions. First, we
include new data on business and management articles published in the SSCI database during the last decade (2000–
2010) and rank the research capability of institutions in the
Greater China area from the publication results. Second,
according to the recommendation of Ritzberger (2008) and
Yu and Gao (2010), we not only rank the institutions by
their total publications, but also by real publications
(accounting for coauthorship) and adjusted publications
231
(accounting for the impact factors), allowing us to examine
the quantity and the quality of publications. Third, we point
out the relatively stronger or weaker areas of research by
institutions in Greater China, a move that may have benefit
for education reform, institutional development, and
schools’ ability to publish more in top journals in the future.
DATA COLLECTION AND METHODOLOGY
We selected management or business articles published by
universities in Greater China (including Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Macau) in the past decade (2000–2010), which
were derived from the SSCI database.
Why Publication of Articles?
Teaching and researching are two basic missions of the
modern university. Therefore, rankings of management
schools depend on their teaching and research output. There
have been some rankings based on teaching, graduates’ salaries, and other indicators, such as the Financial Times
rankings and Forbes rankings. In addition, recent research
concluded that there is a strong correlation among researching, teaching, school rankings, and faculty research productivity (e.g., Siemens, Burton, Jensen, & Mendoza, 2005;
Tracy & Waldfogel, 1997). Mudambi et al. (2008) also suggested that achieving research excellence is a highly desirable aim for Asia Pacific business schools, and that
excellence can be measured by their publications in scientific journals. As our study focuses on the measurement of
the knowledge creation capabilities of institutions in the
Greater China area, we thus calculated the ranking by the
performance of scientific publications in the domains of
management and business.
Why the SSCI Database?
SSCI is an interdisciplinary citation index produced by
Thomson Reuters and includes 3,131 leading global social
science journals (as of June 28, 2013) that write across 50
disciplines, including management and business. It was
developed by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI).
In 2011, SSCI included 145 management journals and 98
business journals (there are 37 journals in the domains of
management and business). We chose the SSCI database
for our ranking research for five important reasons. First,
SSCI is a mature and systematic database. Many studies
have collected data from SSCI for ranking (Engemann &
Wall, 2009; Yu & Gao, 2010), and the legitimacy of SSCI
has been confirmed many times, meaning that it is a good
foundation for conducting sound research. Second, SSCI is
the most acceptable and popular index in the field of management for Chinese research institutions. SSCI is available
online through the Web of Science service in university
libraries, so that further research can be supported by this
232
M. HOU ET AL.
impressive database. Third, the impact-factors of journals
included in the SSCI database, which can be used to reflect
the quality of publications as well as used for the analysis
of both publication counts and adjusted publication counts
by journal quality, are vital to our methodological contribution. Fourth, many Chinese universities tend to use SSCI
criteria to judge their professors’ productivity and to set up
policies to encourage the scholars to publish articles in
SSCI listed journals, especially the ones with a high citation
index.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:41 11 January 2016
Why Greater China?
Ranking results will vary according to different periods and
various regions. With the continuous reform and openingup movement, China has made rapid progress in developing
its economy. Meanwhile, China has engaged in reforming
the university education system. Consequently, more and
more research articles have been published in international
journals by Chinese institutions especially since 2000 (see
Figure 1). However, the studies that directly examine the
performance of academic research for schools in the
Greater China area are limited (Peng, Lu, Shenkar, &
Wang, 2001), especially for the business and management
disciplines. As most of the rankings, such as Wu’s ranking,
only account for universities in Mainland China, we need
to expand the ranking scope to take Hong Kong, Macau,
and Taiwan into account. By doing so, we can compare the
relative publication capabilities in different parts of the
Greater China area.
From the previous analysis, our data for ranking are
derived from the articles in SSCI business and management
journals, which were published by institutions in Greater
China from January 2000 to December 2010. We exclude
meeting abstracts, proceeding articles, book reviews and
editorial materials. In summary, there were a total of 2,574
articles published by faculties or students of Chinese universities and scientific institutions.
Why Both Quality and Quantity?
In general, high-quality articles should be published in
high-quality journals because the reputation of journals and
the rigorous peer-review process can ensure the quality.
Some management schools (especially for schools in Mainland China) may obtain their reputation through publishing
several articles in top tier journals. The impact factor, the
average number of citations received per article published
in a particular journal during the two preceding years, is
widely used for measuring the quality of a journal (Jarwal,
Brion, & King, 2009; Peng & Zhou, 2006). Some scholars
suggested that this indicator is much more available in a
certain field than in various fields (Jemec, 2001), and it is
applicable for this ranking in the field of management and
business.
Counting Method and Criteria
One of the standard methodologies to rank research productivity is counting the number of publications in refereed
academic journals (Xu, Yalcinkaya, & Seggie, 2008). However, this ranking result can be biased because it is not correlated with the impact of publications, which is often
measured by citations (Peng & Zhou, 2006). So far, many
approaches have been developed for correcting the biases,
such as the BT-method (Bradley & Terry, 1952), the LPmethod (Liebowitz & Palmer, 1984), the H-index method
(Hirsch, 2004), the tournament method (Koczy & Strobel,
2007), and the invariant method (Palacio-Huerta & Volij,
2004). Ritzberger (2008) conducted a review of these methods and suggested that although these ranking methods
might be different, the ranking results will be largely consistent with each other, especially for top journals. We
chose to follow Ritzberger’s method and adopt six indexes
(publication counts, coauthorship-adjusted articles, impact
factor–adjusted articles, average quality of articles, independent research capacity, and cooperation intensity) to
reflect the research ability of institutions in Greater China
area in the research domains of business and management.
Publication counts. For the basic ranking of management schools in Greater China, we believe that it is necessary to start with the simplest method publication counts
(P), which can be directly obtained from the SSCI database.
For each separate institution, when any publication is affiliated with it, the institution will be counted once.
FIGURE 1 Publication of management and business articles in Greater China and Hong Kong (1980–2010).
A RANKING ANALYSIS OF THE MANAGEMENT SCHOOLS IN GREATER CHINA
Specifically, when an institution appears more than once in
the affiliation information of an article, the institution
should be counted only once. This basic index can be calculated by the following equation:
Pj D
n
X
Ci j
iD1
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:41 11 January 2016
When an institution j appears in the affiliation of article i,
the index Ci j D 1 in the equation, otherwise Ci j D 0.
Coauthorship-adjusted articles. If we use the first
index to rank institutions in management research, it will
be wrongly believed that the institution that published one
article independently made the same contribution as the
institution that published one article through cooperation
with other institutions. That is to say, the publication
counts cannot truly reflect the real number of publications
by an institution. Consequently, we should consider the
problem of coauthorship to adjust the aforementioned
index.
We adopt the following three steps to adjust the index.
First, if an article i has ai authors and one author M is affiliated to kmi institutions, author M actually contributes ai 1kmi of
this article for each institution. Second, if there are two or
more authors affiliated with institution j, the total contribution of institution j to article i should be added together as
follows:
a
X
i
1
ai km i
Ci m j
mD1
When author M of article i is affiliated to institution j, the
index Cimj D 1 in the equation, otherwise Cimj D 0. Third,
all the contribution of these n articles should add up. Then
the coauthorship adjusted articles of institution j are the following:
a
n X
X
i
CAPj D
iD1 mD1
Cim j
1
ai kmi
In the process of collecting data, we found that the relationship between authors and institutions in the database of
the SSCI is not clear before 2007, so that we cannot use
equation 2 to calculate this index. Given this reality, we
tried to reduce bias on the affiliation between authors and
institutions by downloading and checking the articles,
obtaining author’s information via the Internet, and so on.
For authors whose information was hard to obtain, we
assume that each institution contributes equally to an article
published before 2007. In the years from 2008 to 2010, the
affiliation between authors and institutions is clear, so that
233
we can use equation 2 to work out the coauthorshipadjusted articles (CAP) of each institution.
Impact factor–adjusted articles. As we mentioned
previously, the quality of an article is very important in
reflecting the research capacity of institutions (Yu & Gao,
2010). However, neither of the two indexes we introduced
before involves the quality factor of the publications. In
this case, it will be unjustifiably considered that an article
published in the Academy of Management Journal (which
in 2010 had an impact factor of 5.250) might have the same
contribution as an article published in the International
Journal of Technology Management (which had an impact
factor of 0.519 in 2010). The impact factor is widely used
to measure the quality of a journal by scholars in that
research area (Jarwal et al., 2009; Peng & Zhou, 2006), and
therefore, we should also consider article quality by taking
the impact factors into account.
On the basis of the CAP index, we further readjusted by
involving the impact factors of journals in the SSCI database. When Ifi is the impact factor of the journal in which
article i is published, we can give an index for measuring
the contribution of institution j to research development
(publications in SSCI database) as follows:
a
n X
X
i
IAPj D
If i Cimj
iD1 mD1
1
ai kmi
Average quality of articles. We can get an indicator
of the average impact factor of the publications developed
by one institution by dividing impact factor–adjusted publications (IAP) by the CAP, which reflect the average quality
(AQ) of articles published by an institution in the SSCI
database. The formula is as follows:
AQj D
IAPj
CAPj
It is much more difficult to publish articles in high-level
journals, especially when considering the difference
between top tier journals and ordinary journals. Consequently, many institutions in China publish many articles in
low-quality journals instead of a small number of articles in
high-quality journals. Nevertheless, high-quality studies
represent real knowledge creation and give long-term reputations to scholars and institutions. Therefore, this index
plays an important role in ranking the research institutions
in Greater China.
Independent research capacity. We also can get
another indicator of independent research capacity (IRC)
regarding an institution by dividing the CAP by the P
234
M. HOU ET AL.
counts. This index is brought forward to reflect the capacity
of an institution to independently complete publications in
the SSCI database. The formula is as follows:
IRCj D
CAPj
Pj
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:41 11 January 2016
The more articles are independently published by an
institution, the higher this index will be. Assuming that
institution j completes all the publications independently by
itself, then the CAP index is equal to the P counts index,
and we get the maximum of this index (IRCmax D 1). The
more cooperation an institution has with others to complete
a publication, the lower this index will be.
Cooperation intensity with Europe or the United
States. This index is introduced to measure the level of
cooperation between Chinese scholars and scholars in
Europe and the United States. With the reform of the education system, Chinese scholars are encouraged to cooperate
with scholars in developed countries (especially Europe
and the United States) to improve the level of their scientific research. Many management schools in Mainland
China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macau look for cooperation abroad to increase their number of publications through
hiring foreign scholars to help in writing collaborative
articles.
We first introduce another index Coj as a measure of
cooperation with developed countries. If an article i has
affiliations to both domestic institution j and a European or
American institution, Coj D 1, otherwise Coj D 0., and then
dividing Coj by P counts, we will get the index of cooperation intensity (CI) with Europe or the United States, as
follows:
CIj D
Coj
Pj
If all the publications by an institution are completed
through cooperating with scholars in developed countries
(chiefly in the United States and European countries), we
get the maximum of this index (CImax D 1). If all the publications by an institution are completed without the help of
institutions in Europe or the United States, we get the minimum of this index (CImin D 0).
In summary, we introduce six indexes that reflect different aspects of the research capacity of an institution. It
is difficult to combine all these six indexes together into
one index to measure the overall research capacity of an
institution. The index of IAP is the most comprehensive
indicator, which considers both the quantity and the quality of publication. Therefore, the final results of the ranking are based on these six indexes, especially on the IAP
index.
RANKING FINDINGS
Figure 1 compares the number of publications in the disciplines of management or business by institutions in Hong
Kong and Greater China, which have been indexed by
SSCI from 1980 to 2010. We can conclude that the number
of research articles in Greater China has increased rapidly
since 2000, averaging an increase rate of over 10% per year
since 2005.
Table 1 lists the 30 most published journals, which
account for more than half (58.70%) of the total publications. The four most published journals are European Journal of Operational Research (6.45%), International
Journal of Human Resource Management (4.39%), Journal
of the Operational Research Society (4.04%), and Journal
of Business Ethics (3.34%). Four ratios added together provide the concentration of the four most published journals
(C4 index) as 18.22%. However, there are no UTD-24 journals, which are international top tier journals in management, in the four most published journals. In the 30 most
published journals, there are only eight UTD-24 journals,
indicating that the quality of publications in Greater China
could be enhanced in the future. Meanwhile, we can see
from Table 1 that the most published journals are chiefly in
the domains of general management (nine), marketing
(six), operations management (five), and others, but none in
the finance and accounting domains, which indicates that
the development of each discipline is varied.
Table 2 shows the distribution of the articles in UTD-24
journals. There are 406 articles (15.77%) published in 15 of
the UTD-24 journals. That may suggest again the necessity
for considering the influence of publication quality on the
ranking analysis. Except these fifteen UTD-24 journals,
Chinese scholarship has never been published in the other
nine journals, most of which are in the domains of finance
and accounting (i.e., Journal of Accounting and Economics,
Journal of Accounting Research, Journal of Finance, Journal of Financial Economics, The Accounting Review, and
The Review of Financial Studies). This result is congruent
with Table 1 in that the development of the finance and
accounting discipline (in Greater China) is slow as compared to other disciplines. The possible reason is as follows.
There were no internationally accepted accounting principles in China until 2005. Therefore, the data Chinese
scholars used in their research were unacknowledged in
the international academic community. As a result, their
research has seldom been published in international journals. Therefore, Chinese scholars focus more on finance
and management, but seldom on accounting.
Table 3 shows the rankings of institutions in Greater
China from 2000 to 2010 with more than three publications
in the SSCI listed journals in the domains of business and
management.
First, based on the publication counts, we find the top six
institutions in Greater China are all in Hong Kong: City
A RANKING ANALYSIS OF THE MANAGEMENT SCHOOLS IN GREATER CHINA
235
TABLE 1
The 30 Most Published Journals by Chinese Institutions (2000–2010)
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:41 11 January 2016
Ranking in the 30 most
published journals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Journal name
n
%
European Journal of Operational Research
International Journal of Human Resource Management
Journal of The Operational Research Society
Journal of Business Ethics
Journal of International Business Studiesa
Tourism Management
Omega-International Journal of Management Science
Management Sciencea
Journal of Business Research
Information & Management
Systems Research and Behavioral Science
International Journal of Technology Management
Journal of Consumer Researcha
IEEE Transactions On Engineering Management
Industrial Marketing Management
Operations Researcha
Academy of Management Journala
Journal of Marketing Researcha
Journal of World Business
Journal of Organizational Behavior
Journal of Management Studies
Journal of International Marketing
Journal of Management Information Systems
Asia Pacific Journal of Management
Strategic Management Journala
Total Quality Management Business Excellence
Chinese Management Studies
International Business Review
Journal of Forecasting
Organization Sciencea
Summary
166
113
104
86
76
70
68
65
64
61
51
41
40
39
35
35
33
33
32
31
30
28
28
27
27
27
26
26
26
23
1,511
6.45
4.39
4.04
3.34
2.95
2.72
2.64
2.53
2.49
2.37
1.98
1.59
1.55
1.52
1.36
1.36
1.28
1.28
1.24
1.20
1.17
1.09
1.09
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.01
1.01
1.01
0.89
58.70
Discipline
Operations
HRM
Operations
Others
General Management
Others
General Management
Operations
General Management
Information System
Organizational Behavior
General Management
Marketing
General Management
Marketing
Operations
General Management
Marketing
HRM, Marketing, and Strategic Management
Organizational Behavior
General Management
Marketing
Information System
General Management
Strategic Management
Operations
General Management, Marketing, and HRM
Practitioners
Others
General Management, Organizational Behavior
Note: The total number of the publications is 2,574.
a
Journal belongs to the University of Texas at Dallas’s listing of 24 leading business journals (UTD-24).
University of Hong Kong (CHUK; 415), Hong Kong Polytechnic University (375), Chinese University of Hong
Kong (332), Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (HKUST; 321), University of Hong Kong (206),
and Hong Kong Baptist University (167). They are followed by Peking University (119), Lingnan University
(111), Tsinghua University (82), Xian Jiaotong University
(65), and China Europe International Business School (65).
There is only one institution in Mainland China (Peking
University) that published more than 100 articles. The gap
between City University of Hong Kong (top one in Hong
Kong) and Peking University (top one in Mainland China)
is so large that the former published almost four times more
articles than those published by the latter. This indicates
that the research capacity of institutions in Mainland China
is weaker than that of Hong Kong.
Secondly, if we account for the fact that an article could
be attributed to multiple institutions and use the CAP index
instead of the P count, the ranking order will be changed a
little, but the top six institutions are still the six in Hong
Kong. However, the seventh is no longer Peking University
(52.13) but rather Lingnan University (64.15), another institution in Hong Kong. This indicates that institutions in
Hong Kong perform better before or after coauthorship
adjustment.
Third, if we take both the quantity and quality of publications into account and use the IAP index, the top six institutions are still the same, but the ranking order is different.
For instance, HKUST ranks first according to IAP index
but ranks fourth according to both the P index and CAP
index, suggesting that HKUST performs very well in quality rankings. In contrast, CUHK ranks first according to the
P index, ranks second according to CAP index, and ranks
third according to IAP index, suggesting that CUHK performs less well in quality rankings than in quantity
rankings.
Fourth, we also consider the average quality of articles
by using the AQ index and the capacity of independent
236
M. HOU ET AL.
TABLE 2
The Distribution of Articles in UTD-24 Journals (2000–2010)
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:41 11 January 2016
Ranking in the most
published journals
5
8
13
16
17
18
25
30
45
49
69
72
75
109
133
Journal name
Journal of International Business Studies
Management Science
Journal of Consumer Research
Operations Research
Academy of Management Journal
Journal of Marketing Research
Strategic Management Journal
Organization Science
Information Systems Research
Marketing Science
Journal of Marketing
Journal of Operations Management
MIS Quarterly
Academy of Management Review
Administrative Science Quarterly
Summary
n
%
76 2.95
65 2.53
40 1.55
35 1.36
33 1.28
33 1.28
27 1.05
23 0.89
16 0.62
16 0.62
12 0.47
11 0.43
11 0.43
5
0.19
3
0.12
406 15.77
Note: The total number of the publications is 2,574. Other journals of
the University of Texas at Dallas’s listing of 24 leading business journals
(UTD-24) are Journal of Accounting and Economics, Journal of Accounting Research, Journal of Finance, Journal of Financial Economics, Journal on Computing, Manufacturing & Service Operations Management,
Production and Operations Management, The Accounting Review, and
The Review of Financial Studies.
research by the IRC index finding no significant difference
in either when considering institutions in Mainland China
and Hong Kong.
Finally, we look at the ranking of cooperation intensity
with Europe and the United States (CI), the indicator used
to measure the percentage of articles published by cooperating with scholars in Europe and the United States. We find
that there is no linear relationship between the IAP value
and the CI value (see Figure 2). However, the CI values of
the 23 institutions who published more than 20 articles are
between 0.3 and 0.7 (except for Huazhong University of
Science and Technology, whose CI value is 0.28). We
divided these 91 institutions in Greater China with more
than three publications in the SSCI into four clusters
according to the P index and the CI index. There were eight
institutions that published more than 100 articles over the
last decade in the first cluster (marked in Figure 2). They
could be identified as outstanding institutions with the
strongest research capacity, and their CI values were all in
midlevel. There were 15 institutions in the second cluster
(marked in Figure 2) that published more than 20 articles,
but less than 100 articles, over the last decade. Institutions
in the second cluster could be considered to perform well in
research, but not as well as institutions in the first cluster.
Their CI values were also in midlevel. The other institutions, whose published less than 20 articles, can be further
divided based on the CI index. Those institutions with a
high CI index (no less than 0.50) can be regarded as relying
more on cooperation with European and U.S. institutions
than institutions with a low CI index (less than 0.5). There
are several extreme examples like South China University
of Technology, Zhejiang University of Technology, Hebei
University of Technology, and Macau’s Institution for
Tourism Studies that all had the maximum CI index value,
while National Sun Yat-Sen University, East China Normal
University, Capital University of Economics and Businesses, Shanghai Second Polytechnic University, China
University of Mining and Technology, Chinese Academy
of Social Sciences, and National Tsing Hua University all
had the minimum CI index value. However, none of them
published more than 20 articles in SSCI during the last
decade. This may indicate either excessive reliance on
cooperation with developed countries or that working alone
is not good for publication outcomes.
DISCUSSION
Academic Contributions
We engage in this updated ranking of management schools
in Greater China (including Mainland China, Hong Kong,
Taiwan, and Macau) by using six indexes that contribute to
current academic literature in the following five aspects.
First, this article contributes to the literature by giving
a systematic ranking analysis of management schools in
Greater China based on the academic publications of the
SSCI database from 2000 to 2010. Following Ritzberger’s
(2008) and Yu and Gao’s (2010) ranking method, we
developed six indexes, which indicated different aspects
of each institution’s research capacity (both the quantity
and the quality of publications), to provide ranking results
as comprehensive as possible. Therefore, this study fills
an important research objective of understanding the
current research capacity of institutions in Greater China
by including both quantity and quality of publication
indexes. This finding provides useful information for
both international and Chinese scholars. In this era of
globalization, where scholars and students wish to acquire
more information on the reliability of those they deal
with, the ranking analysis plays an important role. For
instance, this ranking research can be assigned in a master of business administration course where students take
a trip to Greater China to learn of its business practices
and development. In addition, our finding illustrates the
underdeveloped condition of financial and accounting in
Greater China. International scholars should pay more
attention that it would be difficult for them to cooperate
with Chinese scholars in these disciplines.
Second, from the results we find out that the top six institutions with both high quantity and quality of articles are all
in Hong Kong, which indicates that there is still a large gap
in research capacity between Mainland China and Hong
Kong. This finding is similar to Mudambi et al. (2008)’s
237
A RANKING ANALYSIS OF THE MANAGEMENT SCHOOLS IN GREATER CHINA
TABLE 3
Ranking by the Publications in the SSCI Database (2000–2010)
P
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:41 11 January 2016
Institution
Harvard Universitya
Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
Hong Kong Polytech University
City University of Hong Kong
Chinese University of Hong Kong
University of Hong Kong
Hong Kong Baptist University
Peking University
Lingnan University
Tsinghua University
Xi’an Jiaotong University
China Europe International Business School
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Shanghai Jiao Tong University
Beihang University
University of Science and Technology of China
Fudan University
Zhejiang University
University of Macau
Renmin University of China
Huazhong University of Science and Technology
Nanjing University
Northeastern University
Sun Yat Sen University
Dalian University of Technology
Cheung Kong Graduate School of Business
Open University of Hong Kong
University of International Business and Economics
Wuhan University
Southeast University
South China University of Technology
Shenyang Institute of Aeronautical Engineering
Hefei University of Technology
Wuhan University of Technology
Southwestern University of Finance and Economics
Shanghai University of Finance and Economics
Shanghai University
Macau University of Science and Technology
Xiamen University
Beijing Jiaotong University
Donghua University
Jinan University
University of Electronic Science and Technology of China
Harbin Institute of Technology
Nankai University
Central South University
China University of Technology
East China University of Science and Technology
Shandong University
Tianjin University
Soochow University
National Sun Yat Sen University
Hunan University
National Chengchi University
Sichuan University
Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences
CAP
Value Rank
875
321
375
415
332
206
167
119
111
82
65
65
57
46
32
28
50
40
33
45
33
22
19
39
17
18
15
19
22
6
15
6
7
5
12
9
10
10
10
13
8
6
8
8
11
7
5
5
7
8
4
9
9
4
3
3
4
2
1
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
10
12
14
20
21
13
16
18
15
18
22
24
17
27
26
28
24
22
48
28
48
44
52
31
36
33
33
33
30
39
48
39
39
32
44
52
52
44
39
60
36
36
60
73
73
IAP
Value
Rank
Value
167.04
240.75
216.00
174.12
108.17
99.82
52.13
64.15
42.27
40.54
29.76
25.49
24.27
16.54
16.58
18.86
21.89
17.67
17.49
19.12
11.04
11.91
19.98
8.59
7.06
6.88
7.68
5.90
3.98
6.69
4.50
3.96
3.10
4.31
4.52
3.38
3.99
3.74
9.73
4.15
2.66
3.73
4.00
3.96
3.91
2.44
2.20
3.94
3.78
1.98
3.35
1.75
1.41
2.08
3.00
4
1
2
3
5
6
8
7
9
10
11
12
13
21
20
17
14
18
19
16
23
22
15
25
27
28
26
30
38
29
33
39
50
34
32
47
37
44
24
35
53
45
36
39
42
54
59
41
43
66
48
68
78
63
51
411.94
387.71
361.36
317.57
222.90
139.33
99.20
94.33
60.96
57.75
49.06
41.62
34.86
33.31
33.17
29.95
26.90
25.61
24.77
20.19
20.18
19.40
17.43
12.50
11.55
10.43
10.43
9.79
9.47
8.59
7.68
7.21
6.95
6.50
6.43
6.27
6.05
5.90
5.83
5.51
5.32
5.22
5.19
5.00
4.98
4.08
4.07
4.06
3.93
3.85
3.85
3.69
3.55
3.52
3.26
AQ
IRC
CI
Rank Value Rank Value Rank Value Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
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
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
50
52
53
54
55
2.47
1.61
1.67
1.82
2.06
1.40
1.90
1.47
1.44
1.42
1.65
1.63
1.44
2.01
2.00
1.59
1.23
1.45
1.42
1.06
1.83
1.63
0.87
1.46
1.64
1.52
1.36
1.66
2.38
1.28
1.71
1.82
2.24
1.51
1.42
1.86
1.52
1.58
0.60
1.33
2.00
1.40
1.30
1.26
1.27
1.67
1.85
1.03
1.04
1.95
1.15
2.11
2.51
1.69
1.09
2
29
21
17
6
50
12
39
42
44
24
27
43
8
9
31
63
41
48
69
16
28
73
40
26
35
53
23
3
60
19
18
4
37
46
13
36
32
85
55
10
49
58
62
61
22
14
71
70
11
65
5
1
20
66
0.52
0.64
0.52
0.52
0.53
0.60
0.44
0.58
0.52
0.62
0.46
0.45
0.53
0.52
0.59
0.38
0.55
0.54
0.39
0.58
0.50
0.63
0.51
0.51
0.39
0.46
0.40
0.27
0.66
0.45
0.75
0.57
0.62
0.36
0.50
0.34
0.40
0.37
0.75
0.52
0.44
0.47
0.50
0.36
0.56
0.49
0.44
0.56
0.47
0.50
0.37
0.19
0.35
0.69
1.00
34
12
33
32
31
17
58
21
38
14
52
54
28
37
18
71
25
27
69
20
43
13
39
41
68
51
64
89
10
55
4
22
15
78
42
81
65
72
5
36
56
50
45
77
24
47
57
23
48
46
74
91
79
7
1
0.48
0.39
0.47
0.61
0.53
0.32
0.68
0.35
0.49
0.62
0.65
0.56
0.58
0.58
0.54
0.55
0.33
0.42
0.42
0.28
0.43
0.37
0.50
0.45
0.74
0.78
0.59
0.67
0.33
1.00
0.64
0.10
0.20
0.80
0.31
0.67
0.27
0.44
0.44
0.25
0.63
0.50
0.50
0.88
0.57
0.57
0.43
0.57
0.50
0.17
0.00
0.20
0.80
0.80
0.40
48
59
49
28
38
70
16
61
47
27
24
35
30
30
37
36
62
55
55
72
53
60
39
50
15
10
29
17
62
1
25
84
79
6
71
17
73
51
51
74
26
39
39
5
32
32
53
32
39
83
85
79
6
6
57
(Continued on next page)
238
M. HOU ET AL.
TABLE 3
Ranking by the Publications in the SSCI Database (2000–2010) (Continued)
P
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:41 11 January 2016
Institution
National Taiwan University
National Chiao Tung University
Beijing Normal University
Feng Chia University
Jilin University
Nanjing University of Aeronaut & Astronaut
South China Normal University
National Cheng Kung University
East China Normal University
Macao Polytechnic Institute
Northwestern Polytechnical University
National Chung Cheng University
Beijing Institute of Technology
Tongji University
Chung Hua University
Beijing International Studies University
Zhejiang University of Technology
Shenzhen University
Zhejiang Gongshang University
Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications
Fuzhou University
China Agricultural University
National Changhua University of Education
Hebei University of Technology
National Taipei University
Capital University of Economics and Business
Kunming University of Science & Technology
Shanghai Second Polytechnic University
China University of Mining and Technology
National Central University
Chinese Academy of Social Sciences
National Tsing Hua University
Institute for Tourism Studies
Central University of Finance and Economics
Jiangxi University of Finance and Economics
Northwestern University
CAP
Value Rank
4
5
7
6
5
3
8
5
4
5
3
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
5
4
4
4
3
3
3
4
3
3
3
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
60
52
44
48
52
73
39
52
60
52
73
60
60
60
60
73
73
73
52
60
60
60
73
73
73
60
73
73
73
60
73
73
73
73
73
73
Value
1.58
2.11
3.57
2.36
2.12
2.00
5.32
1.41
1.66
3.25
1.75
1.48
2.83
1.66
1.41
1.25
1.58
1.50
2.24
2.16
1.07
2.08
1.58
1.08
1.41
1.49
0.99
0.93
2.33
1.24
2.33
1.16
1.00
0.91
0.96
1.83
IAP
Rank
72
62
46
55
61
65
31
78
70
49
68
77
52
70
78
82
72
75
58
60
86
63
72
85
78
76
88
90
56
83
56
84
87
91
89
67
Value
3.24
3.17
3.10
2.87
2.81
2.77
2.62
2.59
2.58
2.54
2.42
2.37
2.37
2.36
2.14
2.05
2.03
1.99
1.59
1.57
1.52
1.48
1.46
1.44
1.12
1.06
1.06
1.01
0.97
0.97
0.86
0.83
0.69
0.53
0.30
0.15
AQ
IRC
CI
Rank Value Rank Value Rank Value Rank
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
67
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
81
83
84
84
86
87
88
89
90
91
2.05
1.50
0.87
1.22
1.32
1.39
0.49
1.84
1.56
0.78
1.38
1.60
0.84
1.42
1.52
1.64
1.29
1.32
0.71
0.73
1.42
0.71
0.93
1.34
0.79
0.71
1.07
1.08
0.42
0.78
0.37
0.71
0.69
0.58
0.32
0.08
7
38
74
64
57
51
87
15
33
77
52
30
75
47
34
25
59
56
81
79
45
82
72
54
76
83
68
67
88
78
89
80
84
86
90
91
0.40
0.42
0.51
0.39
0.42
0.67
0.67
0.28
0.42
0.65
0.58
0.37
0.71
0.42
0.35
0.42
0.53
0.50
0.45
0.54
0.27
0.52
0.53
0.36
0.47
0.37
0.33
0.31
0.78
0.31
0.78
0.39
0.33
0.30
0.32
0.61
66
60
40
67
59
8
9
88
62
11
19
75
6
63
80
61
29
44
53
26
90
35
30
76
49
73
83
85
2
86
3
70
82
87
84
16
0.20
0.33
0.40
0.80
0.25
0.75
0.50
0.75
0.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.50
1.00
0.67
0.33
0.33
0.67
0.67
0.67
1.00
0.20
0.00
0.25
0.00
0.00
0.33
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.33
0.33
0.67
79
62
57
6
74
11
39
11
85
11
39
74
11
39
74
39
1
17
62
62
17
17
17
1
79
85
74
85
85
62
85
85
1
62
62
17
Note: Only rank institutions with three or more publications in 2000–2010 were ranked. Of these 2,574 publications, in the domains of management and
business from the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) database, were published between 2000 and 2010. The publication (P) index indicates the number of
publications an institution participates in; the coauthorship-adjusted article (CAP) index indicates the real number of publications an institution contributes
to; the impact factor–adjusted publications (IAP) index is a comprehensive index to evaluate the research capacity of an institution; the average quality (AQ)
index indicates the average quality of articles published by an institution; the independent research capacity (IRC) index indicates the ability of an institution
to complete a publication independently; the cooperation intensity (CI) index indicates the extent to which an institution cooperates with those of developed
countries (i.e., European countries and the United States in this study). The p value of Harvard University was added as a reference point for productivity.
findings in the area of economics. We speculate the following reasons for this difference. One is that scholars in Hong
Kong may have better academic training and better English
skills than scholars in Mainland China. Another is that the
education system in Mainland China is not as mature as
that in Hong Kong, which results in many of China’s top
scholars moving to Hong Kong’s universities to further
their research. Moreover, our ranking may be an imperfect
gauge because it only considers academic publications.
However, the trend in Figure 1 shows that the research
capacity of Mainland China’s schools is progressing
rapidly. We forecast that big changes will take place in the
ranking within the next 10 years.
Third, our findings suggest that the rankings will be different based on the quantity and quality of articles. Some
institutions perform well in quantity rankings, but not as
well in quality rankings. This indicates they may focus on
publishing an extensive list of articles but put less emphasis
on the quality of their publications. Therefore, we suggest
that institutions only paying attention to one aspect, either
quality or quantity, should adjust their incentive system to
balance both the quantity and quality of publications. In
A RANKING ANALYSIS OF THE MANAGEMENT SCHOOLS IN GREATER CHINA
239
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:41 11 January 2016
FIGURE 2 Publication count index and cooperation intensity index distribution of 91 management schools in Greater China.
order to publish more in top journals, institutions can
strengthen cooperation with influential foreign scholars. In
addition, the Chinese Ministry of Education should notice
the importance of balanced development and propose
improvement measures.
Fourth, this study shows that the development of each
discipline in management is varied. The 30 most published
journals include general management and operations management domains but no finance or accounting domains.
Therefore, future development in China’s education reforms
may need to enhance research capacity in finance and
accounting domains to stimulate maturation in this underdeveloped facet of Chinese scholarship.
Finally, we divide all the institutions in our ranking into
four clusters according to the P count and CI with developed countries. We find that most institutions that published
more than 20 articles over the past 10 years have a CI index
between 0.3 and 0.7. That may indicate that either excessive reliance on cooperation with developed countries or
complete independence for doing research is not the most
effective strategy for the development of an institution’s
research capability. Institutions should balance independence and cooperation to improve the institution’s research
outcomes. As we know, Mainland institutions establish
their reputations through different approaches. For instance,
Peking University and Tsinghua University have regional
advantages to attract more talented scholars and develop
research cooperation with foreign agencies; China Europe
International Business School is well known for its rich
connections overseas, and Xi’an Jiao Tong University
enhances its research capacity by recruiting and retaining
productive scholars. All of them demonstrate possible strategies for other institutions to find a balance between international cooperation and independent research.
Limitations and Future Research Directions
Despite its major contributions, this ranking research also
has some limitations. First, this study used English-language publications in SSCI to rank management schools in
Greater China, but Chinese-language publications were not
counted. Consequently, language bias may exist in this
ranking method, which cannot reflect the complete research
capacity of a research institution (Yu & Gao, 2010). As a
consequence, future researchers should use Chinese publications and English publications to rank management
schools in Greater China to extend this study.
Second, there are various ways to build a strong institutional reputation. Institutions may be committed to publishing books, participating in academic conferences, or
publishing on nonacademic journals; however, the rankings
of this article only take academic publications into account.
Therefore, future scholars are encouraged to consider various scientific research outputs, such as participation in academic conferences, when they conduct similar ranking
research.
Third, our study describes the quantity and quality of
articles published by these 91 institutions in Greater China,
but the dynamic changes in quantity and quality of articles
published by each institution are not revealed. The question
of why and how some institutions rapidly developed
research capacity over the past 10 years may be a promising
research question for future studies. In addition, these
underdeveloped disciplines, such as finance and accounting,
need to be paid more attention in the future. It is an unprecedented challenge, but also an opportunity at the same time.
CONCLUSION
We collected data of management or business articles published by institutions in Greater China (including Mainland
China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Macau) in the SSCI database during the past decade (2000–2010). Based on a total
of 2574 publications, this study provides the first ranking of
management schools in Greater China based on
Ritzberger’s (2008) and Yu and Gao’s (2010) ranking
method. The ranking indicates that HKUST is the top
research university in Greater China when considering both
the quantity and quality of publications, CUHK ranks first
according to only publication numbers, and Peking University ranks number one among institu
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
A Ranking Analysis of the Management Schools in
Greater China (2000–2010): Evidence From the SSCI
Database
Mingjun Hou, Peihua Fan & Heng Liu
To cite this article: Mingjun Hou, Peihua Fan & Heng Liu (2014) A Ranking Analysis of the
Management Schools in Greater China (2000–2010): Evidence From the SSCI Database, Journal
of Education for Business, 89:5, 230-240, DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2013.863750
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2013.863750
Published online: 03 Jul 2014.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 69
View related articles
View Crossmark data
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: 20:41
JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS, 89: 230–240, 2014
Copyright Ó Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0883-2323 print / 1940-3356 online
DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2013.863750
A Ranking Analysis of the Management Schools
in Greater China (2000–2010): Evidence
From the SSCI Database
Mingjun Hou and Peihua Fan
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:41 11 January 2016
Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an, China
Heng Liu
Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China
The authors rank the management schools in Greater China (including Mainland China,
Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Macau) based on their academic publications in the Social
Sciences Citation Index management and business journals from 2000 to 2010. Following K.
Ritzberger’s (2008) and X. Yu and Z. Gao’s (2010) ranking method, the authors develop six
indices to rank institutions from several aspects, including both the quantity and quality of
publications. By doing so, they provide a clear viewpoint about which institutions achieve
high levels of academic performance in management and business research. They also find
that (a) there is still a large gap in research rankings between business schools in Mainland
China and in Hong Kong; (b) some institutions perform well in quantity rankings but poorly
in quality rankings; (c) the development of the general management and operation
disciplines are much more mature than that of the finance and accounting disciplines in
Greater China; and (d) most outstanding institutions cooperate with developed countries at a
moderate level. The authors state their contributions and future directions as well.
Keywords: Greater China, management schools, ranking analysis
Universities all around the world are given two important
responsibilities for society: knowledge creation and knowledge dissemination (Mudambi, Peng, & Weng, 2008). In
Chinese universities, knowledge dissemination through
teaching has received long-term attention. As China has
gone through tremendous change in its education system,
universities in China are increasingly focusing on knowledge creation through scientific research and academic publication (Au, 2007). In particular, publication in leading
management journals is regarded as the main output of
management research and a key indicator of a school’s
overall capacity to produce knowledge, as well as of its academic reputation (Peng & Zhou, 2006).
Correspondence should be addressed to Peihua Fan, Xi’an Jiaotong
University, School of Management, Box. 2269, No. 28, Xianning West
Road, Xi’an 710049, China. E-mail: fanpeihua@163.com
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be
found online at www.tandfonline.com/vjeb.
Several scholars have already ranked research institutions
or scholars, both globally and within China, by their publications in economic journals and management journals
(Kalaitzidakis, Mamuneas, & Stengos, 2003; Mudambi
et al., 2008; Yu & Gao, 2010). For instance, both Kalaitzidakis et al. (2003) and Coupe (2003) ranked the world’s top
100 institutions by their publications in a list of international
economic journals. Yu and Gao similarly ranked economic
research institutions in China based on their publications
from 2000 to 2009 in the Social Sciences Citation Index
(SSCI) database and found a large gap in the research
capacity of institutions between Mainland China and Hong
Kong, specifically in the field of economics. In the fields of
business and management, Mudambi et al. (2008) ranked
the top 130 Asia Pacific business schools by their publication productivity. There are also some ranking studies of
economics and management in other regions such as the
United States (Chan & Liano, 2009), Central and Eastern
Europe (Meyer & Peng, 2005), and Western Europe
(Baden-Fuller, Ravazzolo, & Schweizer, 2000).
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:41 11 January 2016
A RANKING ANALYSIS OF THE MANAGEMENT SCHOOLS IN GREATER CHINA
In spite of this proliferation of research in publication
ranking, there are some limitations in existing findings.
First, few studies rank the management schools in China
based on their research publications in recent years.
Mudambi et al. (2008) ranked the research productivity of
Asian Pacific business schools with the help of three databases: the University of Texas at Dallas’s listing of 24 leading business journals (UTD-24), seven top management
journals in the University of Texas at Dallas’s database,
and five Asia Pacific management journals. However, their
studies did not use the SSCI database, which is a more systematic database to do comparative studies, and their methodologies were constrained by use of direct counting as a
methodology.
Second, some ranking studies do not differentiate the
quality of publication when counting the numbers of publication. However, the quality of a publication is very important for the ranking process (Yu & Gao, 2010). For
instance, from the perspective of academic standard, an
article published in the Academy of Management Journal
(where the impact factor in 2010 was 5.250) may have a
much greater contribution than an article published in International Journal of Technology Management (where the
impact factor in 2010 was 0.519). In fact, while publication
counts reflect the output quantity of universities (Xu et al.,
2008), it is publication citations that reflect the output quality of universities (Peng & Zhou, 2006).
Third, a fairly large number of articles are affiliated with
more than one institution, which should be distributed in
proportion to each institution. However, some ranking studies do not make this distinction (Mudambi et al., 2008).
To avoid these problems, we therefore conclude that both
the quantity and quality of publications can indicate the differences between academic levels of universities, and we
use the methodologies developed by Ritzberger (2008) and
Yu and Gao (2010) to do an undated ranking analysis of
management schools in Greater China area. To achieve this
goal, we collected relevant data of articles that had been
published by institutions in Greater China area (Mainland
China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Macau) in business and
management journals listed in the SSCI database over the
past 11 years (2000.1–2010.12). We also provided a comprehensive analysis based on this data by combining publications counts with the impact factor of journals. Finally,
we developed an updated ranking of management schools
in Greater China, finding some interesting results.
This study makes three novel contributions. First, we
include new data on business and management articles published in the SSCI database during the last decade (2000–
2010) and rank the research capability of institutions in the
Greater China area from the publication results. Second,
according to the recommendation of Ritzberger (2008) and
Yu and Gao (2010), we not only rank the institutions by
their total publications, but also by real publications
(accounting for coauthorship) and adjusted publications
231
(accounting for the impact factors), allowing us to examine
the quantity and the quality of publications. Third, we point
out the relatively stronger or weaker areas of research by
institutions in Greater China, a move that may have benefit
for education reform, institutional development, and
schools’ ability to publish more in top journals in the future.
DATA COLLECTION AND METHODOLOGY
We selected management or business articles published by
universities in Greater China (including Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Macau) in the past decade (2000–2010), which
were derived from the SSCI database.
Why Publication of Articles?
Teaching and researching are two basic missions of the
modern university. Therefore, rankings of management
schools depend on their teaching and research output. There
have been some rankings based on teaching, graduates’ salaries, and other indicators, such as the Financial Times
rankings and Forbes rankings. In addition, recent research
concluded that there is a strong correlation among researching, teaching, school rankings, and faculty research productivity (e.g., Siemens, Burton, Jensen, & Mendoza, 2005;
Tracy & Waldfogel, 1997). Mudambi et al. (2008) also suggested that achieving research excellence is a highly desirable aim for Asia Pacific business schools, and that
excellence can be measured by their publications in scientific journals. As our study focuses on the measurement of
the knowledge creation capabilities of institutions in the
Greater China area, we thus calculated the ranking by the
performance of scientific publications in the domains of
management and business.
Why the SSCI Database?
SSCI is an interdisciplinary citation index produced by
Thomson Reuters and includes 3,131 leading global social
science journals (as of June 28, 2013) that write across 50
disciplines, including management and business. It was
developed by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI).
In 2011, SSCI included 145 management journals and 98
business journals (there are 37 journals in the domains of
management and business). We chose the SSCI database
for our ranking research for five important reasons. First,
SSCI is a mature and systematic database. Many studies
have collected data from SSCI for ranking (Engemann &
Wall, 2009; Yu & Gao, 2010), and the legitimacy of SSCI
has been confirmed many times, meaning that it is a good
foundation for conducting sound research. Second, SSCI is
the most acceptable and popular index in the field of management for Chinese research institutions. SSCI is available
online through the Web of Science service in university
libraries, so that further research can be supported by this
232
M. HOU ET AL.
impressive database. Third, the impact-factors of journals
included in the SSCI database, which can be used to reflect
the quality of publications as well as used for the analysis
of both publication counts and adjusted publication counts
by journal quality, are vital to our methodological contribution. Fourth, many Chinese universities tend to use SSCI
criteria to judge their professors’ productivity and to set up
policies to encourage the scholars to publish articles in
SSCI listed journals, especially the ones with a high citation
index.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:41 11 January 2016
Why Greater China?
Ranking results will vary according to different periods and
various regions. With the continuous reform and openingup movement, China has made rapid progress in developing
its economy. Meanwhile, China has engaged in reforming
the university education system. Consequently, more and
more research articles have been published in international
journals by Chinese institutions especially since 2000 (see
Figure 1). However, the studies that directly examine the
performance of academic research for schools in the
Greater China area are limited (Peng, Lu, Shenkar, &
Wang, 2001), especially for the business and management
disciplines. As most of the rankings, such as Wu’s ranking,
only account for universities in Mainland China, we need
to expand the ranking scope to take Hong Kong, Macau,
and Taiwan into account. By doing so, we can compare the
relative publication capabilities in different parts of the
Greater China area.
From the previous analysis, our data for ranking are
derived from the articles in SSCI business and management
journals, which were published by institutions in Greater
China from January 2000 to December 2010. We exclude
meeting abstracts, proceeding articles, book reviews and
editorial materials. In summary, there were a total of 2,574
articles published by faculties or students of Chinese universities and scientific institutions.
Why Both Quality and Quantity?
In general, high-quality articles should be published in
high-quality journals because the reputation of journals and
the rigorous peer-review process can ensure the quality.
Some management schools (especially for schools in Mainland China) may obtain their reputation through publishing
several articles in top tier journals. The impact factor, the
average number of citations received per article published
in a particular journal during the two preceding years, is
widely used for measuring the quality of a journal (Jarwal,
Brion, & King, 2009; Peng & Zhou, 2006). Some scholars
suggested that this indicator is much more available in a
certain field than in various fields (Jemec, 2001), and it is
applicable for this ranking in the field of management and
business.
Counting Method and Criteria
One of the standard methodologies to rank research productivity is counting the number of publications in refereed
academic journals (Xu, Yalcinkaya, & Seggie, 2008). However, this ranking result can be biased because it is not correlated with the impact of publications, which is often
measured by citations (Peng & Zhou, 2006). So far, many
approaches have been developed for correcting the biases,
such as the BT-method (Bradley & Terry, 1952), the LPmethod (Liebowitz & Palmer, 1984), the H-index method
(Hirsch, 2004), the tournament method (Koczy & Strobel,
2007), and the invariant method (Palacio-Huerta & Volij,
2004). Ritzberger (2008) conducted a review of these methods and suggested that although these ranking methods
might be different, the ranking results will be largely consistent with each other, especially for top journals. We
chose to follow Ritzberger’s method and adopt six indexes
(publication counts, coauthorship-adjusted articles, impact
factor–adjusted articles, average quality of articles, independent research capacity, and cooperation intensity) to
reflect the research ability of institutions in Greater China
area in the research domains of business and management.
Publication counts. For the basic ranking of management schools in Greater China, we believe that it is necessary to start with the simplest method publication counts
(P), which can be directly obtained from the SSCI database.
For each separate institution, when any publication is affiliated with it, the institution will be counted once.
FIGURE 1 Publication of management and business articles in Greater China and Hong Kong (1980–2010).
A RANKING ANALYSIS OF THE MANAGEMENT SCHOOLS IN GREATER CHINA
Specifically, when an institution appears more than once in
the affiliation information of an article, the institution
should be counted only once. This basic index can be calculated by the following equation:
Pj D
n
X
Ci j
iD1
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:41 11 January 2016
When an institution j appears in the affiliation of article i,
the index Ci j D 1 in the equation, otherwise Ci j D 0.
Coauthorship-adjusted articles. If we use the first
index to rank institutions in management research, it will
be wrongly believed that the institution that published one
article independently made the same contribution as the
institution that published one article through cooperation
with other institutions. That is to say, the publication
counts cannot truly reflect the real number of publications
by an institution. Consequently, we should consider the
problem of coauthorship to adjust the aforementioned
index.
We adopt the following three steps to adjust the index.
First, if an article i has ai authors and one author M is affiliated to kmi institutions, author M actually contributes ai 1kmi of
this article for each institution. Second, if there are two or
more authors affiliated with institution j, the total contribution of institution j to article i should be added together as
follows:
a
X
i
1
ai km i
Ci m j
mD1
When author M of article i is affiliated to institution j, the
index Cimj D 1 in the equation, otherwise Cimj D 0. Third,
all the contribution of these n articles should add up. Then
the coauthorship adjusted articles of institution j are the following:
a
n X
X
i
CAPj D
iD1 mD1
Cim j
1
ai kmi
In the process of collecting data, we found that the relationship between authors and institutions in the database of
the SSCI is not clear before 2007, so that we cannot use
equation 2 to calculate this index. Given this reality, we
tried to reduce bias on the affiliation between authors and
institutions by downloading and checking the articles,
obtaining author’s information via the Internet, and so on.
For authors whose information was hard to obtain, we
assume that each institution contributes equally to an article
published before 2007. In the years from 2008 to 2010, the
affiliation between authors and institutions is clear, so that
233
we can use equation 2 to work out the coauthorshipadjusted articles (CAP) of each institution.
Impact factor–adjusted articles. As we mentioned
previously, the quality of an article is very important in
reflecting the research capacity of institutions (Yu & Gao,
2010). However, neither of the two indexes we introduced
before involves the quality factor of the publications. In
this case, it will be unjustifiably considered that an article
published in the Academy of Management Journal (which
in 2010 had an impact factor of 5.250) might have the same
contribution as an article published in the International
Journal of Technology Management (which had an impact
factor of 0.519 in 2010). The impact factor is widely used
to measure the quality of a journal by scholars in that
research area (Jarwal et al., 2009; Peng & Zhou, 2006), and
therefore, we should also consider article quality by taking
the impact factors into account.
On the basis of the CAP index, we further readjusted by
involving the impact factors of journals in the SSCI database. When Ifi is the impact factor of the journal in which
article i is published, we can give an index for measuring
the contribution of institution j to research development
(publications in SSCI database) as follows:
a
n X
X
i
IAPj D
If i Cimj
iD1 mD1
1
ai kmi
Average quality of articles. We can get an indicator
of the average impact factor of the publications developed
by one institution by dividing impact factor–adjusted publications (IAP) by the CAP, which reflect the average quality
(AQ) of articles published by an institution in the SSCI
database. The formula is as follows:
AQj D
IAPj
CAPj
It is much more difficult to publish articles in high-level
journals, especially when considering the difference
between top tier journals and ordinary journals. Consequently, many institutions in China publish many articles in
low-quality journals instead of a small number of articles in
high-quality journals. Nevertheless, high-quality studies
represent real knowledge creation and give long-term reputations to scholars and institutions. Therefore, this index
plays an important role in ranking the research institutions
in Greater China.
Independent research capacity. We also can get
another indicator of independent research capacity (IRC)
regarding an institution by dividing the CAP by the P
234
M. HOU ET AL.
counts. This index is brought forward to reflect the capacity
of an institution to independently complete publications in
the SSCI database. The formula is as follows:
IRCj D
CAPj
Pj
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:41 11 January 2016
The more articles are independently published by an
institution, the higher this index will be. Assuming that
institution j completes all the publications independently by
itself, then the CAP index is equal to the P counts index,
and we get the maximum of this index (IRCmax D 1). The
more cooperation an institution has with others to complete
a publication, the lower this index will be.
Cooperation intensity with Europe or the United
States. This index is introduced to measure the level of
cooperation between Chinese scholars and scholars in
Europe and the United States. With the reform of the education system, Chinese scholars are encouraged to cooperate
with scholars in developed countries (especially Europe
and the United States) to improve the level of their scientific research. Many management schools in Mainland
China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macau look for cooperation abroad to increase their number of publications through
hiring foreign scholars to help in writing collaborative
articles.
We first introduce another index Coj as a measure of
cooperation with developed countries. If an article i has
affiliations to both domestic institution j and a European or
American institution, Coj D 1, otherwise Coj D 0., and then
dividing Coj by P counts, we will get the index of cooperation intensity (CI) with Europe or the United States, as
follows:
CIj D
Coj
Pj
If all the publications by an institution are completed
through cooperating with scholars in developed countries
(chiefly in the United States and European countries), we
get the maximum of this index (CImax D 1). If all the publications by an institution are completed without the help of
institutions in Europe or the United States, we get the minimum of this index (CImin D 0).
In summary, we introduce six indexes that reflect different aspects of the research capacity of an institution. It
is difficult to combine all these six indexes together into
one index to measure the overall research capacity of an
institution. The index of IAP is the most comprehensive
indicator, which considers both the quantity and the quality of publication. Therefore, the final results of the ranking are based on these six indexes, especially on the IAP
index.
RANKING FINDINGS
Figure 1 compares the number of publications in the disciplines of management or business by institutions in Hong
Kong and Greater China, which have been indexed by
SSCI from 1980 to 2010. We can conclude that the number
of research articles in Greater China has increased rapidly
since 2000, averaging an increase rate of over 10% per year
since 2005.
Table 1 lists the 30 most published journals, which
account for more than half (58.70%) of the total publications. The four most published journals are European Journal of Operational Research (6.45%), International
Journal of Human Resource Management (4.39%), Journal
of the Operational Research Society (4.04%), and Journal
of Business Ethics (3.34%). Four ratios added together provide the concentration of the four most published journals
(C4 index) as 18.22%. However, there are no UTD-24 journals, which are international top tier journals in management, in the four most published journals. In the 30 most
published journals, there are only eight UTD-24 journals,
indicating that the quality of publications in Greater China
could be enhanced in the future. Meanwhile, we can see
from Table 1 that the most published journals are chiefly in
the domains of general management (nine), marketing
(six), operations management (five), and others, but none in
the finance and accounting domains, which indicates that
the development of each discipline is varied.
Table 2 shows the distribution of the articles in UTD-24
journals. There are 406 articles (15.77%) published in 15 of
the UTD-24 journals. That may suggest again the necessity
for considering the influence of publication quality on the
ranking analysis. Except these fifteen UTD-24 journals,
Chinese scholarship has never been published in the other
nine journals, most of which are in the domains of finance
and accounting (i.e., Journal of Accounting and Economics,
Journal of Accounting Research, Journal of Finance, Journal of Financial Economics, The Accounting Review, and
The Review of Financial Studies). This result is congruent
with Table 1 in that the development of the finance and
accounting discipline (in Greater China) is slow as compared to other disciplines. The possible reason is as follows.
There were no internationally accepted accounting principles in China until 2005. Therefore, the data Chinese
scholars used in their research were unacknowledged in
the international academic community. As a result, their
research has seldom been published in international journals. Therefore, Chinese scholars focus more on finance
and management, but seldom on accounting.
Table 3 shows the rankings of institutions in Greater
China from 2000 to 2010 with more than three publications
in the SSCI listed journals in the domains of business and
management.
First, based on the publication counts, we find the top six
institutions in Greater China are all in Hong Kong: City
A RANKING ANALYSIS OF THE MANAGEMENT SCHOOLS IN GREATER CHINA
235
TABLE 1
The 30 Most Published Journals by Chinese Institutions (2000–2010)
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:41 11 January 2016
Ranking in the 30 most
published journals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Journal name
n
%
European Journal of Operational Research
International Journal of Human Resource Management
Journal of The Operational Research Society
Journal of Business Ethics
Journal of International Business Studiesa
Tourism Management
Omega-International Journal of Management Science
Management Sciencea
Journal of Business Research
Information & Management
Systems Research and Behavioral Science
International Journal of Technology Management
Journal of Consumer Researcha
IEEE Transactions On Engineering Management
Industrial Marketing Management
Operations Researcha
Academy of Management Journala
Journal of Marketing Researcha
Journal of World Business
Journal of Organizational Behavior
Journal of Management Studies
Journal of International Marketing
Journal of Management Information Systems
Asia Pacific Journal of Management
Strategic Management Journala
Total Quality Management Business Excellence
Chinese Management Studies
International Business Review
Journal of Forecasting
Organization Sciencea
Summary
166
113
104
86
76
70
68
65
64
61
51
41
40
39
35
35
33
33
32
31
30
28
28
27
27
27
26
26
26
23
1,511
6.45
4.39
4.04
3.34
2.95
2.72
2.64
2.53
2.49
2.37
1.98
1.59
1.55
1.52
1.36
1.36
1.28
1.28
1.24
1.20
1.17
1.09
1.09
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.01
1.01
1.01
0.89
58.70
Discipline
Operations
HRM
Operations
Others
General Management
Others
General Management
Operations
General Management
Information System
Organizational Behavior
General Management
Marketing
General Management
Marketing
Operations
General Management
Marketing
HRM, Marketing, and Strategic Management
Organizational Behavior
General Management
Marketing
Information System
General Management
Strategic Management
Operations
General Management, Marketing, and HRM
Practitioners
Others
General Management, Organizational Behavior
Note: The total number of the publications is 2,574.
a
Journal belongs to the University of Texas at Dallas’s listing of 24 leading business journals (UTD-24).
University of Hong Kong (CHUK; 415), Hong Kong Polytechnic University (375), Chinese University of Hong
Kong (332), Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (HKUST; 321), University of Hong Kong (206),
and Hong Kong Baptist University (167). They are followed by Peking University (119), Lingnan University
(111), Tsinghua University (82), Xian Jiaotong University
(65), and China Europe International Business School (65).
There is only one institution in Mainland China (Peking
University) that published more than 100 articles. The gap
between City University of Hong Kong (top one in Hong
Kong) and Peking University (top one in Mainland China)
is so large that the former published almost four times more
articles than those published by the latter. This indicates
that the research capacity of institutions in Mainland China
is weaker than that of Hong Kong.
Secondly, if we account for the fact that an article could
be attributed to multiple institutions and use the CAP index
instead of the P count, the ranking order will be changed a
little, but the top six institutions are still the six in Hong
Kong. However, the seventh is no longer Peking University
(52.13) but rather Lingnan University (64.15), another institution in Hong Kong. This indicates that institutions in
Hong Kong perform better before or after coauthorship
adjustment.
Third, if we take both the quantity and quality of publications into account and use the IAP index, the top six institutions are still the same, but the ranking order is different.
For instance, HKUST ranks first according to IAP index
but ranks fourth according to both the P index and CAP
index, suggesting that HKUST performs very well in quality rankings. In contrast, CUHK ranks first according to the
P index, ranks second according to CAP index, and ranks
third according to IAP index, suggesting that CUHK performs less well in quality rankings than in quantity
rankings.
Fourth, we also consider the average quality of articles
by using the AQ index and the capacity of independent
236
M. HOU ET AL.
TABLE 2
The Distribution of Articles in UTD-24 Journals (2000–2010)
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:41 11 January 2016
Ranking in the most
published journals
5
8
13
16
17
18
25
30
45
49
69
72
75
109
133
Journal name
Journal of International Business Studies
Management Science
Journal of Consumer Research
Operations Research
Academy of Management Journal
Journal of Marketing Research
Strategic Management Journal
Organization Science
Information Systems Research
Marketing Science
Journal of Marketing
Journal of Operations Management
MIS Quarterly
Academy of Management Review
Administrative Science Quarterly
Summary
n
%
76 2.95
65 2.53
40 1.55
35 1.36
33 1.28
33 1.28
27 1.05
23 0.89
16 0.62
16 0.62
12 0.47
11 0.43
11 0.43
5
0.19
3
0.12
406 15.77
Note: The total number of the publications is 2,574. Other journals of
the University of Texas at Dallas’s listing of 24 leading business journals
(UTD-24) are Journal of Accounting and Economics, Journal of Accounting Research, Journal of Finance, Journal of Financial Economics, Journal on Computing, Manufacturing & Service Operations Management,
Production and Operations Management, The Accounting Review, and
The Review of Financial Studies.
research by the IRC index finding no significant difference
in either when considering institutions in Mainland China
and Hong Kong.
Finally, we look at the ranking of cooperation intensity
with Europe and the United States (CI), the indicator used
to measure the percentage of articles published by cooperating with scholars in Europe and the United States. We find
that there is no linear relationship between the IAP value
and the CI value (see Figure 2). However, the CI values of
the 23 institutions who published more than 20 articles are
between 0.3 and 0.7 (except for Huazhong University of
Science and Technology, whose CI value is 0.28). We
divided these 91 institutions in Greater China with more
than three publications in the SSCI into four clusters
according to the P index and the CI index. There were eight
institutions that published more than 100 articles over the
last decade in the first cluster (marked in Figure 2). They
could be identified as outstanding institutions with the
strongest research capacity, and their CI values were all in
midlevel. There were 15 institutions in the second cluster
(marked in Figure 2) that published more than 20 articles,
but less than 100 articles, over the last decade. Institutions
in the second cluster could be considered to perform well in
research, but not as well as institutions in the first cluster.
Their CI values were also in midlevel. The other institutions, whose published less than 20 articles, can be further
divided based on the CI index. Those institutions with a
high CI index (no less than 0.50) can be regarded as relying
more on cooperation with European and U.S. institutions
than institutions with a low CI index (less than 0.5). There
are several extreme examples like South China University
of Technology, Zhejiang University of Technology, Hebei
University of Technology, and Macau’s Institution for
Tourism Studies that all had the maximum CI index value,
while National Sun Yat-Sen University, East China Normal
University, Capital University of Economics and Businesses, Shanghai Second Polytechnic University, China
University of Mining and Technology, Chinese Academy
of Social Sciences, and National Tsing Hua University all
had the minimum CI index value. However, none of them
published more than 20 articles in SSCI during the last
decade. This may indicate either excessive reliance on
cooperation with developed countries or that working alone
is not good for publication outcomes.
DISCUSSION
Academic Contributions
We engage in this updated ranking of management schools
in Greater China (including Mainland China, Hong Kong,
Taiwan, and Macau) by using six indexes that contribute to
current academic literature in the following five aspects.
First, this article contributes to the literature by giving
a systematic ranking analysis of management schools in
Greater China based on the academic publications of the
SSCI database from 2000 to 2010. Following Ritzberger’s
(2008) and Yu and Gao’s (2010) ranking method, we
developed six indexes, which indicated different aspects
of each institution’s research capacity (both the quantity
and the quality of publications), to provide ranking results
as comprehensive as possible. Therefore, this study fills
an important research objective of understanding the
current research capacity of institutions in Greater China
by including both quantity and quality of publication
indexes. This finding provides useful information for
both international and Chinese scholars. In this era of
globalization, where scholars and students wish to acquire
more information on the reliability of those they deal
with, the ranking analysis plays an important role. For
instance, this ranking research can be assigned in a master of business administration course where students take
a trip to Greater China to learn of its business practices
and development. In addition, our finding illustrates the
underdeveloped condition of financial and accounting in
Greater China. International scholars should pay more
attention that it would be difficult for them to cooperate
with Chinese scholars in these disciplines.
Second, from the results we find out that the top six institutions with both high quantity and quality of articles are all
in Hong Kong, which indicates that there is still a large gap
in research capacity between Mainland China and Hong
Kong. This finding is similar to Mudambi et al. (2008)’s
237
A RANKING ANALYSIS OF THE MANAGEMENT SCHOOLS IN GREATER CHINA
TABLE 3
Ranking by the Publications in the SSCI Database (2000–2010)
P
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:41 11 January 2016
Institution
Harvard Universitya
Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
Hong Kong Polytech University
City University of Hong Kong
Chinese University of Hong Kong
University of Hong Kong
Hong Kong Baptist University
Peking University
Lingnan University
Tsinghua University
Xi’an Jiaotong University
China Europe International Business School
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Shanghai Jiao Tong University
Beihang University
University of Science and Technology of China
Fudan University
Zhejiang University
University of Macau
Renmin University of China
Huazhong University of Science and Technology
Nanjing University
Northeastern University
Sun Yat Sen University
Dalian University of Technology
Cheung Kong Graduate School of Business
Open University of Hong Kong
University of International Business and Economics
Wuhan University
Southeast University
South China University of Technology
Shenyang Institute of Aeronautical Engineering
Hefei University of Technology
Wuhan University of Technology
Southwestern University of Finance and Economics
Shanghai University of Finance and Economics
Shanghai University
Macau University of Science and Technology
Xiamen University
Beijing Jiaotong University
Donghua University
Jinan University
University of Electronic Science and Technology of China
Harbin Institute of Technology
Nankai University
Central South University
China University of Technology
East China University of Science and Technology
Shandong University
Tianjin University
Soochow University
National Sun Yat Sen University
Hunan University
National Chengchi University
Sichuan University
Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences
CAP
Value Rank
875
321
375
415
332
206
167
119
111
82
65
65
57
46
32
28
50
40
33
45
33
22
19
39
17
18
15
19
22
6
15
6
7
5
12
9
10
10
10
13
8
6
8
8
11
7
5
5
7
8
4
9
9
4
3
3
4
2
1
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
10
12
14
20
21
13
16
18
15
18
22
24
17
27
26
28
24
22
48
28
48
44
52
31
36
33
33
33
30
39
48
39
39
32
44
52
52
44
39
60
36
36
60
73
73
IAP
Value
Rank
Value
167.04
240.75
216.00
174.12
108.17
99.82
52.13
64.15
42.27
40.54
29.76
25.49
24.27
16.54
16.58
18.86
21.89
17.67
17.49
19.12
11.04
11.91
19.98
8.59
7.06
6.88
7.68
5.90
3.98
6.69
4.50
3.96
3.10
4.31
4.52
3.38
3.99
3.74
9.73
4.15
2.66
3.73
4.00
3.96
3.91
2.44
2.20
3.94
3.78
1.98
3.35
1.75
1.41
2.08
3.00
4
1
2
3
5
6
8
7
9
10
11
12
13
21
20
17
14
18
19
16
23
22
15
25
27
28
26
30
38
29
33
39
50
34
32
47
37
44
24
35
53
45
36
39
42
54
59
41
43
66
48
68
78
63
51
411.94
387.71
361.36
317.57
222.90
139.33
99.20
94.33
60.96
57.75
49.06
41.62
34.86
33.31
33.17
29.95
26.90
25.61
24.77
20.19
20.18
19.40
17.43
12.50
11.55
10.43
10.43
9.79
9.47
8.59
7.68
7.21
6.95
6.50
6.43
6.27
6.05
5.90
5.83
5.51
5.32
5.22
5.19
5.00
4.98
4.08
4.07
4.06
3.93
3.85
3.85
3.69
3.55
3.52
3.26
AQ
IRC
CI
Rank Value Rank Value Rank Value Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
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
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
50
52
53
54
55
2.47
1.61
1.67
1.82
2.06
1.40
1.90
1.47
1.44
1.42
1.65
1.63
1.44
2.01
2.00
1.59
1.23
1.45
1.42
1.06
1.83
1.63
0.87
1.46
1.64
1.52
1.36
1.66
2.38
1.28
1.71
1.82
2.24
1.51
1.42
1.86
1.52
1.58
0.60
1.33
2.00
1.40
1.30
1.26
1.27
1.67
1.85
1.03
1.04
1.95
1.15
2.11
2.51
1.69
1.09
2
29
21
17
6
50
12
39
42
44
24
27
43
8
9
31
63
41
48
69
16
28
73
40
26
35
53
23
3
60
19
18
4
37
46
13
36
32
85
55
10
49
58
62
61
22
14
71
70
11
65
5
1
20
66
0.52
0.64
0.52
0.52
0.53
0.60
0.44
0.58
0.52
0.62
0.46
0.45
0.53
0.52
0.59
0.38
0.55
0.54
0.39
0.58
0.50
0.63
0.51
0.51
0.39
0.46
0.40
0.27
0.66
0.45
0.75
0.57
0.62
0.36
0.50
0.34
0.40
0.37
0.75
0.52
0.44
0.47
0.50
0.36
0.56
0.49
0.44
0.56
0.47
0.50
0.37
0.19
0.35
0.69
1.00
34
12
33
32
31
17
58
21
38
14
52
54
28
37
18
71
25
27
69
20
43
13
39
41
68
51
64
89
10
55
4
22
15
78
42
81
65
72
5
36
56
50
45
77
24
47
57
23
48
46
74
91
79
7
1
0.48
0.39
0.47
0.61
0.53
0.32
0.68
0.35
0.49
0.62
0.65
0.56
0.58
0.58
0.54
0.55
0.33
0.42
0.42
0.28
0.43
0.37
0.50
0.45
0.74
0.78
0.59
0.67
0.33
1.00
0.64
0.10
0.20
0.80
0.31
0.67
0.27
0.44
0.44
0.25
0.63
0.50
0.50
0.88
0.57
0.57
0.43
0.57
0.50
0.17
0.00
0.20
0.80
0.80
0.40
48
59
49
28
38
70
16
61
47
27
24
35
30
30
37
36
62
55
55
72
53
60
39
50
15
10
29
17
62
1
25
84
79
6
71
17
73
51
51
74
26
39
39
5
32
32
53
32
39
83
85
79
6
6
57
(Continued on next page)
238
M. HOU ET AL.
TABLE 3
Ranking by the Publications in the SSCI Database (2000–2010) (Continued)
P
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:41 11 January 2016
Institution
National Taiwan University
National Chiao Tung University
Beijing Normal University
Feng Chia University
Jilin University
Nanjing University of Aeronaut & Astronaut
South China Normal University
National Cheng Kung University
East China Normal University
Macao Polytechnic Institute
Northwestern Polytechnical University
National Chung Cheng University
Beijing Institute of Technology
Tongji University
Chung Hua University
Beijing International Studies University
Zhejiang University of Technology
Shenzhen University
Zhejiang Gongshang University
Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications
Fuzhou University
China Agricultural University
National Changhua University of Education
Hebei University of Technology
National Taipei University
Capital University of Economics and Business
Kunming University of Science & Technology
Shanghai Second Polytechnic University
China University of Mining and Technology
National Central University
Chinese Academy of Social Sciences
National Tsing Hua University
Institute for Tourism Studies
Central University of Finance and Economics
Jiangxi University of Finance and Economics
Northwestern University
CAP
Value Rank
4
5
7
6
5
3
8
5
4
5
3
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
5
4
4
4
3
3
3
4
3
3
3
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
60
52
44
48
52
73
39
52
60
52
73
60
60
60
60
73
73
73
52
60
60
60
73
73
73
60
73
73
73
60
73
73
73
73
73
73
Value
1.58
2.11
3.57
2.36
2.12
2.00
5.32
1.41
1.66
3.25
1.75
1.48
2.83
1.66
1.41
1.25
1.58
1.50
2.24
2.16
1.07
2.08
1.58
1.08
1.41
1.49
0.99
0.93
2.33
1.24
2.33
1.16
1.00
0.91
0.96
1.83
IAP
Rank
72
62
46
55
61
65
31
78
70
49
68
77
52
70
78
82
72
75
58
60
86
63
72
85
78
76
88
90
56
83
56
84
87
91
89
67
Value
3.24
3.17
3.10
2.87
2.81
2.77
2.62
2.59
2.58
2.54
2.42
2.37
2.37
2.36
2.14
2.05
2.03
1.99
1.59
1.57
1.52
1.48
1.46
1.44
1.12
1.06
1.06
1.01
0.97
0.97
0.86
0.83
0.69
0.53
0.30
0.15
AQ
IRC
CI
Rank Value Rank Value Rank Value Rank
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
67
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
81
83
84
84
86
87
88
89
90
91
2.05
1.50
0.87
1.22
1.32
1.39
0.49
1.84
1.56
0.78
1.38
1.60
0.84
1.42
1.52
1.64
1.29
1.32
0.71
0.73
1.42
0.71
0.93
1.34
0.79
0.71
1.07
1.08
0.42
0.78
0.37
0.71
0.69
0.58
0.32
0.08
7
38
74
64
57
51
87
15
33
77
52
30
75
47
34
25
59
56
81
79
45
82
72
54
76
83
68
67
88
78
89
80
84
86
90
91
0.40
0.42
0.51
0.39
0.42
0.67
0.67
0.28
0.42
0.65
0.58
0.37
0.71
0.42
0.35
0.42
0.53
0.50
0.45
0.54
0.27
0.52
0.53
0.36
0.47
0.37
0.33
0.31
0.78
0.31
0.78
0.39
0.33
0.30
0.32
0.61
66
60
40
67
59
8
9
88
62
11
19
75
6
63
80
61
29
44
53
26
90
35
30
76
49
73
83
85
2
86
3
70
82
87
84
16
0.20
0.33
0.40
0.80
0.25
0.75
0.50
0.75
0.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.50
1.00
0.67
0.33
0.33
0.67
0.67
0.67
1.00
0.20
0.00
0.25
0.00
0.00
0.33
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.33
0.33
0.67
79
62
57
6
74
11
39
11
85
11
39
74
11
39
74
39
1
17
62
62
17
17
17
1
79
85
74
85
85
62
85
85
1
62
62
17
Note: Only rank institutions with three or more publications in 2000–2010 were ranked. Of these 2,574 publications, in the domains of management and
business from the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) database, were published between 2000 and 2010. The publication (P) index indicates the number of
publications an institution participates in; the coauthorship-adjusted article (CAP) index indicates the real number of publications an institution contributes
to; the impact factor–adjusted publications (IAP) index is a comprehensive index to evaluate the research capacity of an institution; the average quality (AQ)
index indicates the average quality of articles published by an institution; the independent research capacity (IRC) index indicates the ability of an institution
to complete a publication independently; the cooperation intensity (CI) index indicates the extent to which an institution cooperates with those of developed
countries (i.e., European countries and the United States in this study). The p value of Harvard University was added as a reference point for productivity.
findings in the area of economics. We speculate the following reasons for this difference. One is that scholars in Hong
Kong may have better academic training and better English
skills than scholars in Mainland China. Another is that the
education system in Mainland China is not as mature as
that in Hong Kong, which results in many of China’s top
scholars moving to Hong Kong’s universities to further
their research. Moreover, our ranking may be an imperfect
gauge because it only considers academic publications.
However, the trend in Figure 1 shows that the research
capacity of Mainland China’s schools is progressing
rapidly. We forecast that big changes will take place in the
ranking within the next 10 years.
Third, our findings suggest that the rankings will be different based on the quantity and quality of articles. Some
institutions perform well in quantity rankings, but not as
well in quality rankings. This indicates they may focus on
publishing an extensive list of articles but put less emphasis
on the quality of their publications. Therefore, we suggest
that institutions only paying attention to one aspect, either
quality or quantity, should adjust their incentive system to
balance both the quantity and quality of publications. In
A RANKING ANALYSIS OF THE MANAGEMENT SCHOOLS IN GREATER CHINA
239
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:41 11 January 2016
FIGURE 2 Publication count index and cooperation intensity index distribution of 91 management schools in Greater China.
order to publish more in top journals, institutions can
strengthen cooperation with influential foreign scholars. In
addition, the Chinese Ministry of Education should notice
the importance of balanced development and propose
improvement measures.
Fourth, this study shows that the development of each
discipline in management is varied. The 30 most published
journals include general management and operations management domains but no finance or accounting domains.
Therefore, future development in China’s education reforms
may need to enhance research capacity in finance and
accounting domains to stimulate maturation in this underdeveloped facet of Chinese scholarship.
Finally, we divide all the institutions in our ranking into
four clusters according to the P count and CI with developed countries. We find that most institutions that published
more than 20 articles over the past 10 years have a CI index
between 0.3 and 0.7. That may indicate that either excessive reliance on cooperation with developed countries or
complete independence for doing research is not the most
effective strategy for the development of an institution’s
research capability. Institutions should balance independence and cooperation to improve the institution’s research
outcomes. As we know, Mainland institutions establish
their reputations through different approaches. For instance,
Peking University and Tsinghua University have regional
advantages to attract more talented scholars and develop
research cooperation with foreign agencies; China Europe
International Business School is well known for its rich
connections overseas, and Xi’an Jiao Tong University
enhances its research capacity by recruiting and retaining
productive scholars. All of them demonstrate possible strategies for other institutions to find a balance between international cooperation and independent research.
Limitations and Future Research Directions
Despite its major contributions, this ranking research also
has some limitations. First, this study used English-language publications in SSCI to rank management schools in
Greater China, but Chinese-language publications were not
counted. Consequently, language bias may exist in this
ranking method, which cannot reflect the complete research
capacity of a research institution (Yu & Gao, 2010). As a
consequence, future researchers should use Chinese publications and English publications to rank management
schools in Greater China to extend this study.
Second, there are various ways to build a strong institutional reputation. Institutions may be committed to publishing books, participating in academic conferences, or
publishing on nonacademic journals; however, the rankings
of this article only take academic publications into account.
Therefore, future scholars are encouraged to consider various scientific research outputs, such as participation in academic conferences, when they conduct similar ranking
research.
Third, our study describes the quantity and quality of
articles published by these 91 institutions in Greater China,
but the dynamic changes in quantity and quality of articles
published by each institution are not revealed. The question
of why and how some institutions rapidly developed
research capacity over the past 10 years may be a promising
research question for future studies. In addition, these
underdeveloped disciplines, such as finance and accounting,
need to be paid more attention in the future. It is an unprecedented challenge, but also an opportunity at the same time.
CONCLUSION
We collected data of management or business articles published by institutions in Greater China (including Mainland
China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Macau) in the SSCI database during the past decade (2000–2010). Based on a total
of 2574 publications, this study provides the first ranking of
management schools in Greater China based on
Ritzberger’s (2008) and Yu and Gao’s (2010) ranking
method. The ranking indicates that HKUST is the top
research university in Greater China when considering both
the quantity and quality of publications, CUHK ranks first
according to only publication numbers, and Peking University ranks number one among institu