OM Research: Leading Authors and Institutions...Decision Sciences Volume 0 Number 0 May 2020...
Transcript of OM Research: Leading Authors and Institutions...Decision Sciences Volume 0 Number 0 May 2020...
Decision SciencesVolume 0 Number 0May 2020
© 2020 Decision Sciences Institute
OM Research: Leading Authorsand Institutions
Xenophon A. Koufteros†Department of Information and Operations Management, College of Business, Texas A&MUniversity, 320 Wehner Building, College Station, TX 77845-4217,e-mail: [email protected]
Sunil Babbar, Ravi S. Behara, and Milad BaghersadDepartment of Information Technology and Operations Management, College of Business,Florida Atlantic University, 777 Glades Road, Boca Raton, FL 33431-0991,e-mail: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
ABSTRACT
In this study, we focus on papers published in a set of four premier journals, Journal ofOperations Management, Production and Operations Management,Manufacturing andService Operations Management, and Management Science over the 15-year period of2001–2015. Using simple and weighted counts of papers along with network measuresof Total Degree centrality and Bonacich Power centrality, we provide rankings of topauthors and institutions in the field of Operations Management (OM) serving as hubs ofresearch, connectivity, and productivity from across the world. In view of benefits thatcan accrue from increased research collaboration between academicians and practition-ers, we examine the levels of practitioner participation in the research works publishedacross these premier journals. We survey the extent to which the top ranked authors andinstitutions network with practitioners in producing joint publications in these journals.By identifying the top ranked authors and institutions in OM, this study provides in-formation that can be useful to stakeholders who may wish to engage in collaborativeresearch with the leading agents, or pursue educational opportunities with them. Thestudy also presents a profile of productivity levels and what it takes for authors and in-stitutions to rank among the top tiers. In so doing, it offers insights into yearly publicationrates and underlying trends—insights that can be useful in the context of promotion andtenure, faculty evaluations, and in assessing the standings of individuals and institutionsrelative to leadership benchmarks. [Submitted: November 6, 2019. Revised: April 22,2020. Accepted: April 22, 2020.]
Subject Areas: Faculty Evaluation, Operations Management Research,Practitioner Participation, Promotion and Tenure, Rankings, ResearchLeadership, Social Networks, Research Productivity, Benchmarks, Top Au-thors, and Top Institutions.
Correction added on July 13, 2020 after first online publication: Counts for POM, MSOM, and MS wereslightly changed for certain individuals and respective universities after a reevaluation for accuracy.
† Corresponding author.
1
2 OM Research
INTRODUCTION
With the ever-increasing importance of research and research engagement, thisstudy examines the body of Operations Management (OM) papers publishedin a selected set of four premier journals: Journal of Operations Manage-ment (JOM), Production and Operations Management (POM), Manufacturingand Service Operations Management (MSOM), and Management Science (MS)to identify leading authors and institutions serving as important hubs of con-nectivity and productivity in OM research. We primarily examine publicationssince the turn of the century over the 15-year period of 2001–2015. In addi-tion to measures of research output, we also employ social network measuresof centrality to identify leading OM authors and institutions from across theworld.
Social network analysis has been used extensively in empirical and theoret-ical studies in the social sciences out of interest in examining patterns of humaninteraction (Wasserman & Faust, 1994; Fischer & Shavit, 1995). The structure ofsocial networks can have a myriad of implications, such as the spread of informa-tion, ideas, knowledge, and sharing of resources. Social networks have importantimplications not only for research in the field of OM, but also for research in gen-eral. The aspect of co-authorship in research endeavors, as a form of social net-working, is increasingly drawing the interest of the academic community (Laband& Tollison, 2000; Barabási et al., 2002; Moody, 2004; Acedo, Barroso, Casanueva,& Galan, 2006; Martins, Martins, Csillag, & Pereira, 2012). Research collabora-tions hold considerable appeal as they serve to dynamically spur the sharing ofideas, knowledge, competencies, and perspectives. They also have the potential toimprove quality of the research effort and research productivity. Accordingly, inour study, we recognize authors and institutions not only by the count of paperson which they are included in authorship, but also based on network measures ofcentrality. The centrality measures we use are indicative of the extent and natureof relationships authors and institutions have developed as well as their potentialto influence research by serving as informational bridges between entities engagedin OM research endeavors.
In view of the potential benefits that can accrue from greater interactionsbetween academicians and practitioners in research endeavors (Cascio, 2008;Chang, 2019), we examine the levels of practitioner participation in the authorshipof research published across the four journals. We also probe the extent to whichthe top ranked authors and institutions network with practitioners in producingjoint publications.
Additionally, we also present a profile of the productivity levels and what ittakes for authors and institutions to rank among the top tiers. Such profiles offerinsights into yearly publication rates and underlying trends—insights that can beuseful in the context of promotion and tenure, faculty evaluations, the granting ofawards and recognitions, and in assessing the standings of individuals and institu-tions relative to leadership benchmarks and aspirations.
Koufteros et al. 3
METHODOLOGY
Selection of the Journal Set
A number of studies across various business disciplines have ranked authorsand institutions based on publications appearing in a selected set of highly ratedjournals within their particular discipline (Grover, Segars, & Simon, 1992; Claver,González, & Llopis, 2000; Trieschmann, Dennis, Northcraft, & Nieme, 2000). Inthe field of OM, numerous studies have used such methodology. As some exam-ples, Young, Baird, and Pullmam (1996) identified and ranked the top 100 authorsand institutions based on publications appearing in an exclusive set of highly ratedjournals over a 5-year period. Babbar, Koufteros, Bendoly, Behara, Metters, &Boyer (2020) analyzed aspects of dispersion displayed by highly published authorsand institutions, and drew attention to lessons that may be learned, based on publi-cations appearing in a select set of premier OM journals. Malhotra and Kher (1996)ranked institutions in the field of OM based on publications appearing across fivehighly regarded journals over a span of 15 years. In a similar manner, Hsieh andChang (2009) identified and ranked the top 20 authors in the field of OM based onpublications appearing across a set of five leading journals.
Accordingly, the analysis undertaken in our study is based on papers pub-lished in four premier journals: JOM, POM, MSOM, and MS. These journalsare among the most highly respected outlets for OM research (Agarwal, 2002;Olson, 2005; Theoharakis, Voss, Hadjinicola, & Soteriou, 2007; Meredith,Steward, & Lewis, 2011; Shang, Saladin, Fry, & Donohue, 2015) and are all in-cluded in the Financial Times select list of top 50 journals. They are also includedin the University of Texas-Dallas (2020) select list of premier business journals.
In order to measure contribution, Malhotra and Kher (1996) used standard-ized number of pages published as a primary measure and number of paperspublished as a secondary measure—also showing that these two measures arehighly correlated across the journals, with Spearman’s rank correlation coeffi-cient being .89 (significant at the .001 level). In our study, we use the number ofpapers published as a measure of contribution for three reasons. First, the correla-tion between the standardized number of pages and the number of papers publishedis found to be very high (i.e., .89), as alluded to by Malhotra and Kher (1996).Second, we are hesitant to equate contribution with the standardized number ofpages published as factually some of the most highly cited papers appearing inthese journals are relatively short papers. Third, journals have different standardsor traditions for manuscript length and these standards continue to evolve.
Data Collection
As our research aims to identify top authors and institutions in the field of “OM,”every paper published in the core operations management journals JOM, POM,and MSOM over the 15-year period of 2001–2015 was included in the data set forthis research.
Being a journal of much broader business scope, MS publishes research fromacross a wide range of disciplines such as accounting, behavioral economics, busi-ness strategy, entrepreneurship and innovation, finance, information systems, mar-keting, operationsmanagement, etc. Each of these areas (referred to as departments
4 OM Research
by MS) is assigned Department Editors who administer the review process ofmanuscripts deemed as belonging to their respective department. Starting with is-sue number 5 of the year 2004, every article appearing in MS identifies the partic-ular department the paper was deemed to belong to. Accordingly, from that pointforward, every paper that listed its department as being operations and supply chainmanagement, supply chain management, operations management, or manufactur-ing was included in the 15-year data set of our study. For simplicity, going forwardand throughout the article, we shall refer to these departments collectively as theOM department. It should be noted that during certain periods in time MS alsopublished papers under the umbrella (i.e., department) of interdisciplinary man-agement research, and public sector applications. We examined all such papersand included from among them those that had a definitive OM focus in their inter-disciplinary composition or in the nature of their public sector application. For theset of papers appearing in MS from 2001 through issue number 4 of 2004, as theydid not list the particular department they belonged to, all papers were reviewedand those deemed to be OM papers were included in our data set. A second authoralso reviewed the papers independently from 2001 through issue number 4 of 2004fromMS and identified OMpapers. There was a high degree of agreement betweenthe two reviewers. The very few papers that were not mutual to both were discussedand inclusion from among these was based on agreement between the reviewers.
We note that an exception is made on two occasions and specifically whengenerating two tables (i.e., Tables 2b and 6). For those two tables, our selectionof MS papers was more inclusive; in essence, we are including papers that havean OM interface or linkage but those papers were accepted by other departmentssuch as Decision Analysis, Optimization, and Marketing among others. The moti-vation to construct those two tables is to offer the constituents an ability to examineoverall productivity for promotion and tenure decisions (or other recognitions suchas professorships or awards). Towards this purpose, each author took the respon-sibility to review every single paper over a different 3 year period across all MSdepartments during 2004–2015 and generated a list of additional MS papers ashaving an OM interface or linkage.
No Editorials, Replies, Rejoinders, or Erratums were included. Accordingly,this data set comprised 627 papers from JOM, 880 from POM, 479 from MSOM,and 461 from MS, for a total of 2447 papers from across these journals. The fieldsof data entry for each paper in our data set included the title of the journal, theyear of publication, volume number, issue number, name of each of the authors ofthe paper, the institutional affiliation of each author as it appeared on the paper,and the country/region of location of each author’s affiliated institution as notedon the paper. In addition to the credit given to authors, the data, as entered, alsogave credit to institutions based on how these appeared in the author affiliations aslisted on the paper.
Figure 1 shows the trend in the number of published papers overall and byjournal over the 15-year period of 2001–2015. While a positive slope is visible inthe aggregate, POM can, for the most part, be credited for this growth in that thenumber of papers published in POM increased from 146 to 177 to 363, respectively,over the consecutive 3-year periods of 2007–2009, 2010–2012, and 2013–2015.
Koufteros et al. 5
Figure 1: Trend in the number of published papers.
Year
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 20150
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260
Nu
mb
er o
f P
ap
ers
117
145
101
37
27
37
27
37
26
46
56
39
39
3849
49
28
48
3938
3848
59
40
30
40
70
30
1515
35
35
45
2515
34
44
34
44
34
34
32
22
52
42
32
23
33
2333
23
3323
53
81
41
31
31
21
31
MS
POM
JOM
MSOM
Data Standardization
To ensure accuracy and reliability of the data, we carefully checked and standard-ized all fields of the data. As an example, in some cases we found inconsistencyin how the name of a particular author appeared across different papers publishedin these journals. On some papers, the author’s first name appeared as a nick namerather than the complete first name. In some other cases, while the author’s com-plete namewas listed on a particular paper, the author’s middle initial was excludedon some other(s). Before performing the analysis, we carefully checked and stan-dardized each author’s name in the database such that it read exactly the sameacross every record containing that author’s name. We similarly checked and stan-dardized the names of each of the institutions of affiliation and countries/regionslisted across papers in order to ensure that they are identical across the entiredata set.
Our standardization of records in the data set ensured the accuracy of countsas well as accuracy of the network measures of centrality that we employed in thisstudy. In constituting our data set, we assigned each paper a unique identifier, suchas JOM200101, comprising the journal name (JOM), year of publication (2001),and the sequential number (01) assigned to the paper in keepingwith the order of itsinclusion from that journal. We used this same nomenclature in the assigning of aunique identification marker to every paper included from across all four journals.
6 OM Research
Joint Publications and Network Measures of Centrality
The proportion of co-authored papers in published research has continued to risefor quite some time (Acedo et al., 2006). Our analysis of authorship of paperspublished across our four journals also confirms such trend. We found the per-centage of sole-authored papers to have systematically declined over the 15-yearperiod of our study: from an average of 14.9% for the 5-year period of 2001–2005,to 10.4% for 2006–2010, and 7.2% for 2011–2015, essentially cut in half. Duringthis same period, we found the percentage of papers with three or more authorshaving increased from an average of 38.7% for 2001–2005, to 45.3% for 2006–2010, to 56.9% for 2011–2015; almost a 50% increase.
A natural outcome of greater numbers of multiauthored papers has been thepromulgation of networking in research endeavors, with social networks receivingincreased attention in the research literature (Borgatti & Li, 2009; Martins et al.,2012). Members of networks benefit from synergy via the sharing of information,ideas, expertise and resources and, by doing so, they are able to enhance the workof others in the network (Moody, 2004; Buhman, Kekre, & Singhal, 2005; Acedoet al., 2006; Hayes, 2008; Singhal & Singhal, 2012a). Social network analysismaps relational linkages among agents in terms of things such as membership,communication, workflow, the sharing of resources, or exchange of goods, withthe agents in a research context representing entities such as authors or institutions(Scott, 2000; Carter, Ellram, & Tate, 2007). In such analysis, individual agents areviewed as being part of the larger structure they are embedded in (Fombrun, 1982;Benedek, Lublóy, & Vastag, 2014).
Social network analysis has been used extensively to examine linkageswithinand across organizations, both vertically and horizontally and at the individualand organizational levels (Gulati, 1998; Borgatti & Foster, 2003; Sarker, Sarker,Kirkeby, & Chakraborty, 2011). As social networks affect collaboration and deci-sion making, organizations benefit from tapping the knowledge of social networksto identify greater opportunities for collaboration (McGregor, 2006; Levina, Levin,McGill, & Nediak, 2015), innovation (Lovejoy & Sinha, 2010; Mazzola, Perrone,& Kamuriwo, 2015), learning (Kraatz, 1998), product development (Gunnec &Raghavan, 2017), marketing (Guo, Pathak, & Cheng, 2015; Srinivasan, Guo, &Devaraj, 2017), and recognition of needs (Sosa, 2014). Other benefits, derivedfrom across varied contexts, can include matters such as cost reduction, transactionefficiency, increased collaboration in research, and the pooling of resources.
In the context of business, a firm’s ability to access key resources through itsnetwork of alliances has the potential to engender competitive advantage (Gulati,Nohria, & Zaheer, 2000; Morris, Bessant, & Barnes, 2006; Allred, Fawcett,Wallin, & Magnan, 2011) with the pooled network resources constituting a formof social capital for the networked firms (Burt, 1997; Gulati, 1999). Just as orga-nizations create and manage knowledge in order to gain competitive advantages(Garvin, 1993; Hult, Ketchen, & Nichols, 2003; Kearns & Lederer 2003; Tomas& Hult, 2003; Carter et al., 2007; Revilla & Villena, 2012), in the context ofresearch, stakeholders, such as faculty, students, and practitioners, can benefitfrom knowing who the top ranked authors and institutions are based not only onthe count of papers published but also the network measures of centrality.
Koufteros et al. 7
The importance or prominence of agents in a network is usually defined bymeasures of their location in the network. These measures include total degree(also referred to as degree) and Bonacich power, which are different centralitymeasures in dichotomous (nondirectional) relationships such as those in this study.With research showing network centrality as affecting the agent’s influence and op-portunism (Fombrun, 1983; Brass, 1984; Ronchetto, Hutt, &Reingen, 1989; Dong,Liu, Yu, & Zheng, 2015), measures of centrality have been extensively used for as-sessing the prominence of agents in networks (Freeman, 1979; Faust, 1997; Acedoet al., 2006; Carter, Leuschner, & Rogers, 2007; Martins et al., 2012; Babbar,Behara, Koufteros, & Wong, 2018; Babbar, Koufteros, Behara, & Wong, 2019).
The total degree centrality of an agent is a measure based on the relativenumber of direct connections the particular agent (in our case, an author or an in-stitution hereafter) haswith other agents in the network. It is calculated based on theagent × agent matrices. Agents scoring high on this metric have more connectionsto others in the same network, are considered as being “in the know,” and likelyto receive and pass important information on to others in the network because oftheir being linked to so many others. By virtue of their position, these agents haveaccess to resources such as ideas, perspectives, knowledge, and expertise of manyothers (Wasserman & Faust, 1994).
A characteristic that further adds to the leadership role of agents lies in thefact that while these agents are connected to others, those that they are connectedto are also in turn highly connected with others. In this sense, the prominence ofa central agent in a network is enhanced by the extent to which its neighbors arealso central. The measure of such centrality of an agent is the Bonacich powercentrality, which computes the centrality of each agent based on the centrality ofits neighbors (Bonacich, 1972). This measure of centrality captures the weightinessof connections and is calculated based on the agent × agent matrices.
When the entire network is the unit of modeling, the measure of networkdensity describes the level of links or connections among the agents in the net-work. Network density is defined as the ratio of the number of links betweenagents relative to the maximum possible links for a network. When consideringco-authorships within an academic discipline (such as in OM) across the world,one can expect the actual level of collaboration among individuals to be very lowcompared to all possible links.
With respect to the simple count of papers published, single authors are ac-counted for in the same way as other authors who have co-authored papers withothers. This is because the simple count of number of papers assigned to each au-thor includes the papers on which the author is either a single author or part ofa team of co-authors. However, we also compute, present, and recognize authorsbased on the measure of weighted count of published papers that includes consid-eration of the number of authors on a paper.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Before presenting and discussing our findings on top authors and institutions, wepresent some descriptive statistics of our overall data set in Table 1.
8 OM Research
Table1:
Somedescriptivestatisticsof
theoveralld
ataset.a
Journal
TotalP
apers
theJournal
Published
No.
ofUnique
Authorswho
Have
Publishedin
theJournal
Average
No.
ofUniqu
eAuthorswho
Have
Publishedin
theJournal
PerPaper
Average
No.
ofAuthors
PerPaper
Percentage
ofPapers
thatareSo
leAuthored
No.
ofUnique
Institu
tions
thatHave
Publishedin
theJournal
Average
No.
ofUniqu
eInstitu
tions
thatHave
Publishedin
theJournal
PerPaper
Average
No.
ofInstitu
tions
PerPaper
JOM
627
992
1.58
2.64
9.89
%37
80.60
c2.04
POM
880
1,39
61.59
2.54
8.98
%48
50.55
2.04
MSO
M47
974
21.55
2.47
11.69%
242
0.50
2.00
MS
461b
670
1.44
2.40
11.06%
210
0.45
1.95
Total(overall)
2,44
72,87
81.18
2.53
10.13%
801
0.33
2.01
a These
statisticsareforthe15-yearperiod
of2001–2015of
thisstudy.
bAsMSisan
interdisciplinaryjournal,thisisthenumbero
fpaperspublishedinMSthatwereidentifi
edas
beingOM
papersbasedon
thepaper’saccepting
department.The
461OM
papersin
MSrepresent2
0.73%
ofthe2224
papersMSpublishedover
the15-yearperiod.F
ortheotherthreeprim
aryjournals,
allp
aperspublishedin
them
wereconsidered
asbeingOM
papers.
c The
differencesin
theaveragenumberof
unique
institu
tions
that
have
publishedin
thejournalperpaperarestatistically
significant
across
journals(at
leastatanalph
aof
.05)
except
betw
eenPO
MandMSO
MandMSO
MandMS.
Koufteros et al. 9
On average, roughly 2.5 authors appear on each paper published in any of thefour journals, while the percentage of papers that are sole authored hovers around10%. The average number of institutions represented per paper is about two.Whileall four journals share roughly the same average number of authors per paper, a sim-ilar percentage of papers that are sole authored, and a comparable average numberof institutions per paper, Management Science displays a slightly lower averagenumber of unique authors who have published in the journal per paper and a loweraverage number of unique institutions that have published in the journal per paper.
The Top Authors
In this section, we identify the most-published authors as well as those foundto rank among the top based on network measures of total degree centrality andBonacich power centrality.
The most-published authors
Table 2a presents the top 50 most-published OM authors from across the worldbased on total number of papers on which the individual is included as author fromacross all four journals over the 15-year period of 2001–2015. We also include forthese top authors their weighted count of papers, with weighted counts computedsuch that an author receives a credit of 1/n toward that author’s weighted count,where n is the number of authors on the paper.
As seen in Table 2a, the top two most-published OM authors are Luk N.Van Wassenhove and Aleda V. Roth, having published 38 and 28 papers, respec-tively, across all four journals over the 15-year period. They are followed by PanosKouvelis with 27, Roger G. Schroeder with 26, and Suresh P. Sethi with 24. Ofthe top five authors, four are from U.S.-based institutions (i.e., their current insti-tutional affiliation is in the United States), and one (i.e., Luk N. Van Wassenhove)from a French institution. Of the top 50 authors (51 in all, including ties), 44 arebased in the United States, two in each of Canada and Hong Kong, and one in eachof France, Ireland, and the United Kingdom. When the weighted number of papersmetric is considered, the top three authors respectively are Luk N. Van Wassen-hove, Aleda V. Roth, and Panos Kouvelis, followed by Gérard P. Cachon at #4 andRoger G. Schroeder at #5.
While the counts presented in Table 2a include all papers from JOM, POM,and MSOM, and those accepted by the OM department of MS, we wanted to ex-amine whether the list of the most published authors differs if we were to be moreinclusive when pondering publications at MS. Thus, we considered additional pa-pers that have an OM linkage or interface but which were accepted for publica-tion by a MS department other than OM (e.g., Decision Analysis, Optimization,Entrepreneurship and Innovation). As such, we examined all papers authors havepublished in MS over the 15-year period of this study and, from among those, weidentified all of their papers that had some linkage/interface to OM—irrespectiveof their departmental affiliation. The initial batch of papers that were identified byeach author was reviewed by a second author and final selection and inclusion ofpapers deemed as having some linkage to OMwas based upon agreement betweenthe researchers.
10 OM Research
Table2a:To
p50
OM
authorsby
totaln
umberof
papers.
Rank
Author
Total
Papers
aWeightedNum
berof
PapersAuthoredb
Current
Institu
tionalA
ffiliatio
ncCurrent
Country
orRegionof
Affiliatio
nd
1Wassenh
ove,Luk
N.V
an38
13.43
INSE
AD(France)
France
2Roth,
Aleda
V.
2811.25
ClemsonUniversity
USA
3Kouvelis,P
anos
2711.00
WashingtonUniversity
USA
4Sc
hroeder,Rog
erG.e
268.98
University
ofMinnesota
USA
5Se
thi,Su
resh
P.24
7.48
The
University
ofTexasatDallas
USA
6Tang,C
hristopher
S.23
8.58
University
ofCalifornia,Los
Angeles
USA
7Daw
ande,M
ilind
215.98
The
University
ofTexasatDallas
USA
8Netessine,S
erguei
208.17
University
ofPennsylvania
USA
9Cachon,
GérardP.
1910.25
University
ofPennsylvania
USA
Swam
inathan,
JayashankarM.
197.42
University
ofNorth
CarolinaatChapelH
illUSA
Linderm
an,K
evin
W.
196.20
University
ofMinnesota
USA
Sriskandarajah,C
helliah
195.40
TexasA&M
University
USA
13Loch,Christoph
H.
187.42
University
ofCam
bridge
UK
Swink,
MorganL.
187.00
TexasChristianUniversity
USA
Boyer,K
enneth
K.
186.78
The
OhioStateUniversity
USA
Narasim
han,
Ram
e18
6.45
MichiganStateUniversity
USA
17Seshadri,S
ridhar
165.92
University
ofIllin
oisUrbana-Champaign
USA
18Mieghem
,Jan
A.V
.15
8.25
Northwestern
University
USA
Bendoly,E
lliot
157.28
The
OhioStateUniversity
USA
Continued
Koufteros et al. 11
Table2a:Contin
ued.
Rank
Author
Total
Papers
aWeightedNum
berof
PapersAuthoredb
Current
Institu
tionalA
ffiliatio
ncCurrent
Country
orRegionof
Affiliatio
nd
Katok,E
lena
156.25
The
University
ofTexasatDallas
USA
Terw
iesch,
Christian
156.17
University
ofPennsylvania
USA
Klassen,R
obertD
.15
6.15
Western
University
Canada
Toktay,L
.Beril
156.00
GeorgiaInstitu
teof
Technology
USA
24Corbett,
Charles
J.14
6.67
University
ofCalifornia,Los
Angeles
USA
Chen,
Ying-Ju
146.50
The
HKUof
ScienceandTechno
logy
Hon
gKon
gSh
en,Z
uo-jun
M.
145.36
University
ofCalifornia,Berkeley
USA
Choi,Thomas
Y.
145.28
Arizona
StateUniversity
USA
Ferguson
,MarkE.
144.92
University
ofSo
uthCarolina
USA
29Taylor,T
erry
A.
138.00
University
ofCalifornia,Berkeley
USA
Whitt,
Ward
137.83
Colum
biaUniversity
USA
Plam
beck,E
rica
L.
136.67
Stanford
University
USA
Ӧzer,Ӧzalp
136.17
The
University
ofTexasatDallas
USA
Singhal,Vinod
R.
135.83
GeorgiaInstitu
teof
Technology
USA
Rungtusanatham,M
anus
J.13
4.98
YorkUniversity
Canada
Gaur,Vishal
134.70
CornellUniversity
USA
Iravani,SeyedM.R
.13
4.42
Northwestern
University
USA
Guide,V
.DanielR
.Jr.
134.25
PennsylvaniaStateUniversity
USA
Souza,Gilv
anC.
134.25
IndianaUniversity
Bloom
ington
USA
Continued
12 OM Research
Table2a:Contin
ued.
Rank
Author
Total
Papers
aWeightedNum
berof
PapersAuthoredb
Current
Institu
tionalA
ffiliatio
ncCurrent
Country
orRegionof
Affiliatio
nd
39Su
,Xuanm
ing
128.17
University
ofPe
nnsylvania
USA
Tomlin
,Brian
126.83
Dartm
outh
College
USA
Zhang,F
uqiang
126.50
WashingtonUniversity
USA
Rosenzw
eig,
Eve
D.
125.50
EmoryUniversity
USA
Feng,Q
iA.
125.17
Purdue
University
USA
Graves,StephenC.
125.17
MassachusettsInstitu
teof
Technology
USA
Lee,H
auL.
125.00
Stanford
University
USA
Pagell,
Mark
124.93
University
College
Dublin
Ireland
Gallego
,Guille
rmo
124.82
The
HKUof
ScienceandTechno
logy
Hon
gKon
gAtasu,A
talay
124.67
GeorgiaInstitu
teof
Technology
USA
Ram
an,A
nanth
124.50
Harvard
University
USA
Hopp,
Wallace
J.12
4.28
University
ofMichigan
USA
Devaraj,S
arv
124.25
University
ofNotre
Dam
eUSA
a Thiscountincludesallp
aperspublishedin
JOM,P
OM,and
MSO
Mand“papersfrom
MSonly
accepted
bythe‘O
Mdepartment’.”
bThiscounto
fweightednumberof
papersauthored
across
thefour
journalsover
the15-yearperiod
of2001-2015isdeterm
ined
bycrediting
theauthor1/n
foreach
paperwith
nbeingthenumberof
authorson
thepaper.
c Thisistheauthor’scurrentinstitutionor,iftheauthor
isretired,the
mostrecentinstitutiontheretired
author
was
affiliatedwith
.dThisisthecountryor
region
ofaffiliatio
nof
theinstitu
tiontheauthor
iscurrently
ator
oftheinstitu
tionwhere
theauthor
retired
from
.e A
nauthor
who
isretired.
Koufteros et al. 13
Table 2b presents the more expansive body of papers of these authors thathave linkage to OM and ranks the authors based on the counts so derived. Giventhis broader consideration, only two more researchers (Viswanathan Krishnan andLaurens Debo) were added to the list. This signifies that the most published OMfaculty primarily do publish papers with the core OM department, as expected.However, the relative ranking across the authors has somewhat shifted. As can beseen in this table, Luk N. Van Wassenhove remains the top author based on totalpapers, with Panos Kouvelis and Aleda V. Roth in a tie for second, followed byRoger G. Schroeder at number 4 and Suresh P. Sethi at number 5. When one looksat the weighted number of papers, the top author, Luk N. VanWassenhove, remainsthe same, followed by Panos Kouvelis at number 2, Aleda V. Roth and Gérard P.Cachon in a tie at number 3, and Ward Whitt at number 5. For additional insights,we also provide in Table 2b the year of earning a PhD for each of these top authorsalong with the corrected yearly publication and weighted yearly publication ratesbased on the number of years the author held a PhD over the 15-year review period.Such corrections in the yearly rates affect those who earned their PhD “during” the15-year period of this study.When the corrected publication rate is considered, thetop three researchers remain the same as those by total papers, Ying-Ju Chen placesat number 4, and Roger G. Schroeder at number 5. On the other hand, when theweighted corrected publication rate is considered, the top author remains the same,Ying-Ju Chen places at number 2, Xuanming Su at number 3, Panos Kouvelis atnumber 4, and Aleda V. Roth and Gérard P. Cachon in a tie at number 5.
With all four journals being among the most prestigious outlets for OM spe-cific research and yet having their own identity, editorial philosophy, guidelines,and requisites, it would be interesting to see who the most published OM authorsare by journal. Accordingly, Table 3 presents the most published OM authors byjournal. Interestingly, the sets of top three authors by journal are mutually exclu-sive across the four journals. Roger G. Schroeder (with 20 papers in JOM) andRam Narasimhan (16) are the two most published authors in JOM, followed byKevin W. Linderman (14) and Morgan L. Swink (14) in a tie for third. Luk N. VanWassenhove (with 21 papers in POM), Suresh P. Sethi (17), and Christopher S.Tang (15) are the three most published authors in POM. Panos Kouvelis (with 9papers in MSOM) and Charles J. Corbett (8) are the two most published authorsin MSOM, followed by Jing-Sheng Song (7) in third. Serguei Netessine (with 14papers in MS) is the most published author in MS when only papers from theOM department are considered, followed by Gérard P. Cachon (12) in second andChristian Terwiesch (11) in third. For the interested reader, Appendix A presentsan identical table—except it is more inclusive for MS.
While the frequency of papers offers a descriptive statistic of research outputof individual authors, it does not provide insights into the prominence of agentsbased on their location within networks and the potential they possess to stimu-late research and influence the quality of research outcomes by serving as hubs ofconnectivity and informational bridges between entities engaged in OM research.Accordingly, we also deploy social network measures and present the top 50 au-thors based on network measures of total degree centrality and Bonacich powercentrality.
14 OM Research
Table2b
:To
p50
authorsby
totaln
umberof
papers(nom
inal,w
eighted,
andcorrected).a
Rank
Author
Total
Papers
Weighted
Num
berof
Papers
Authoredb
Yearof
Earning
PhD
Degree
#of
Years
Holding
aPh
DDegree
Overthe
Review
Period
c
Yearly
Publication
Rate
Corrected
forthe
Num
berof
Years
Holding
aPh
DOver
theReview
Period
Weighted
Yearly
Publication
Rate
Corrected
forthe
Num
berof
Years
Holding
aPh
DOver
theReview
Period
Current
Institu
tional
Affiliatio
nd
Current
Country
orRegionof
Affiliatio
ne
1Wassenhove,Luk
N.
Van
3813.43g
1979
152.533g
0.89
5gIN
SEAD(France)
France
2Kou
velis,P
anos
2811
.50
1988
151.867
0.767
WashingtonUniversity
USA
Roth,
Aleda
V.
2811
.25
1986
151.867
0.750
ClemsonUniversity
USA
4Sc
hroeder,Rog
erG.f
268.98
1966
151.733
0.599
University
ofMinnesota
USA
5Se
thi,Su
resh
P.25
7.82
1972
151.66
70.52
1The
University
ofTexas
atDallas
USA
6Tang,C
hristopher
S.23
8.58
1985
151.533
0.572
University
ofCalifornia,
Los
Ang
eles
USA
Daw
ande,M
ilind
236.48
1997
151.53
30.43
2The
University
ofTexas
atDallas
USA
8Cacho
n,GérardP.
2111
.25
1995
151.40
00.750
University
ofPe
nnsylvania
USA
Netessine,S
erguei
218.42
2001
14.5
1.448
0.581
University
ofPe
nnsylvania
USA
Continued
Koufteros et al. 15
Table2b
:Contin
ued.
Rank
Author
Total
Papers
Weighted
Num
berof
Papers
Authoredb
Yearof
Earning
PhD
Degree
#of
Years
Holding
aPh
DDegree
Overthe
Review
Period
c
Yearly
Publication
Rate
Corrected
forthe
Num
berof
Years
Holding
aPh
DOver
theReview
Period
Weighted
Yearly
Publication
Rate
Corrected
forthe
Num
berof
Years
Holding
aPh
DOver
theReview
Period
Current
Institu
tional
Affiliatio
nd
Current
Country
orRegionof
Affiliatio
ne
Swam
inathan,
JayashankarM.
218.25
1996
151.400
0.550
University
ofNorth
CarolinaatChapelH
illUSA
11Katok
,Elena
208.25
1996
151.33
30.55
0The
University
ofTexas
atDallas
USA
Loch,Christoph
H.
208.17
1991
151.333
0.545
University
ofCam
bridge
UK
Terw
iesch,
Christian
207.87
1997
151.333
0.525
University
ofPe
nnsylvania
USA
Sriskandarajah,
Chelliah
205.65
1986
151.333
0.377
TexasA&M
University
USA
15Linderm
an,K
evin
W.
196.20
1998
151.267
0.413
University
ofMinnesota
USA
16Whitt,
Ward
1811.08
1969
151.200
0.739
Colum
biaUniversity
USA
Swink,
MorganL.
187.00
1992
151.20
00.46
7TexasChristia
nUniversity
USA
Boyer,K
enneth
K.
186.78
1994
151.200
0.452
The
OhioStateUniversity
USA
Continued
16 OM ResearchTa
ble2b
:Contin
ued.
Rank
Author
Total
Papers
Weighted
Num
berof
Papers
Authoredb
Yearof
Earning
PhD
Degree
#of
Years
Holding
aPh
DDegree
Overthe
Review
Period
c
Yearly
Publication
Rate
Corrected
forthe
Num
berof
Years
Holding
aPh
DOver
theReview
Period
Weighted
Yearly
Publication
Rate
Corrected
forthe
Num
berof
Years
Holding
aPh
DOver
theReview
Period
Current
Institu
tional
Affiliatio
nd
Current
Country
orRegionof
Affiliatio
ne
Narasim
han,
Ram
f18
6.45
1976
151.200
0.430
MichiganStateUniversity
USA
20Seshadri,S
ridhar
176.25
1993
151.133
0.417
University
ofIllin
ois
Urbana-Champaign
USA
21Mieghem
,Jan
A.V
.16
8.75
1995
151.067
0.583
Northwestern
University
USA
Toktay,L
.Beril
166.25
1998
151.067
0.417
GeorgiaInstitu
teof
Techno
logy
USA
23Bendoly,E
lliot
157.28
2001
14.5
1.034
0.502
The
OhioStateUniversity
USA
Chen,
Ying-Ju
157.00
2007
8.5
1.765
0.82
4The
HKUof
Scienceand
Techno
logy
Hon
gKon
g
Corbett,
Charles
J.15
7.00
1996
151.000
0.467
University
ofCalifornia,
Los
Ang
eles
USA
Klassen,R
obertD
.15
6.15
1995
151.000
0.410
Western
University
Canada
Shen,Z
uo-jun
M.
155.70
2000
151.000
0.380
University
ofCalifornia,
Berkeley
USA
Ferguson
,MarkE.
155.17
2001
151.00
00.34
5University
ofSo
uth
Carolina
USA
Continued
Koufteros et al. 17
Table2b
:Contin
ued.
Rank
Author
Total
Papers
Weighted
Num
berof
Papers
Authoredb
Yearof
Earning
PhD
Degree
#of
Years
Holding
aPh
DDegree
Overthe
Review
Period
c
Yearly
Publication
Rate
Corrected
forthe
Num
berof
Years
Holding
aPh
DOver
theReview
Period
Weighted
Yearly
Publication
Rate
Corrected
forthe
Num
berof
Years
Holding
aPh
DOver
theReview
Period
Current
Institu
tional
Affiliatio
nd
Current
Country
orRegionof
Affiliatio
ne
Iravani,SeyedM.R
.15
5.08
1997
151.000
0.339
Northwestern
University
USA
30Su
,Xuanm
ing
149.17
2004
11.5
1.21
70.797
University
ofPe
nnsylvania
USA
Plam
beck,E
rica
L.
147.17
2000
150.933
0.478
Stanford
University
USA
Krishnan,
Viswanathan
146.83
1993
150.933
0.455
University
ofCalifornia,
SanDiego
USA
Singhal,Vinod
R.
146.33
1988
150.933
0.422
GeorgiaInstitu
teof
Techno
logy
USA
Choi,Thomas
Y.
145.28
1992
150.933
0.352
Arizona
StateUniversity
USA
Gaur,Vishal
145.03
2001
14.5
0.966
0.347
CornellUniversity
USA
36Taylor,T
erry
A.
138.00
2000
150.867
0.533
University
ofCalifornia,
Berkeley
USA
Zhang
,Fuq
iang
137.00
2004
11.5
1.13
00.60
9Washing
tonUniversity
USA
Ӧzer,Ӧzalp
136.17
2000
150.86
70.41
1The
University
ofTexas
atDallas
USA
Continued
18 OM Research
Table2b
:Contin
ued.
Rank
Author
Total
Papers
Weighted
Num
berof
Papers
Authoredb
Yearof
Earning
PhD
Degree
#of
Years
Holding
aPh
DDegree
Overthe
Review
Period
c
Yearly
Publication
Rate
Corrected
forthe
Num
berof
Years
Holding
aPh
DOver
theReview
Period
Weighted
Yearly
Publication
Rate
Corrected
forthe
Num
berof
Years
Holding
aPh
DOver
theReview
Period
Current
Institu
tional
Affiliatio
nd
Current
Country
orRegionof
Affiliatio
ne
Gallego,G
uillerm
o13
5.32
1988
150.867
0.355
The
HKUof
Scienceand
Techno
logy
Hon
gKon
g
Rungtusanatham,
Manus
J.13
4.98
1995
150.867
0.332
YorkUniversity
Canada
Hopp,Wallace
J.13
4.62
1984
150.867
0.308
University
ofMichigan
USA
Devaraj,S
arv
134.58
1997
150.867
0.305
University
ofNotre
Dam
eUSA
Guide,V
.DanielR
.Jr.
134.25
1992
150.86
70.28
3Pe
nnsylvaniaState
University
USA
Souza,Gilv
anC.
134.25
2000
150.867
0.283
IndianaUniversity
Bloom
ington
USA
45To
mlin
,Brian
126.83
2000
150.800
0.455
Dartm
outh
College
USA
Rosenzw
eig,
Eve
D.
125.50
2002
13.5
0.889
0.407
EmoryUniversity
USA
Feng
,QiA
.12
5.17
2006
9.5
1.26
30.54
3Pu
rdue
University
USA
Graves,StephenC.
125.17
1977
150.800
0.345
MassachusettsInstitu
teof
Techno
logy
USA
Continued
Koufteros et al. 19
Table2b
:Contin
ued.
Rank
Author
Total
Papers
Weighted
Num
berof
Papers
Authoredb
Yearof
Earning
PhD
Degree
#of
Years
Holding
aPh
DDegree
Overthe
Review
Period
c
Yearly
Publication
Rate
Corrected
forthe
Num
berof
Years
Holding
aPh
DOver
theReview
Period
Weighted
Yearly
Publication
Rate
Corrected
forthe
Num
berof
Years
Holding
aPh
DOver
theReview
Period
Current
Institu
tional
Affiliatio
nd
Current
Country
orRegionof
Affiliatio
ne
Lee,H
auL.
125.00
1983
150.800
0.333
Stanford
University
USA
Pagell,
Mark
124.93
1997
150.800
0.329
University
College
Dublin
Ireland
Atasu,A
talay
124.67
2007
8.5
1.412
0.549
GeorgiaInstitu
teof
Techno
logy
USA
Ram
an,A
nanth
124.50
1994
150.800
0.300
Harvard
University
USA
Debo,
Laurens
G.
124.33
2002
130.92
30.33
3Dartm
outh
College
USA
a Thistableincludes
papersfrom
MSthatwerepublishedby
the“O
Mdepartment”andby
otherdepartmentsas
long
asthepaperhadan
OM
linkage.
bThiscountof
weightednumberof
papers
authored
across
thefour
journalsover
the15-yearperiod
of2001-2015isdeterm
ined
bycrediting
theauthor
basedon
thenu
mberof
authorson
each
papersuch
thattheauthor
receives
acreditof
1.0towards
thiscoun
tfor
apaperthatissoleauthored,a
creditof
0.2forapaperhaving
fiveauthors,etc.The
topfiv
escores
arehigh
lighted
ingrey.
c The
values
thatcontain(end
in)halfyear
areindicativ
eof
theauthor
receivingthePh
Dduring
the15-yearperiod
ofthisstudy(and
around
themiddleof
thatyear
asistypical).
dThisistheauthor’scurrentinstitutionalaffiliatio
nor,iftheauthor
isretired,the
mostrecentinstitutiontheretired
author
was
affiliatedwith
.e Thisisthecountryor
region
ofaffiliatio
nof
theinstitu
tiontheauthor
iscurrently
ator
oftheinstitu
tionwhere
theauthor
retired
from
.f A
nauthor
who
isretired.
gThe
topfiv
ecorrectedscores
arehighlig
hted
ingray.
20 OM Research
Table3:
Mostp
ublishedOM
authorsby
journal.a
,b
Journal
Rank
JOM
cRank
POM
Rank
MSO
Mc
Rank
MS
1Sc
hroeder,Rog
erG.
(20,Uof
Minnesota)
1Wassenhove,Luk
N.V
an(21,IN
SEADFrance)
1Kou
velis,P
anos
(10,
WashingtonU)
1Netessine,S
erguei
(14,
Uof
Penn
sylvania)
2Narasim
han,
Ram
(16,Mihigan
StateU)
2Se
thi,Su
resh
P.(17,The
Uof
Texasat
Dallas)
2Corbett,
Charles
J.(8,U
ofCalifornia,Los
Angeles)
2Cachon,GérardP.
(12,
Uof
Penn
sylvania)
3Linderm
an,K
evin
W.
(14,Uof
Minnesota)
3Tang,C
hristopher
S.(15,Uof
California,Los
Angeles)
3So
ng,Jing-Sh
eng
(7,D
ukeU)
3Terw
iesch,
Christian
(11,
Uof
Penn
sylvania)
Swink,
MorganL.
(14,TexasChristianU)
4Daw
ande,M
ilind
(14,The
Uof
Texasat
Dallas)
4Cachon,
GérardP.
(6,U
ofPe
nnsylvania)
4Taylor,T
erry
A.
(10,
Uof
California,
Berkeley)
5Roth,
Aleda
V.
(13,ClemsonU)
5Sriskandarajah,C
helliah
(13,TexasA&M
U)
5Daw
ande,M
illind
(6,T
heUof
Texasat
Dallas)
5Beil,Dam
ianR.
(8,U
ofMichigan)
6Boyer,K
enneth
K.
(12,The
OhioStateU)
6Chen,
Ying-Ju
(12,The
Hon
gKon
gU
ofSc
ienceand
Techno
logy
)
Graves,StephenC.
(6,M
assachusetts
Institu
teof
Technology)
Wassenhove,Luk
N.V
an(8,INSE
ADFrance)
Choi,Thomas
Y.
(12,Arizona
StateU)
7Kou
velis,P
anos
(11,WashingtonU)
Hsu,V
ernonN.
(6,T
heChinese
Uof
Hon
gKon
g)
7Duenyas,Izak
(7,U
ofMichigan)
8Malhotra,Manoj
K.
(11,CaseWestern
Reserve
U)
8Roth,
Aleda
V.
(10,ClemsonU)
Mieghem
,Jan
A.V
.(6,N
orthwestern
U)
Gaur,Vishal
(7,C
ornellU)
Continued
Koufteros et al. 21
Table3:
Contin
ued.
Journal
Rank
JOM
cRank
POM
Rank
MSO
Mc
Rank
MS
Rungtusanatham,M
anus
J.(11,YorkU)
Swam
inathan,
Jayashankar
M.
(10,Uof
North
Carolina
atChapelH
ill)
Netessine,S
erguei
(6,U
ofPe
nnsylvania)
Loch,Christoph
H.
(7,U
ofCam
bridge)
10Klassen,R
obertD
.(10,Western
U)
10Atasu,A
talay
(8,G
eorgiaInstitu
teof
Techno
logy
)
Plam
beck,E
rica
L.
(6,S
tanfordU)
Mieghem
,Jan
A.V
.(7,N
orthwestern
U)
Pagell,
Mark
(10,UCollege
Dublin
)Geism
ar,H
.Neil
(8,T
exas
A&M
U)
Secomandi,N
icola
(6,C
arnegieMellonU)
Oliv
ares,M
arcelo
(7,U
ofChile)
12Benton,
W.C
.Jr.
(9,T
heOhioStateU)
Guide,V
.DanielR
.Jr.
(8,P
ennsylvaniaState
U)
Whitt,
Ward
(6,C
olum
biaU)
Plam
beck,E
rica
L.
(7,S
tanfordU)
13Bendoly,E
lliot
(8,T
heOhioStateU)
Ketzenb
erg,
MichaelE.
(8,T
exas
A&M
U)
13Babich,
Volod
ymyr
(5,G
eorgetow
nU)
13Allo
n,Gad
(6,U
ofPe
nnsylvania)
Devaraj,S
arv
(8,U
ofNotre
Dam
e)Seshadri,S
ridhar
(8,U
ofIllin
ois
Urbana-Champaign)
Baron,O
pher
(5,U
ofTo
ronto)
Cohen,M
orrisA.
(6,U
ofPe
nnsylvania)
Rabinovich,
Elliot
(8,A
rizona
StateU)
Souza,Gilv
anC.
(8,Ind
iana
UBloom
ington)
Ferguson
,MarkE.
(5,U
ofSo
uthCarolina)
Federgruen,A
wi
(6,C
olum
biaU)
Vonderembse,MarkA.
(8,U
ofTo
ledo
)16
Bendoly,E
lliot
(7,T
heOhioStateU)
Gallego,G
uillerm
o(5,T
heHon
gKon
gUof
ScienceandTechno
logy
)
Ho,
Teck-H
ua(6,N
ationalU
ofSingapore)
Continued
22 OM Research
Table3:
Contin
ued.
Journal
Rank
JOM
cRank
POM
Rank
MSO
Mc
Rank
MS
17Droge,C
ornelia
(7,M
ichiganStateU)
Feng,Q
iA.
(7,P
urdueU)
Gupta,D
iwakar
(5,T
heUof
Texasat
Austin
)
Kapuscinski,R
oman
(6,U
ofMichigan)
Hult,To
mas
G.M
.(7,M
ichiganStateU)
Ferguson
,MarkE.
(7,U
ofSo
uthCarolina)
Hopp,
Wallace
J.(5,U
ofMichigan)
Katok
,Elena
(6,T
heUof
Texasat
Dallas)
Patel,PankajC.
(7,V
illanovaU)
Lee,H
auL.
(7,S
tanfordU)
Huh
,Woo
ngheeT.
(5,T
heUof
British
Colum
bia)
Kim
,Sang-Hyun
(6,Y
aleU)
Rosenzw
eig,
Eve
D.
(7,E
moryU)
Shen,Z
uo-Jun
M.
(7,U
ofCalifornia,
Berkeley)
Koole,G
er(5,V
rijeUniversiteit
Amsterdam)
Kou
velis,P
anos
(6,W
ashingtonU)
Ward,Pe
terT.
(7,T
heOhioStateU)
Simchi-Levi,David
(7,M
assachusetts
Institu
teof
Technology)
Lariviere
Martin
A.
(5,N
orthwestern
U)
Ӧzer,Ӧzalp
(6,T
heUof
Texasat
Dallas)
Yeung
,And
yC.L
.(7,T
heHon
gKon
gPo
lytechnicU)
Toktay,L
.Beril
(7,G
eorgiaInstitu
teof
Techno
logy
)
Rob
inson,
Law
renceW.
(5,C
ornellU)
Rudi,Nils
(6,Y
aleU)
23Choo,
Adrian,
S.(6,M
ichiganStateU)
23Anderson,
Edw
ardG.Jr.
(6,T
heUof
Texasat
Austin
)
Sethi,Su
resh
P.(5,T
heUof
Texasat
Dallas)
Su,X
uanm
ing
(6,U
ofPe
nnsylvania)
Das,A
jay
(6,B
aruchCollege)
Boyacı,Tamer
(6,T
heEurop
eanSc
hool
ofManagem
entand
Techno
logy
)
Sriskandarajah,C
helliah
(5,T
exas
A&M
U)
Toktay,L
.Beril
(6,G
eorgiaInstitu
teof
Techno
logy
)
Continued
Koufteros et al. 23
Table3:
Contin
ued.
Journal
Rank
JOM
cRank
POM
Rank
MSO
Mc
Rank
MS
Flynn,Barbara
B.
(6,Ind
iana
UBloom
ington)
Chen,
Jian
(6,T
singhuaU)
Swam
inathan,
Jayashankar
M.
(5,U
ofNorth
Carolina
atChapelH
ill)
Tomlin
,Brian
(6,D
artm
outh
College)
Goldstein,S
usan
M.
(6,U
ofMinnesota)
Gaimon,C
heryl
(6,G
eorgiaInstitu
teof
Techno
logy
)
Wang,Yun
zeng
(5,U
ofCalifornia,
Riverside)
26Aviv,Yossi
(5,T
elAvivU)
Handley,S
eanM.
(6,U
ofSo
uthCarolina)
Iravani,SeyedM.R
.(6,N
orthwestern
U)
Wassenhove,Luk
N.V
an(5,INSE
ADFrance)
Bernstein,F
ernando
(5,D
ukeU)
Nair,Anand
(6,M
ichiganStateU)
Koster,RenéB.M
.D.
(6,E
rasm
usU)
Zhang
,Fuq
iang
(5,W
ashingtonU)
Debo,
Laurens
G.
(5,D
artm
outh
College)
Shah,R
achn
a(6,U
ofMinnesota)
Loch,Christoph
H.
(6,U
ofCam
bridge)
Ziya,Se
rhan
(5,U
ofNorth
Carolina
atChapelH
ill)
DeC
roix,G
regory
A.
(5,U
ofWisconsin-M
adison)
Singhal,Vinod
R.
(6,G
eorgiaInstitu
teof
Techno
logy
)
Mookerjee,V
ijayS.
(6,T
heUof
Texasat
Dallas)
30Benjaafar,S
aif
(4,U
ofMinnesota)
Iravani,SeyedM.R
.(5,N
orthwestern
U)
Voss,Christopher
A.
(6,L
ondonBusiness
Scho
ol)
Stecke,K
athryn
E.
(6,T
heUof
Texasat
Dallas)
Bernstein,F
ernando
(4,D
ukeU)
Lee,H
auL.
(5,S
tanfordU)
Wu,
Zhaoh
ui(6,O
regonStateU)
Yan,H
oumin
(6,C
ityUof
Hong
Kon
g)
Dada,Maqbo
ol(4,Johns
Hopkins
U)
Li,Lod
e(5,Y
aleU)
Continued
24 OM Research
Table3:
Contin
ued.
Journal
Rank
JOM
cRank
POM
Rank
MSO
Mc
Rank
MS
33Calantone,R
oger
J.(5,M
ichiganStateU)
Zhang
,Jun
(6,F
udan
U)
Debo,
Laurens
G.
(4,D
artm
outh
College)
Vulcano,G
ustavo
J.(5,U
niversidad
Torcuato
diTella)
Forza,Cipriano
(5,U
niversità
diPadova)
34Aksin
O.Z
.(5,K
oçÜ)
Erhun
,Feryal
(4,U
ofCam
bridge)
Zenios,Stefanos
A.
(5,S
tanfordU)
Ketchen,D
avid
J.Jr.
(5,A
uburnU)
Arya,Anil
(5,T
heOhioStateU)
Fisher,M
arshallL
.(4,U
ofPe
nnsylvania)
Zhang
,Fuq
iang
(5,W
ashingtonU)
Ketokivi,Mikko
A.
(5,IEU)
Boyer,K
enneth
K.
(5,T
heOhioStateU)
Gans,Noah
(4,U
ofPe
nnsylvania)
36Bassamboo,Achal
(4,N
orthwestern
U)
Koufteros,X
enophonA.
(5,T
exas
A&M
U)
Cai,G
angshu
(5,S
antaClara
U)
Gurvich,Itai
(4,C
ornellU)
Benjaafar,S
aif
(4,U
ofMinnesota)
Krause,DanielR
.(5,C
oloradoStateU)
Cakanyildirim
,Metin
(5,T
heUof
Texasat
Dallas)
Kapuscinski,R
oman
(4,U
ofMichigan)
Chen,Fang
ruo
(4,S
hang
haiJiaoTo
ngU)
Liu,Y
i(5,S
hang
haiJiaoTo
ngU)
Chao,
Xiuli
(5,U
ofMichigan)
Kok,G
urhanA.
(4,K
oçÜ)
Corbett,
Charles
J.(4,U
ofCalifornia,Los
Angeles)
Scho
enherr,T
obias
(5,M
ichiganStateU)
Hausm
an,W
arrenH.
(5,S
tanfordU)
Ray,S
aibal
(4,M
cGill
U)
Gallego,G
uillerm
o(4,T
heHon
gKon
gUof
ScienceandTechno
logy
)Singhal,Jaya
(5,U
ofBaltim
ore)
Heese,H
ansS.
(5,N
orth
CarolinaState
U)
Ryzin,G
arrettJ.V.
(4,C
ornellU)
Gans,Noah
(4,U
ofPe
nnsylvania)
Continued
Koufteros et al. 25
Table3:
Contin
ued.
Journal
Rank
JOM
cRank
POM
Rank
MSO
Mc
Rank
MS
Singhal,Kalyan
(5,U
ofBaltim
ore)
Krishnan,
Viswanathan
(5,U
ofCalifornia,San
Diego)
Shang,Kevin
H.
(4,D
ukeU)
Girotra,K
aran
(4,INSE
ADFrance)
Tatik
onda,M
ohan
V.
(5,Ind
iana
UBloom
ington)
Ovchinnikov,A
nton
(5,Q
ueensU)
Shen,Z
uo-Jun
M.
(4,U
ofCalifornia,
Berkeley)
Ha,AlbertY
.(4,T
heHon
gKon
gUof
ScienceandTechno
logy
)Treville,S
uzanne
D.
(5,U
ofLausann
e)Ӧzer,Ӧzalp
(5,T
heUof
Texasat
Dallas)
Tang,C
hristopher
S.(4,U
ofCalifornia,Los
Angeles)
Iyer,A
nanthV.
(4,P
urdueU)
Verma,Rohit
(5,C
ornellU)
Parker,G
eoffreyG.
(5,D
artm
outh
College)
Tomlin
,Brian
(4,D
artm
outh
College)
Janakiraman,G
anesh
(4,T
heUof
Texasat
Dallas)
Zhao,Xiand
e(5,C
hina
Europ
eInternationalB
usiness
Scho
ol)
Pinedo
,Michael
(5,N
ewYorkU)
Vulcano,G
ustavo
(4,U
niversidad
Torcuato
diTella)
Kekre,S
under
(4,C
arnegieMellonU)
Ram
an,A
nanth
(5,H
arvard
U)
Wu,
Owen
Q.
(4,Ind
iana
UBloom
ington)
Lai,G
uoming
(4,T
heUof
Texasat
Austin
)Ryan,
Jennifer
K.
(5,U
ofNebraska-
Lincoln)
Zeevi,A
ssaf
(4,C
olum
biaU)
Liu,L
iming
(4,L
ingn
anU)
Schroeder,Rog
erG.2
(5,U
ofMinnesota)
Zipkin,
Paul
H.
(4,D
ukeU)
Martín
ezde
Aalbéniz,
Víctor
(4,U
niversidad
deNavarra)
Shanthikum
ar,G
eorgeJ.
(5,P
urdueU)
Mendelson,H
aim
(4,S
tanfordU) Continued
26 OM ResearchTa
ble3:
Contin
ued.
Journal
Rank
JOM
cRank
POM
Rank
MSO
Mc
Rank
MS
Sodh
i,Manmoh
anS.
(5,C
ityULondon)
Nagarajan,M
ahesh
(4,T
heUof
British
Colum
bia)
Subram
anian,Ravi
(5,G
eorgiaInstitu
teof
Techno
logy
)
Rajagopalan,S
ampath
(4,U
ofSo
uthern
California)
Topaloglu,Huseyin
(5,C
ornellU)
Ram
an,A
nanth
(4,H
arvard
U)
Whitt,
Ward
(5,C
olum
biaU)
Ryzin,G
arrettJ.V.
(4,C
ornellU)
Xia,Y
usen
(5,G
eorgiaStateU)
Seshadri,S
ridhar
(4,U
ofIllin
oisUrbana-
Champaign)
Zho
u,Se
anX.
(5,T
heChinese
Uof
Hon
gKon
g)
Shum
sky,RobertA
.(4,D
artm
outh
College)
Swinney,Robert
(4,D
ukeU)
Tang,C
hristopher
S.(4,U
ofCalifornia,Los
Angeles)
Wein,Law
renceM.
(4,S
tanford)
Xiao,
Wenqiang
(4,N
ewYorkU)
a Bynumberof
paperspublished;
forMS,
only
papersaccepted
bythe“O
MDepartm
ent”areincluded.
bThe
interested
reader
isreferred
toAppendixAforamoreinclusiveconsiderationof
MS.
c Includedin
thistableareonly
46authorsforJO
Mand49
forMSO
Mbecauseof
thevery
largenumberof
tiesatthenext
lower
papercount.
Koufteros et al. 27
The top OM authors by total degree centrality
The total degree centrality of an agent (the author in this case) is a measure basedon the relative number of direct connections the agent has with other agents inthe network. For the author × author network with shared papers (2,878 authors,network density 0.0008787), the top 50 authors based on the measure of total de-gree centrality are presented in Table 4. These authors have the most direct connec-tions to other authors and thus have access to the ideas, thoughts, and perspectivesof the many authors they are connected to in working relationships.
As can be seen in Table 4, Luk N. Van Wassenhove, Suresh P. Sethi, andRoger G. Schroeder are, respectively, the top three authors based on the measureof total degree centrality. Of the top five authors, four are based in the United Statesand one in France. Of the top 50 authors, 41 are based in the United States, threein Canada, two in each of Hong Kong and the United Kingdom, and one in eachof France and Ireland.
The top OM authors by Bonacich power centrality
An important characteristic that raises the leadership role of an author in networkslies in the author being connected to authors who are highly connected with others.In this sense, the prominence of an author in a network is enhanced by the extent towhich his or her co-authors are also central. The measure of this kind of centralityis Bonacich power centrality that captures the weightiness of connections. In anorganizational context, this measure reveals who is connected to the most powerful(e.g., other highly connected) people and thus is more influential. For the author× author network with shared papers (2878 authors, network density 0.0008787),the top 50 authors based on Bonacich power centrality are presented in Table 5.
Luk N. Van Wassenhove leads all authors, followed by Milind Dawande insecond, and Roger G. Schroeder in third. Of the top five authors, four are basedin the United States and one in France. Of the top 50 authors, 41 are based in theUnited States, three in Canada, two in each of HongKong and theUnitedKingdom,and one in each of France and Ireland.
Extent to which top OM authors network with each other, levels of output,and emerging top authors
It is interesting to note that the top 50 authors (Table 2a) have a total of 686 uniquepapers over the 15 years covered by this study. Of these, 562 (81.92%) papershave only one author who is in the top 50 list, while 116 papers (16.91%) have twoauthors who belong to this group. Only eight papers (1.17%) have three top 50authors co-authoring. This signifies lack of collaborative relationships among theleading authors—the type of collaborations that can potentially accelerate progressof the discipline. Nevertheless, there appears to be a greater degree of collabora-tion of top 50 authors with authors from different countries. Among the papers bythe top 50 authors, 440 papers (64.14%) have all-U.S. authors, while 30 papers(4.37%) have all-non-U.S. authors. However, it is very encouraging to note that216 papers (31.49%) have mixed-authorship of U.S. and non-U.S. authors, indi-cating that many U.S.-based authors are collaborating with peers from other partsof the world, thereby facilitating exchange of ideas across global networks.
28 OM ResearchTa
ble4:
Top50
OM
authorsbasedon
totald
egreecentrality.
a
Rank
Author
TotalD
egree
Centrality
Current
Institu
tionalA
ffiliatio
nbCountry/Region
ofAffiliatio
nc
1Wassenh
ove,Luk
N.V
an0.10
5IN
SEADFrance
France
2Se
thi,Su
resh
P.0.074
The
University
ofTexasatDallas
USA
3Sc
hroeder,Rog
erG.d
0.073
University
ofMinnesota
USA
4Daw
ande,M
ilind
0.070
The
University
ofTexasatDallas
USA
Roth,
Aleda
V.
0.070
ClemsonUniversity
USA
6Kouvelis,P
anos
0.063
WashingtonUniversity
USA
Sriskandarajah,C
helliah
0.063
TexasA&M
University
USA
8Tang,C
hristopher
S.0.060
University
ofCalifornia,Los
Angeles
USA
9Linderm
an,K
evin
W.
0.056
University
ofMinnesota
USA
10Narasim
han,
Ram
d0.049
MichiganStateUniversity
USA
11Netessine,S
ergu
ei0.04
8Uof
Penn
sylvania
USA
Swam
inathan,
JayashankarM.
0.048
University
ofNorth
CarolinaatChapelH
illUSA
13Boyer,K
enneth
K.
0.047
The
OhioStateUniversity
USA
14Sw
ink,
MorganL.
0.045
TexasChristianUniversity
USA
15Loch,Christoph
H.
0.042
University
ofCam
bridge
UK
16Seshadri,S
ridhar
0.041
University
ofIllin
oisUrbana-Champaign
USA
17Klassen,R
obertD
.0.040
Western
University
Canada
18Fe
rguson
,MarkE.
0.03
9University
ofSo
uthCarolina
USA
19Choi,Thomas
Y.
0.038
Arizona
StateUniversity
USA
Guide,V
.DanielR
.Jr.
0.038
PennsylvaniaStateUniversity
USA
Souza,Gilv
anC.
0.038
IndianaUniversity
Bloom
ington
USA
22Cachon,
GérardP.
0.037
University
ofPennsylvania
USA
Rungtusanatham,M
anus
J.0.037
YorkUniversity
Canada
24Bendoly,E
lliot
0.036
The
OhioStateUniversity
USA
Gaur,Vishal
0.036
CornellUniversity
USA
Iravani,SeyedM.R
.0.036
Northwestern
University
USA
Continued
Koufteros et al. 29
Table4:
Contin
ued.
Rank
Author
TotalD
egree
Centrality
Current
Institu
tionalA
ffiliatio
nbCountry/Region
ofAffiliatio
nc
Terw
iesch,
Christian
0.036
University
ofPennsylvania
USA
Toktay,L
.Beril
0.036
GeorgiaInstitu
teof
Technology
USA
29Katok
,Elena
0.03
5The
University
ofTexasatDallas
USA
30Pagell,
Mark
0.034
University
College
Dublin
Ireland
31Hopp,
Wallace
J.0.033
University
ofMichigan
USA
Shen,Z
uo-Jun
M.
0.033
University
ofCalifornia,Berkeley
USA
33Devaraj,S
arv
0.032
University
ofNotre
Dam
eUSA
34Gallego,G
uillerm
o0.031
The
HongKongUniversity
ofScienceandTechnology
HongKong
Gavirneni,S
rinagesh
0.031
CornellUniversity
USA
Mieghem
,Jan
A.V
.0.031
Northwestern
University
USA
Ram
an,A
nanth
0.031
Harvard
University
USA
38Chen,
Ying-Ju
0.03
0The
Hon
gKon
gUniversity
ofSc
ienceandTechno
logy
Hon
gKon
gCorbett,
Charles
J.0.030
University
ofCalifornia,Los
Angeles
USA
Duenyas,Izak
0.030
University
ofMichigan
USA
Erhun,F
eryal
0.030
University
ofCam
bridge
UK
42Atasu,A
talay
0.029
GeorgiaInstitu
teof
Technology
USA
Beil,Dam
ianR.
0.029
University
ofMichigan
USA
Debo,
Laurens
G.
0.029
Dartm
outh
College
USA
Feng,Q
iA.
0.029
Purdue
University
USA
Huh,W
oongheeT.
0.029
The
University
ofBritishColum
bia
Canada
47Geism
ar,H
.Neil
0.028
TexasA&M
University
USA
Kekre,S
under
0.028
CarnegieMellonUniversity
USA
Malhotra,Manoj
K.
0.028
CaseWestern
Reserve
University
USA
Simchi-Levi,David
0.028
MassachusettsInstitu
teof
Technology
USA
a For
MS,
only
papersaccepted
bythe“O
MDepartm
ent”areincluded.
bThisistheauthor’scurrentinstitutionalaffiliatio
nor,iftheauthor
isretired,the
mostrecentinstitutiontheretired
author
was
affiliatedwith
.c Thisisthecountryor
region
ofaffiliatio
nof
theinstitu
tiontheauthor
iscurrently
ator
oftheinstitu
tionwhere
theauthor
retired
from
.dAnauthor
who
isretired.
30 OM ResearchTa
ble5:
Top50
OM
authorsbasedon
Bonacichpower
centrality.
a
Rank
Author
BonacichPo
wer
Centrality
Current
Institu
tionalA
ffiliatio
nbCountry/Region
ofAffiliatio
nc
1Wassenh
ove,Luk
N.V
an0.51
4IN
SEADFrance
France
2Daw
ande,M
ilind
0.330
The
University
ofTexasatDallas
USA
3Sc
hroeder,Rog
erG.d
0.328
University
ofMinnesota
USA
4Se
thi,Su
resh
P.0.317
The
University
ofTexasatDallas
USA
5Sriskandarajah,C
helliah
0.301
TexasA&M
University
USA
6Roth,
Aleda
V.
0.294
ClemsonUniversity
USA
7Linderm
an,K
evin
W.
0.250
University
ofMinnesota
USA
Kouvelis,P
anos
0.250
WashingtonUniversity
USA
9Tang,C
hristopher
S.0.236
University
ofCalifornia,Los
Angeles
USA
10Narasim
han,
Ram
d0.182
MichiganStateUniversity
USA
11Netessine,S
ergu
ei0.18
0Uof
Penn
sylvania
USA
12Sw
aminathan,
JayashankarM.
0.179
University
ofNorth
CarolinaatChapelH
illUSA
13Boyer,K
enneth
K.
0.177
The
OhioStateUniversity
USA
14Sw
ink,
MorganL.
0.172
TexasChristianUniversity
USA
15Guide,V
.DanielR
.Jr.
0.166
PennsylvaniaStateUniversity
USA
16Loch,Christoph
H.
0.154
University
ofCam
bridge
UK
17Seshadri,S
ridhar
0.153
University
ofIllin
oisUrbana-Champaign
USA
Souza,Gilv
anC.
0.153
IndianaUniversity
Bloom
ington
USA
19To
ktay,L
.Beril
0.152
GeorgiaInstitu
teof
Technology
USA
20Fe
rguson
,MarkE.
0.14
8University
ofSo
uthCarolina
USA
21Klassen,R
obertD
.0.143
Western
University
Canada
22Cachon,
GérardP.
0.139
University
ofPennsylvania
USA
23Atasu,A
talay
0.136
GeorgiaInstitu
teof
Technology
USA
24Choi,Thomas
Y.
0.134
Arizona
StateUniversity
USA
Rungtusanatham,M
anus
J.0.134
YorkUniversity
Canada
26Terw
iesch,
Christian
0.133
University
ofPennsylvania
USA
Continued
Koufteros et al. 31
Table5:
Contin
ued.
Rank
Author
BonacichPo
wer
Centrality
Current
Institu
tionalA
ffiliatio
nbCountry/Region
ofAffiliatio
nc
27Gaur,Vishal
0.132
CornellUniversity
USA
28Bendoly,E
lliot
0.131
The
OhioStateUniversity
USA
29Geism
ar,H
.Neil
0.130
TexasA&M
University
USA
30Iravani,SeyedM.R
.0.127
Northwestern
University
USA
31Gavirneni,S
rinagesh
0.122
CornellUniversity
USA
Katok
,Elena
0.12
2The
University
ofTexasatDallas
USA
33Moo
kerjee,V
ijayS.
0.12
1The
University
ofTexasatDallas
USA
34Pagell,
Mark
0.119
University
College
Dublin
Ireland
35Debo,
Laurens
G.
0.118
Dartm
outh
College
USA
36Feng,Q
iA.
0.116
Purdue
University
USA
Hopp,
Wallace
J.0.116
University
ofMichigan
USA
38Devaraj,S
arv
0.114
University
ofNotre
Dam
eUSA
Shen,Z
uo-Jun
M.
0.114
University
ofCalifornia,Berkeley
USA
40Mieghem
,Jan
A.V
.0.113
Northwestern
University
USA
41Ram
an,A
nanth
0.112
Harvard
University
USA
42Gallego,G
uillerm
o0.111
The
HongKongUniversity
ofScienceandTechnology
HongKong
43Chen,
Ying-Ju
0.10
9The
Hon
gKon
gUniversity
ofSc
ienceandTechno
logy
Hon
gKon
g44
Choo,
Adrian,
S.0.108
MichiganStateUniversity
USA
Corbett,
Charles
J.0.108
University
ofCalifornia,Los
Angeles
USA
46Duenyas,Izak
0.107
University
ofMichigan
USA
47Rosenzw
eig,
Eve
D.
0.106
EmoryUniversity
USA
48Beil,Dam
ianR.
0.105
University
ofMichigan
USA
49Erhun,F
eryal
0.102
University
ofCam
bridge
UK
50Huh,W
oongheeT.
0.100
The
University
ofBritishColum
bia
Canada
a For
MS,
only
papersaccepted
bythe“O
MDepartm
ent”areincluded.
bThisistheauthor’scurrentaffiliatio
nor,iftheauthor
isretired,the
mostrecentinstitutiontheretired
author
was
affiliatedwith
.c Thisisthecountryor
region
ofaffiliatio
nof
theinstitu
tiontheauthor
iscurrently
ator
oftheinstitu
tionwhere
theauthor
retired
from
.dAnauthor
who
isretired.
32 OM Research
It is no surprise that a significant number of the top 50 authors and univer-sities are in the United States, as it has a far greater number of academic researchinstitutions and OM researchers compared to any other country. The four journalsincluded in this study are also housed in the United States. However, we must notethat Luk Van Wassenhove of INSEAD (France), as the top author under any crite-ria, has been a dominant influencer for over four decades.
Promotion and tenure decisions are rather critical in academia. Table 6 fur-nishes valuable information for time intervals of 5 and 10 years post earning a PhDdegree in order to inform the reader about productivity levels of leading authorsthat coincide with promotion and tenure decisions. In contrast to all other tables,Table 6 is different as it focuses only on researchers that graduated between 2001and 2009 and who were ranked in the top 100 researchers based on the productivitymetrics used to generate Table 2a.We present the records for the top 25 researchersbut due to ties, the table includes the records of 27 individuals. In this fashion, thetable examines publication records of individuals who are relatively recent grad-uates and have completed a full 10-year period post earning their PhD degrees.Subsequently, the information provided here diverges from all other tables as it in-cludes data from 2001 to 2019. Furthermore, this table includes “all” publicationsin Management Science irrespective of the accepting department or topic becausefor tenure and/or promotion decisions the departmental affiliation of the paper maynot be as salient. What is apparent from Table 6 is that the productivity levels postthe first 5-year interval are substantively higher (p < .0001). For the first 5-yearpost-PhD period, on average each researcher in the list published around 3.74 pa-pers or an average of 0.75 papers per year. However, for the second 5-year interval,on average each researcher produced 6.11 papers or an average of 1.22 papers peryear. For the duration of the 10 years, on average each researcher published 9.85papers or 0.99 papers per year. We shaded the top five (with some ties) researchersacross the different columns. For the 10-year interval, Ying-ju Chen and GuomingLai stand out as emerging authors with 19 and 16 papers, respectively.
The Top Institutions in OM
In this section, we move to identify the most-published institutions by numberof OM papers published across the four journals and also those that rank amongthe top based on network measures of total degree centrality and Bonacich powercentrality.
The most-published OM institutions
Table 7 presents the top 50 institutions by total number of OM papers that carrythe institution’s affiliation in the authorship of papers published in the journal setover the 15-year period of 2001–2015. Also included for these top institutions inTable 7 is their weighted count of papers determined by crediting the institutionm(1/n) toward that institution’s weighted count, where m is the number of authorsfrom that same institution and n the number of authors on the paper.
As illustrated in Table 7, the top three institutions, respectively, based on themeasure of total papers are University of Minnesota (109 papers), University ofPennsylvania (104), and Columbia University (99). All three of these institutions
Koufteros et al. 33
Table6:
Publicationratesof
thosefrom
amongthetop100mostp
ublishedauthorswho
received
theirPh
Dduring
2001
orlater,at5and
10yearspost-PhD
andnorm
alizationagainsth
ighestpublicationrates.
Overall
Ranka
Author
Yearof
PhD
Num
berof
PapersDuring
theFirst5
Post-PhD
Years
b
Num
berof
PapersDuring
theFirst1
0Po
st-PhD
Years
b
Nom
inal
Differencein
Papers
Betweenthe
First1
0and5
Post-PhD
Years
Percentage
Differencein
Papers
Betweenthe
First1
0and5
Post-PhD
Years
Num
berof
Papersin
First
5Years
Post-PhD
Normalized
Against
Maxim
um(M
ax=
9)
Num
berof
Papersin
First
10Years
Post-PhD
Normalized
Against
Maxim
um(M
ax=
19)
8Netessine,S
ergu
ei20
014
128
200.00
%0.44
0.63
19Bendo
ly,E
lliot
2001
111
1010
00.00%
0.11
0.58
24Chen,
Ying-ju
2007
519
d14
280.00
%0.56
1.00
24Fe
rguson
,MarkE.
2001
49
512
5.00
%0.44
0.47
28Gaur,Vishal
2001
510
510
0.00
%0.56
0.53
39Atasu,A
talay
2007
612
610
0.00
%0.67
0.63
39Beil,Bam
ianR.
2003
08
8NA
0.00
0.42
39Rosenzw
eig,
Eve
D.
2002
611
583
.33%
0.67
0.58
39Su
,Xuanm
ing
2004
9c14
555
.55%
1.00
0.74
39Zhang
,Fuq
iang
2004
713
685
.71%
0.78
0.68
52Debo,
Laurens
G.
2002
211
945
0.00
%0.22
0.58
52Erhun
,Feryal
2002
06
6NA
0.00
0.32
52Fe
ng,Q
iA.
2006
414
1025
0.00
%0.44
0.74
52Huh
,Woo
ngheeT.
2003
27
525
0.00
%0.22
0.37
60Martín
ez-de-
Albéniz,V
íctor
2004
110
990
0.00
%0.11
0.53
Continued
34 OM Research
Table6:
Contin
ued.
Overall
Ranka
Author
Yearof
PhD
Num
berof
PapersDuring
theFirst5
Post-PhD
Years
b
Num
berof
PapersDuring
theFirst1
0Po
st-PhD
Years
b
Nom
inal
Differencein
Papers
Betweenthe
First1
0and5
Post-PhD
Years
Percentage
Differencein
Papers
Betweenthe
First1
0and5
Post-PhD
Years
Num
berof
Papersin
First
5Years
Post-PhD
Normalized
Against
Maxim
um(M
ax=
9)
Num
berof
Papersin
First
10Years
Post-PhD
Normalized
Against
Maxim
um(M
ax=
19)
60Rabinovich,
Elliot
2001
27
525
0.00
%0.22
0.37
72Allo
n,Gad
2005
310
723
3.33
%0.33
0.53
72Bernstein,F
ernand
o20
013
74
133.33
%0.33
0.37
72Geism
ar,N
eilH
.2003
57
240.00%
0.56
0.37
72Patel,Pank
ajC.
2009
810
225
.00%
0.89
0.53
72Ray,S
aibal
2001
45
125
.00%
0.44
0.26
72Vulcano
,Gustavo
2003
27
525
0.00
%0.22
0.37
90Cho
o,AdrianS.
2003
55
00.00
%0.56
0.26
90Gray,John
V.
2006
28
630
0.00
%0.22
0.42
90Kok
,GurhanA.
2003
39
620
0.00
%0.33
0.47
90Lai,G
uoming
2009
516
1122
0.00
%0.56
0.84
90Su
bram
anian,Ravi
2005
38
516
6.67
%0.33
0.42
a Thisrank
ingisbasedon
totaln
umberof
OM
paperstheauthor
publishedacross
thefour
journalsover
the15
-yearperiod
(200
1–20
15)of
thestud
y.bThese
arecountsof
allp
aperstheauthor
haspublishedacross
allfourjournalsover
theperiod.F
orconsistency,thesenumbersforthefirst5and10
post-
PhD
yearsare,respectiv
ely,all(“notjustOM”)
papers
theindividual
publishedacross
thefour
journalsover
thefirst5and10
calendaryearsfollowing
theyear
inwhich
PhDwas
received.
c Benchmarkfor5-year
period.T
oppublicationratesarelig
htly
shaded
ingray.
dBenchmarkfor10-yearperiod.T
oppublicationratesareheavily
shaded
ingray.
Koufteros et al. 35
Table 7: Top 50 OM institutions based on total number of OM papers carryingthe institution’s affiliation in authorship.
Rank InstitutionTotalPapers
WeightedNumber ofPapersa
Country/Region
1 University of Minnesota 109 56.08 USA2 University of Pennsylvania 104 56.16 USA3 Columbia University 99 57.92 USA4 University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill94 53.66 USA
5 Stanford University 92 53.56 USA6 The University of Texas at Dallas 90 50.91 USA7 Georgia Institute of Technology 88 46.33 USA8 Michigan State University 87 46.21 USA9 INSEAD France 84 35.85 France10 University of Michigan 76 37.88 USA11 Northwestern University 75 43.58 USA12 Pennsylvania State University 72 34.92 USA13 Arizona State University 69 37.19 USA14 University of California, Los Angeles 65 38.17 USA
University of California, Berkeley 65 34.17 USA16 The Ohio State University 63 31.55 USA17 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 62 30.35 USA18 Washington University 57 31.50 USA19 Indiana University Bloomington 56 29.70 USA20 Cornell University 55 29.48 USA
New York University 55 26.32 USA22 The University of Texas at Austin 52 25.70 USA23 University of Maryland 50 24.73 USA24 The Hong Kong University of Science
and Technology49 25.33 Hong Kong
25 Harvard University 47 27.42 USA26 Duke University 46 25.87 USA27 University of Southern California 44 24.33 USA
Texas A&M University 44 21.87 USA29 Purdue University 43 22.26 USA30 Carnegie Mellon University 40 24.02 USA31 Western University 38 17.73 Canada32 The Hong Kong Polytechnic University 36 20.87 Hong Kong
Emory University 36 20.70 USAThe University of British Columbia 36 19.27 CanadaThe Chinese University of Hong Kong 36 16.35 Hong Kong
36 Clemson University 35 14.77 USA37 University of South Carolina 33 17.35 USA
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign 33 14.75 USA39 McGill University 32 18.67 Canada40 London Business School 31 16.35 UK
University of Notre Dame 31 15.36 USA42 Erasmus University 27 14.58 The Netherlands
INSEAD Singapore 27 13.58 Singapore
Continued
36 OM Research
Table 7: Continued.
Rank InstitutionTotalPapers
WeightedNumber ofPapersa
Country/Region
44 National University of Singapore 26 10.02 Singapore45 University of Toronto 25 13.93 Canada
University of Florida 25 12.07 USA47 Singapore Management University 24 12.00 Singapore48 University of Washington 23 12.75 USA
University of Rochester 23 12.33 USAUniversity of Utah 23 11.58 USACity University of Hong Kong 23 10.87 Hong Kong
aThe count of weighted number of papers is determined by crediting the institution m(1/n)towards that institution’s weighted count, where m is the number of authors from that sameinstitution and n the number of authors on the paper. “We note that for MS, only thosepapers accepted by the “OM department” are included in the count.”
are based in the United States. From among the top 10 institutions, nine are based inthe United States and one in France. Of the top 50 institutions (51 in all, includingties), 37 are based in the United States, four in each of Canada and Hong Kong,three in Singapore, and one in each of France, the Netherlands, and the UnitedKingdom. When the weighted count is considered, the list of the top three institu-tions includes Columbia University, University of Pennsylvania, and University ofMinnesota. The list of the top five institutions adds University of North Carolinaat Chapel Hill and Stanford University.
As we did for authors, we also examined which institutions are the mostpublished institutions by journal. In Table 8, we present the top institutions byjournal based on the number of OM papers carrying the institution’s affiliationin authorship. The sets of top five institutions by journal are interesting in thatthere is no overlap among the top five institutions across JOM, POM, andMSOM–with these sets being mutually exclusive and thus encompassing 15 institutions. Incontrast, there is significant overlap between the top five institutions of MSOMand MS, with four institutions appearing among the top five of both MSOM andMS.
In the following subsections, we also deploy social network measures forinstitutions and present the top 50 institutions based on network measures of totaldegree centrality and Bonacich power centrality.
The top OM institutions by total degree centrality
Institutions high in total degree centrality are considered as being “in the know”(Wasserman & Faust, 1994) and have many connections with other institutions inthe same network. For the institution× institution network with shared papers (801institutions, network density 0.01026) the top 50 institutions with the highest totaldegree centrality are presented in Table 9. The top three institutions, respectively,on the measure of total degree centrality are University of Minnesota, Universityof Pennsylvania, and Michigan State University.
Koufteros et al. 37
Table8:
TopOM
institu
tions
byjournal.a
Journal
Rank
JOM
Rank
POM
Rank
MSO
MRank
MS
1MichiganStateUniversity
(65)
(USA
)1
The
University
ofTexasat
Dallas(57)
(USA
)1
Colum
biaUniversity
(38)
(USA
)1
University
ofPennsylvania
(58)
(USA
)2
University
ofMinnesota
(53)
(USA
)2
GeorgiaInstitu
teof
Techno
logy
(41)
(USA
)
2University
ofNorth
CarolinaatChapelH
ill(32)
(USA
)
2Stanford
University
(43)
(USA
)
3Arizona
StateUniversity
(45)
(USA
)3
INSE
ADFrance
(32)
(France)
3Northwestern
University
(31)
(USA
)3
Colum
biaUniversity
(38)
(USA
)4
The
OhioStateUniversity
(34)
(USA
)4
PennsylvaniaState
University
(30)
(USA
)
4University
ofPennsylvania
(29)
(USA
)4
INSE
ADFrance
(32)
(France)
5IndianaUniversity
Bloom
ington
(24)
(USA
)
5The
University
ofTexasat
Austin
(29)
(USA
)5
Stanford
University
(28)
(USA
)5
Northwestern
University
(29)
(USA
)
6University
ofSo
uth
Carolina(21)
(USA
)University
ofCalifornia,
Los
Ang
eles
(29)
(USA
)6
University
ofMichigan
(22)
(USA
)6
University
ofCalifornia,
Berkeley(25)
(USA
)Western
University
(21)
(Canada)
University
ofMinnesota
(29)
(USA
)7
DukeUniversity
(21)
(USA
)University
ofMichigan
(25)
(USA
)8
ClemsonUniversity
(17)
(USA
)University
ofNorth
CarolinaatChapelH
ill(29)
(USA
)
8University
ofCalifornia,
Los
Ang
eles
(20)
(USA
)
8MassachusettsInstitu
teof
Techno
logy
(24)
(USA
)EmoryUniversity
(17)
(USA
)9
TexasA&M
University
(24)
(USA
)9
WashingtonUniversity
(19)
(USA
)9
DukeUniversity
(23)
(USA
)10
GeorgiaInstitu
teof
Techno
logy
(15)
(USA
)
10IndianaUniversity
Bloom
ington
(23)
(USA
)
10GeorgiaInstitu
teof
Techno
logy
(18)
(USA
)
10New
YorkUniversity
(22)
(USA
)
Continued
38 OM Research
Table8:
Contin
ued.
Journal
Rank
JOM
Rank
POM
Rank
MSO
MRank
MS
11TexasA&M
University
(14)
(USA
)University
ofCalifornia,
Berkeley(23)
(USA
)11
New
YorkUniversity
(17)
(USA
)University
ofNorth
CarolinaatChapelH
ill(22)
(USA
)TexasChristianU
(14)
(USA
)University
ofMaryland
(23)
(USA
)12
MassachusettsInstitu
teof
Techno
logy
(16)
(USA
)12
WashingtonUniversity
(20)
(USA
)University
ofArkansas
(14)
(USA
)13
CornellUniversity
(22)
(USA
)PennsylvaniaState
University
(16)
(USA
)
13The
HKUof
Scienceand
Techno
logy
(19)
(Hon
gKon
g)14
PennsylvaniaState
University
(13)
(USA
)14
Colum
biaUniversity
(21)
(USA
)14
CarnegieMellon
University
(15)
(USA
)14
The
University
ofTexasat
Dallas(17)
(USA
)University
ofNotre
Dam
e(13)
(USA
)The
OhioStateUniversity
(21)
(USA
)University
ofMinnesota
(15)
(USA
)15
Harvard
University
(16)
(USA
)University
ofTo
ledo
(13)
(USA
)University
ofMichigan
(21)
(USA
)16
INSE
ADFrance
(14)
(France)
University
ofCalifornia,
Los
Ang
eles
(16)
(USA
)17
Lon
donBusinessSc
hool
(12)
(UK)
17MichiganStateUniversity
(20)
(USA
)Pu
rdue
University
(14)
(USA
)University
ofSo
uthern
California(16)
(USA
)OregonStateUniversity
(12)
(USA
)18
The
Chinese
University
ofHon
gKon
g(19)
(USA
)The
University
ofTexasat
Dallas(14)
(USA
)18
The
University
ofTexasat
Austin
(15)
(USA
)RensselaerPo
lytechnic
Institu
te(12)
(USA
)
19MassachusettsInstitu
teof
Techno
logy
(18)
(USA
)
University
ofCalifornia,
Berkeley
(14)
(USA
)
19GeorgiaInstitu
teof
Techno
logy
(14)
(USA
)20
University
ofCam
bridge
(11)
(UK)
WashingtonUniversity
(18)
(USA
)20
The
HKUof
Scienceand
Techno
logy
(13)
(Hon
gKon
g)
YaleUniversity
(14)
(USA
)
Continued
Koufteros et al. 39
Table8:
Contin
ued.
Journal
Rank
JOM
Rank
POM
Rank
MSO
MRank
MS
University
ofNorth
CarolinaatChapelH
ill(11)
(USA
)
21Stanford
University
(17)
(USA
)University
ofIllin
ois
Urbana-Champaign
(13)
(USA
)
21PennsylvaniaState
University
(13)
(USA
)Xi’an
Jiaotong
University
(11)
(China)
22Erasm
usUniversity
(16)
(The
Netherlands)
22CornellUniversity
(12)
(USA
)The
University
ofBritish
Colum
bia(13)
(Canada)
23The
Hon
gKon
gPo
lytechnicUniversity
(10)
(Hon
gKon
g)
The
Hon
gKon
gPo
lytechnicUniversity
(16)
(Hon
gKon
g)
Harvard
University
(12)
(USA
)23
CarnegieMellon
University
(12)
(USA
)24
BallS
tateUniversity
(9)(U
SA)
The
HKUof
Scienceand
Techno
logy
(16)
(Hon
gKon
g)
The
University
ofBritish
Colum
bia
(12)
(Canada)
CornellUniversity
(12)
(USA
)
CornellUniversity
(9)(U
SA)
Purdue
University
(16)
(USA
)University
ofSo
uthern
California(12)
(USA
)IN
SEADSingapore
(12)
(Singapore)
University
ofMaryland
(9)(U
SA)
26City
University
ofHong
Kon
g(14)
(Hon
gKon
g)26
University
ofMaryland
(11)
(USA
)University
ofMinnesota
(12)
(USA
)University
ofTennessee
Knoxville(9)(U
SA)
Harvard
University
(14)
(USA
)27
University
ofChicago
(10)
(USA
)27
Purdue
University
(10)
(USA
)WakeFo
restUniversity
(9)(U
SA)
McG
illUniversity
(14)
(Canada)
University
ofTo
ronto
(10)
(Canada)
University
ofChicago
(10)
(USA
)YorkUniversity
(9)(Canada)
University
ofNotre
Dam
e(14)
(USA
)University
ofWashington
(10)
(USA
)29
Dartm
outh
College
(9)(U
SA)
30AuburnUniversity
(8)(U
SA)
University
ofPennsylvania
(14)
(USA
)30
McG
illUniversity
(9)(Canada)
30SingaporeManagem
ent
University
(7)(Singapore) Continued
40 OM Research
Table8:
Contin
ued.
Journal
Rank
JOM
Rank
POM
Rank
MSO
MRank
MS
DePaulU
niversity
(8)(U
SA)
31Arizona
StateUniversity
(13)
(USA
)The
Chinese
University
ofHon
gKon
g(9)(H
ong
Kon
g)
University
ofMaryland
(7)(U
SA)
GeorgiaStateUniversity
(8)(U
SA)
ClemsonUniversity
(13)
(USA
)University
ofRochester
(9)(U
SA)
32Lon
donBusinessSc
hool
(6)(U
K)
IEUniversity
(8)(Spain)
New
YorkUniversity
(13)
(USA
)33
SingaporeManagem
ent
University
(8)(Singapore)
University
ofCalifornia,
Irvine
(6)(U
SA)
North
CarolinaState
University
(8)(U
SA)
University
ofSo
uthern
California(13)
(USA
)The
University
ofTexasat
Austin
(8)(U
SA)
University
ofIllin
ois
Urbana-Champaign
(6)(U
SA)
University
ofMichigan
(8)(U
SA)
35Northwestern
University
(12)
(USA
)35
Eindhoven
University
ofTechno
logy
(7)(The
Netherlands)
University
ofRochester
(6)(U
SA)
36ColoradoStateUniversity
(7)(U
SA)
University
ofCincinnati
(12)
(USA
)Georgetow
nUniversity
(7)(U
SA)
University
ofTo
ronto
(6)(Canada)
GeorgeMason
University
(7)(U
SA)
University
ofVirginia
(12)
(USA
)IN
SEADSingapore
(7)(Singapore)
University
ofWashington
(6)(U
SA)
GeorgiaSo
uthern
University
(7)(U
SA)
Western
University
(12)
(Canada)
38Arizona
StateUniversity
(6)(U
SA)
38Arizona
StateUniversity
(5)(U
SA)
RutgersUniversity
(7)(U
SA)
39EmoryUniversity
(11)
(USA
)CaseWestern
Reserve
University
(6)(U
SA)
BostonUniversity
(5)(U
SA)
The
University
ofMelbo
urne
(7)(A
ustralia)
The
University
ofBritish
Colum
bia
(11)
(Canada)
Lon
donBusinessSc
hool
(6)(U
K)
CaseWestern
Reserve
University
(5)(U
SA)
Continued
Koufteros et al. 41
Table8:
Contin
ued.
Journal
Rank
JOM
Rank
POM
Rank
MSO
MRank
MS
41Erasm
usUniversity
(6)(The
Netherlands)
TsinghuaUniversity
(11)
(China)
Shangh
aiUniversity
ofFinanceandEcono
mics
(6)(China)
NationalU
niversity
ofSingapore
(5)(Singapore)
HelsinkiU
niversity
ofTechno
logy
(6)(Finland
)
University
ofFlorida
(11)
(USA
)University
ofCalifornia,
Irvine
(6)(U
SA)
The
Hon
gKon
gPo
lytechnicUniversity
(5)(H
ongKon
g)IN
SEADFrance
(6)(France)
University
ofMiami
(11)
(USA
)University
ofFlorida
(6)(U
SA)
The
OhioStateUniversity
(5)(U
SA)
IowaStateUniversity
(6)(U
SA)
44CarnegieMellon
University
(10)
(USA
)
44City
University
ofHong
Kon
g(5)(H
ongKon
g)
University
ofFlorida
(5)(U
SA)
NationalU
niversity
ofSingapore
(6)(Singapore)
FudanUniversity
(10)
(China)
IndianaUniversity
Bloom
ington
(5)(U
SA)
University
ofNotre
Dam
e(5)(U
SA)
The
Chinese
University
ofHon
gKon
g(6)(H
ongKon
g)
Koç
Üniversity
(10)
(Turkey)
NayangTechno
logical
University
(5)(Singapore)
University
ofWisconsin-M
adison
(5)(U
SA)
Thu
nderbird
(6)(U
SA)
NationalU
niversity
ofSingapore
(10)
(Singapore)
NationalU
niversity
ofSingapore
(5)(Singapore)
47EmoryUniversity
(4)(U
SA)
Continued
42 OM Research
Table8:
Contin
ued.
Journal
Rank
JOM
Rank
POM
Rank
MSO
MRank
MS
UniversidadeCatólica
Portug
uesa
(6)(Portugal)
University
ofCalifornia,
Riverside
(10)
(USA
)
The
Hon
gKon
gPo
lytechnicUniversity
(5)(H
ongKon
g)
IndianaUniversity
Bloom
ington
(4)(U
SA)
University
ofCalgary
(6)(Canada)
49Indian
Scho
olof
Business
(9)(India)
Universidad
deNavarra
(5)(Spain)
LundUniversity
(4)(Sweden)
University
ofIllin
ois
Urbana-Champaign
(6)(U
SA)
SantaClara
University
(9)(U
SA)
University
ofOregon
(5)(U
SA)
McG
illUniversity
(4)(Canada)
University
ofUtah
(6)(U
SA)
Southern
Methodist
University
(9)(U
SA)
University
ofWisconsin-M
adison
(5)(U
SA)
Southern
Methodist
University
(4)(U
SA)
Vanderbilt
University
(6)(U
SA)
University
ofTo
ronto
(9)(Canada)
VrijeUniversiteit
Amsterdam
(5)(The
Netherlands)
Universidad
deNavarra
(4)(Spain)
University
ofUtah
(9)(U
SA)
University
ofCalifornia,
Riverside
(4)(U
SA)
Vanderbilt
University
(9)(U
SA)
University
ofOregon
(4)(U
SA)
University
ofUtah
(4)(U
SA)
a The
topinstitu
tions
aresorted
basedon
thenu
mberof
papers
(conveyedin
parentheses)
appearingin
that
journalover
the15
-yearperiod
of20
01–
2015
onwhich
theinstitu
tion’saffiliatio
nappearsin
authorship.The
countsof
numberof
papers
reported
here
aredeterm
ined
such
that
theinstitu
tion
receives
acreditof
onetowardthecountirrespectiveof
whether
itappearsoneor
moretim
esas
theinstitu
tionof
affiliatio
nin
theauthorship
ofthepaper.
Alsoconveyed
inparenthesisisthecountryof
locatio
n(country/region)
oftheinstitu
tion.
Wenote
that
forMS,
only
thosepapers
accepted
bythe“O
Mdepartment”areincluded
inthecount.
Koufteros et al. 43
Table 9: Top 50 OM institutions based on Total Degree Centrality.a
Rank InstitutionTotal DegreeCentrality
Country/Region
1 University of Minnesota 0.291 USA2 University of Pennsylvania 0.247 USA3 Michigan State University 0.238 USA4 Georgia Institute of Technology 0.233 USA
INSEAD France 0.233 France6 The University of Texas at Dallas 0.231 USA7 Columbia University 0.230 USA8 University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 0.222 USA9 Stanford University 0.205 USA
University of Michigan 0.205 USA11 Pennsylvania State University 0.191 USA12 Arizona State University 0.187 USA13 Northwestern University 0.180 USA14 The Ohio State University 0.173 USA15 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 0.165 USA16 University of California, Berkeley 0.153 USA
University of California, Los Angeles 0.153 USA18 New York University 0.148 USA19 Indian University Bloomington 0.147 USA20 Cornell University 0.140 USA
University of Maryland 0.140 USA22 The University of Texas at Austin 0.134 USA
Washington University 0.134 USA24 The Hong Kong University of Science and
Technology0.133 Hong Kong
25 Texas A&M University 0.120 USA26 Duke University 0.116 USA27 Clemson University 0.112 USA28 Harvard University 0.111 USA29 Purdue University 0.106 USA30 Carnegie Mellon University 0.103 USA31 University of Southern California 0.102 USA
Western University 0.102 Canada33 The Chinese University of Hong Kong 0.100 Hong Kong34 The Hong Kong Polytechnic University 0.093 Hong Kong
The University of British Columbia 0.093 Canada36 Emory University 0.091 USA37 University of Illinois Urbana Champaign 0.089 USA38 University of South Carolina 0.085 USA39 National University of Singapore 0.083 Singapore40 McGill University 0.079 Canada
University of Florida 0.079 USA42 University of Notre Dame 0.078 USA43 London Business School 0.077 UK44 Erasmus University 0.070 The Netherlands45 INSEAD Singapore 0.069 Singapore
University of Toronto 0.069 Canada
Continued
44 OM Research
Table 9: Continued.
Rank InstitutionTotal DegreeCentrality
Country/Region
47 City University of Hong Kong 0.068 Hong Kong48 University of Cambridge 0.067 UK49 University of Miami 0.063 USA50 University of Utah 0.061 USA
North Carolina State University 0.061 USAUniversity of California, Riverside 0.061 USA
aFor MS, only papers accepted by the “OM Department” are included.
Of the top five institutions, four are located in the United States and one inFrance. Of the top 50 institutions (52 in all, including ties), 38 are in the UnitedStates, four in each of Canada and Hong Kong, two in each of Singapore and theUnited Kingdom, and one in each of France and the Netherlands.
The top OM institutions by Bonacich power centrality
An institution scores high on Bonacich power centrality by virtue of it being con-nected with institutions that in turn are highly connected with other institutions.This adds to the prominence of the institution via the weightiness of the centralityof those institutions it is connected to in the network. For the institution × in-stitution network with shared papers (801 institutions, network density 0.01026),the top 50 institutions with the highest Bonacich power centrality are presented inTable 10. The top three institutions, respectively, on this measure of power cen-trality are the University of Minnesota, University of Pennsylvania, and ColumbiaUniversity.
Of the top five institutions, four are located in the United States and onein France. Of the top 50 institutions, 37 are in the United States, four in each ofCanada and Hong Kong, two in Singapore, and one in each of France, the Nether-lands, and the United Kingdom.
Practitioner participation in authorship and networking with practitioners
Research and practice are complementary aspects of knowledge: while researchis knowledge innovation, practice is knowledge application (Chang, 2019). Re-search can be useful for solving real-world problems (Prasad, Babbar, &Motwani,2001; Kielhofner, 2005). Nevertheless, there remains a weak association betweenresearch and practice across disciplines (Short, Keefer, & Stone, 2009; Han&Sten-house, 2015), with the research–practice gap adversely affecting communities andhindering the advancement of disciplines (Chang, 2019). Accordingly, numerousscholars have suggested bridging this gap by strengthening academic–practitionercollaborations (Cascio, 2008; Kernaghan, 2009; Short & Shindell, 2009) and tap-ping benefits that can accrue from practice-driven research that such collaborationshelp promote (Singhal & Singhal, 2012b; Roth, Singhal, Singhal, & Tang, 2016).In their paper appearing in the Academy of Management Journal, Amabile et al.(2001) underscore the point that insights practitioners boast from the field provide
Koufteros et al. 45
Table 10: Top 50 OM institutions based on Bonacich power centrality.a
Rank Institution
BonacichPower
CentralityCountry/Region
1 University of Minnesota 0.177 USA2 University of Pennsylvania 0.155 USA3 Columbia University 0.135 USA4 University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 0.134 USA5 INSEAD France 0.133 France6 Georgia Institute of Technology 0.131 USA7 Michigan State University 0.120 USA8 The University of Texas at Dallas 0.119 USA9 Stanford University 0.117 USA10 University of Michigan 0.111 USA11 Pennsylvania State University 0.101 USA12 Northwestern University 0.094 USA13 Arizona State University 0.087 USA14 The Ohio State University 0.086 USA15 University of California, Berkeley 0.079 USA16 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 0.078 USA17 New York University 0.072 USA18 University of California, Los Angeles 0.070 USA19 Indiana University Bloomington 0.067 USA20 Cornell University 0.065 USA
University of Maryland 0.065 USA22 The Hong Kong University of Science and
Technology0.059 Hong Kong
The University of Texas at Austin 0.059 USA24 Washington University 0.056 USA25 Harvard University 0.054 USA
Texas A&M University 0.054 USA27 Duke University 0.052 USA28 Carnegie Mellon University 0.045 USA29 Clemson University 0.044 USA
Purdue University 0.044 USAUniversity of South Carolina 0.044 USA
32 The Chinese University of Hong Kong 0.042 Hong KongWestern University 0.042 Canada
34 Emory University 0.041 USAUniversity of Illinois Urbana Champaign 0.041 USA
36 The University of British Columbia 0.039 Canada37 National University of Singapore 0.036 Singapore38 The Hong Kong Polytechnic University 0.035 Hong Kong39 University of South Carolina 0.034 USA40 McGill University 0.032 Canada41 University of Florida 0.031 USA
University of Notre Dame 0.031 USA43 INSEAD Singapore 0.030 Singapore
London Business School 0.030 UK
Continued
46 OM Research
Table 10: Continued.
Rank Institution
BonacichPower
CentralityCountry/Region
45 Erasmus University 0.027 The NetherlandsUniversity of Miami 0.027 USAUniversity of Utah 0.027 USA
48 City University of Hong Kong 0.026 Hong KongUniversity of Toronto 0.026 Canada
50 University of Chicago 0.025 USA
aFor MS, only papers accepted by the “OM Department” are included.
Figure 2: Percentage of papers having a practitioner in authorship. The percent-ages here are from papers published across all four journals.
relevance to the research and management research will be substantially strength-ened by effective collaboration between researchers and practicing managers.
Not only is research beneficial to both academicians and practitioners, eachof these groups can make substantial contribution and, through synergies, enhancethe quality of research endeavors. As such, in this section, we examine the ex-tent of practitioner participation in the authorship of research published in the fourjournals. We also examine the levels of collaboration the top ranked authors andinstitutions have had with practitioners.
Figure 2 shows the annual percentage of papers from across all four jour-nals that included a practitioner in authorship. As one can see in Figure 2, thelevel of practitioner participation in authorship has stayed much the same over the
Koufteros et al. 47
years—at around 7% or so of all published papers. Over the 15-year period of ourstudy, we found the average percentage of papers that had a practitioner in author-ship to be 7.27%.
Do the journals differ in the levels of practitioner participation that they ex-hibit? As the findings we present in Table 11 show, there are differences betweenthe journals in this regard. We found the levels of practitioner participation to be3.67%, 6.94%, 8.75%, and 9.60%, respectively, for JOM, MS, POM, and MSOMover the 15-year period. With only 3.67% of its published papers including a prac-titioner in authorship, JOM has had the lowest level of practitioner participationamong the four journals. Further, as shown in Table 11, we found the differencebetween JOM’s level of practitioner participation and that of each of the other jour-nals to be statistically significant.
Having examined the levels of practitioner participation in the authorshipof papers the journals published, we also examined the extent to which the most-published authors in the world (Table 2a) network with practitioners in publishingjointly with them. Of great interest is whether these top ranked authors exhibit ahigher or else lower propensity to network with practitioners than do the overallauthors who have published in the same set of journals over the 15-year period ofour study. We present our findings in Table 12.
Interestingly, we found that each of the sets of top three, top five, top 10,top 25, and top 50 most-published OM authors displayed a lower propensity tocollaborate with practitioners in the authorship of research than that displayed bythe overall set of all authors who have published in these journals. The top threeauthors included a practitioner on only 1.72% of the papers they published, whilethe top five authors included a practitioner on only 2.14%, the top 10 authors on3.42%, the top 25 authors on 4.00%, the top 50 authors on 6.07% and all authors on7.27% of the papers they published. The consistent increase in the extent to whichthe top authors include practitioner(s) in the authorship of papers is quite visible(Table 12) as one moves from the set of top three authors to each subsequent largerset of top authors. Put another way, the higher the authors are ranked, the lesserseems to be their inclination to publish with practitioners. Further, as highlightedin Table 12, we found the differences in the extent of practitioner participationdisplayed by each of the top three, top five, top 10, and top 25 authors relative tothat displayed by all authors to be statistically significant.
Is it just top authors, or do top institutions also display a lower propensity tocollaborate with practitioners in the authorship of research than that displayed bythe overall set of all institutions who have published in these journals?We examinethe top institutions in this regard and present our findings in Table 13.
Table 13 reveals that practically there are no differences in participation ofpractitioners across institution sets. Although on the surface the participation ofpractitioners appears to be somewhat more prevalent for the top three and top fiveinstitutions, the differences across any tiers are not statistically significant by a longshot. The findings are in contrast to the results for top authors where the participa-tion levels of practitioners with the top three through top 25 authors was differentthan the participation of practitioners for the set of all authors. In this respect, dif-ferences in practitioner participation appear to be salient when sets of authors areconcerned but not institutions.
48 OM Research
Table11:The
participationof
practitionersover
differentjournals.a
Journal
Total
Num
berof
Papersthis
Journal
Published
TotalN
umber
ofPapers(of
thisJournal)
thatHavea
Practitionerin
Authorship
Percentage
ofPapers(ofthis
Journal)that
Havea
Practitionerin
Authorship
Com
parisons
ofPractitionerAuthorshipAcrossJournals
JOM
627
233.66
826%
JOM-POM
p-value.001
bJO
M-M
SOM
p-value.000
01JO
M-M
Sp-value.014
68PO
M88
077
8.75
000%
POM-M
SOM
p-value.603
06PO
M-M
Sp-value.250
14MSO
M47
946
9.60
334%
MSO
M-M
Sp-value.138
88MS
461
326.94
143%
a Thisisover
the15
-yearperiod
of20
01–2
015.Weno
tethatforMS,
only
thosepapersaccepted
bythe“O
MDepartm
ent”areinclud
edin
thecoun
t.bSign
ificantp-values
areshaded
ingray
color.
Koufteros et al. 49
Table12:The
participationof
practitionersover
differentauthorsets.
Set
Autho
rSe
t
TotalN
umber
ofUniqu
ea
PapersthisSet
ofAuthorsHas
Published
TotalN
umber
ofUniqu
ePapers(ofthis
Seto
fAutho
rsCom
bined)
that
Havea
Practitionerin
Authorship
Percentage
ofUnique
Papers(ofthis
Seto
fAutho
rsCom
bined)
that
Havea
Practitionerin
Authorship
Com
parisons
AcrossSets
1To
pthreeauthors
combined
116
21.72
413%
1–2
p-value
.810
34
1–3
p-value
.368
12
1–4
p-value
.238
00
1–5
p-value
.056
14
1–6
p-value
.022
022
Topfiv
eauthors
combined
140
32.14
285%
2–3
p-value
.477
70
2–4
p-value
.298
34
2–5
p-value
.060
10
2–6
p-value
.020
883
Top10
authors
combined
234
83.41
880%
3–4
p-value
.703
94
3–5
p-value
.118
76
3–6
p-value
.026
424
Top25
authors
combined
450
184.00
000%
4–5
p-value
.121
14
4–6
p-value
.011
085
Top50
authors
combined
741
456.07
287%
5–6
p-value
.262
726
Allauthors
2447
178
7.27
421%
a The
coun
tof“Uniqu
e”papersdo
esno
tdou
ble-coun
tany
paper(such
asapaperthatm
aybe
co-autho
redby
twoauthorsof
the“top
threeauthorscombined”
set).W
enotethatforMS,
only
thosepapersaccepted
bythe“O
Mdepartment”areincluded
inthecount.
50 OM Research
Table13:The
participationof
practitionersover
differentinstitutionsets.
Set
Institu
tionSe
t
TotalN
umber
ofUniqu
ea
PapersthisSet
ofInstitu
tions
Has
Published
TotalN
umber
ofUniqu
ePapers(ofthis
Seto
fInstitu
tions
Com
bined)
that
Havea
Practitionerin
Authorship
Percentage
ofUnique
Papers(ofthis
Seto
fInstitu
tions
Com
bined)
that
Havea
Practitionerin
Authorship
Com
parisons
AcrossSets
1To
pthree
institu
tions
combined
292
268.90
411%
1–2
p-value
.920
34
1–3
p-value
.865
02
1–4
p-value
.727
86
1–5
p-value
.638
36
1–6
p-value
.771
822
Topfiv
einstitu
tions
combined
457
449.62
801%
2–3
p-value
.741
40
2–4
p-value
.575
48
2–5
p-value
.477
70
2–6
p-value
.603
063
Top10
institu
tions
combined
807
637.80
669%
3–4
p-value
.833
66
3–5
p-value
.711
38
3–6
p-value
.888
664
Top25
institu
tions
combined
1414
986.93
069%
4–5
p-value
.865
02
4–6
p-value
.912
405
Top50
institu
tions
combined
1842
117
6.35
179%
5–6
p-value
.756
566
Allinstitu
tions
2446
178
7.27719%
a The
coun
tof“U
niqu
e”papersdo
esno
tdou
ble-coun
tany
paper(suchas
apaperthatmay
beco-autho
redby
twoinstitu
tions
ofthe“top
threeinstitu
tions
combined”
set).W
enotethatforMS,
only
thosepapersaccepted
bythe“O
MDepartm
ent”areincluded
inthecount.
Koufteros et al. 51
Table 14: Profile of what it takes to place among the top OM authors across allfour journals combined.
Author Seta
Average andthe Minb andMax Numberof Papers thisSet of AuthorsPublished Over
the 5-YearPeriod of2001–2005
Average andthe Min andMax Numberof Papers thisSet of AuthorsPublished Over
the 5-YearPeriod of2006–2010
Average andthe Min andMax Numberof Papers thisSet of AuthorsPublished Over
the 5-YearPeriod of2011–2015
Average andthe Min andMax Numberof Papers thisSet of AuthorsPublished Over
the Entire15-Year Periodof 2001–2015
Top 10 7.70 (6, 13) 9.90 (8, 13) 11.40 (9, 19) 24.00 (19, 37)Top 11–25 5.13 (5, 6) 6.67 (6, 8) 7.47 (7, 9) 15.93 (14, 19)Top 26–50 4.32 (4, 5) 4.92 (4, 6) 5.88 (5, 7) 12.52 (11, 14)Top 51–100 3.42 (3, 4) 3.84 (3, 4) 4.46 (4, 5) 9.34 (8, 11)Top 101–150 2.44 (2, 3) 3.00 (3, 3) 3.76 (3, 4) 7.26 (7, 8)Top 151–200 2.00 (2, 2) 2.60 (2, 3) 3.00 (3, 3) 6.18 (6, 7)Top 201–250 2.00 (2, 2) 2.00 (2, 2) 3.00 (3, 3) 5.46 (5, 6)Overallc 1.54 (1, 13) 1.62 (1, 13) 1.67 (1, 19) 2.15 (1, 37)
aThese are based on a simple count of papers published across all four journals and thereported sets determined by a sorting of these values such that each set includes only thatmany values as specified by the particular set (i.e., the first 10 values comprise the top 10;the next 15 values the top 11–25 set; the next 25 the top 26–50 set, etc.). We note that forMS, only those papers accepted by the “OM Department” are included in the count.bThe min and max number of papers are presented within the parentheses after the averagenumber of papers of each author set.cOverall signifies for all authors who have published in any of these four journals.
Productivity Levels and What It Takes for OM Authors and Institutionsto Rank in the Top Tiers
So that we, as a discipline, can have an understanding of what productivity levels ittook for faculty to place among any of the various top tiers of authors in the world,we present in Table 14 the average number of papers for each top-tier author set,along with the min and max number of papers that set of authors published acrossall four journals combined. To provide greater insight, we present this informationfor each of three 5-year periods (i.e., 2001–2005, 2006–2010, and 2011–2015) aswell as for the overall 15-year period of 2001–2015.
Some themes seem evident from the findings presented in Table 14. Whenone scans across the figures of the three consecutive 5-year periods, the level of5-year productivity within each tier shows a consistent rise from one 5-year periodto the next. For example, while it took on average 7.70 papers to place amongthe top 10 set of most-published OM authors from across the world during 2001–2005, it took on average 9.90 papers during 2006–2010, and on average 11.40papers during 2011–2015 to place in that set. During the most recent 5-year period(2011–2015) of this study, if a faculty member (say, over the 5-year period priorto going up for P&T) published between 5 and 7 papers across these journals, thatwould place that individual among the top 26–50 most-published authors in the
52 OM Research
world. We can reasonably extrapolate, from the fairly consistent upward trend inproductivity levels the data reveals, that as we go forward what it will take to placein the top tiers is likely going to be higher than what it took during the most recent5-year period.
Additional insights can also be gleaned for P&T purposes from the outputlevels of the various top-tier OM author sets presented in Table 14 for assessingwhere a prospective P&T applicant might stand relative to the top tiers. For exam-ple, the top 26–50 tier of most-published authors in the world had a yearly publica-tion rate of less than one paper (more specifically: a publication rate of 12.52/15 =0.84/year) in these journals over the 15-year period of this study. Those who placedamong the top 151–200 tier of authors had a yearly publication rate of less than 0.5papers (7.26/15) in these journals over the 15-year period. Looking at the outputlevels during the most recent 5-year period (2011–2015) of this study, someonewho published between three and four papers in these journals (an average yearlypublication rate of 3.76/5= 0.75) over this recent 5-year period would rank amongthe top 101–150 authors in the world.
With each of these journals being highly regarded, in Table 15 we profilethe productivity levels (average number of papers, along with the min and max) ofeach of the top-tier author sets of each individual journal.
Publishing in these journals is no easy feat. From Table 15, one can see, forexample, someone publishing between four and five papers (a yearly publicationrate of 4.36/15= 0.29 papers/year) in MS over the 15-year period would be amongthe top 26–50 most published authors in that journal. Looking at the most recent5-year period (2011–2015), someone publishing two papers in MS over that 5-year period would be ranked among the top 26–50 most published authors in thatjournal.
Having looked at authors, we now move to consider institutions. What doesit take for an institution to place among any of the different tiers of the most-published institutions from across the world? In a manner similar to that used forauthors above, in Tables 16 and 17, respectively, we profile the productivity levels(average number of papers, along with the min and max number of papers) it tookfor institutions to place among any of the various top tiers based on publicationsacross all four journals (Table 16) and each individual journal (Table 17).
As was the case for authors, the level of 5-year productivity across the fourjournals combined (Table 16) within each tier of top institutions shows a consistentrise from one 5-year period to the next. As mentioned earlier, publishing in thesejournals is no easy feat. For example, it took an institution just one paper acrossthe four journals combined to place among the top 151–200 tier of most-publishedinstitutions over the 5-year period of 2001–2005. That increased to 1.82 papers, onaverage, for the following 5-year period of 2006–2010, and to 2.46 papers duringthe most recent 5-year period of 2011–2015 of this study. Institutions that placedamong the top 51–100 most-published institutions over the entire 15-year periodhad a yearly publication rate of merely 1.05 (i.e., 15.68/15) papers.
As far as institutional productivity levels by journal (Table 17) is concerned,institutions that placed among the top 11–25 tier of most-published institutions ofJOM, for instance, had on average a yearly publication rate of about 0.79 papers(i.e., 11.87/15) in JOM over the 15-year period. Those among the top 26–50 tier of
Koufteros et al. 53
Table15:Profi
leof
whatittakes
toplaceam
ongthetopOM
authorsof
each
individualjournal.
Average
andtheMin
andMax
a
Num
berof
PapersthisSeto
fAuthorsPu
blishedin
the
Particular
JournalO
verthe
5-YearPe
riod
of20
01–2
005
Average
andtheMin
andMax
Num
berof
PapersthisSeto
fAuthorsPu
blishedin
the
Particular
JournalO
verthe
5-YearPe
riod
of20
06–2
010
Average
andtheMin
andMax
Num
berof
PapersthisSeto
fAuthorsPu
blishedin
the
Particular
JournalO
verthe
5-YearPe
riod
of20
11–2
015
Average
andtheMin
andMax
Num
berof
PapersthisSeto
fAuthorsPu
blishedin
theParticular
JournalO
vertheEntire15
-Year
Period
of20
01–2
015
Autho
rSe
tbJO
MPO
MMSO
MMS
JOM
POM
MSO
MMS
JOM
POM
MSO
MMS
JOM
POM
MSO
MMS
Top10
5.90
(5,10)
3.10
(3,4)
2.60
(2,4)
3.60
(3,4
)5.40
(4,7
)5.30
(3,9)
3.30
(3,6
)4.40
(3,6
)5.20
(4,7
)8.20
(6,14)
3.60
(3,6
)4.00
(3,6)
13.30
(10,20
)13
.10
(8,21)
6.70
(6,9
)8.40
(7,13)
Top11
–25
3.20
(3,4
)2.07
(2,3)
2.00
(2,2)
2.73
(2,3
)3.27
(3,4
)3.00
(3,3)
2.67
(2,3
)2.40
(2,3
)3.27
(3,4
)4.33
(4,5
)2.87
(2,3
)2.60
(2,3)
7.40
(6,10)
7.00
(6,8
)5.13
(5,6
)5.87
(5,6
)To
p26
–50
2.08
(2,3
)1.68
(1,2)
1.20
(1,2)
2.00
(2,2
)2.44
(2,3
)2.16
(2,3)
2.00
(2,2
)2.00
(2,2
)2.36
(2,3
)3.40
(3,4
)2.00
(2,2
)2.00
(2,2)
5.12
(4,6)
5.28
(5,6
)4.12
(3,5
)4.36
(4,5
)To
p51
–100
1.60
(1,2
)1.00
(1,1)
1.00
(1,1)
1.34
(1,2
)1.82
(1,2
)1.56
(1,2)
1.30
(1,2
)1.10
(1,2
)1.82
(1,2
)2.58
(2,3
)1.72
(1,2
)1.10
(1,2)
3.40
(3,4)
4.04
(3,5
)3.00
(3,3
)3.12
(3,4
)To
p10
1–15
01.00
(1,1
)1.00
(1,1)
1.00
(1,1)
1.00
(1,1
)1.00
(1,1
)1.00
(1,1)
1.00
(1,1
)1.00
(1,1
)1.00
(1,1
)2.00
(2,2
)1.00
(1,1
)1.00
(1,1)
2.82
(2,3)
3.00
(3,3
)2.16
(2,3
)2.16
(2,3
)To
p15
1–20
01.00
(1,1
)1.00
(1,1)
0.72
c
(0,1)
1.00
(1,1
)1.00
(1,1
)1.00
(1,1)
1.00
(1,1
)1.00
(1,1
)1.00
(1,1
)2.00
(2,2
)1.00
(1,1
)1.00
(1,1)
2.00
(2,2)
2.48
(2,3
)2.00
(2,2
)1.86
(1,2
)To
p20
1–25
01.00
(1,1
)1.00
(1,1)
0.00
(0,0)
1.00
(1,1
)1.00
(1,1
)1.00
(1,1)
1.00
(1,1
)1.00
(1,1
)1.00
(1,1
)1.44
(1,2
)1.00
(1,1
)1.00
(1,1)
2.00
(2,2)
2.00
(2,2
)1.74
(1,2
)1.00
(1,1
)Overalld
1.45
(1,10)
1.19
(1,4)
1.19
(0,4)
1.29
(1,4
)1.34
(1,7
)1.29
(1,9)
1.26
(1,6
)1.34
(1,6
)1.34
(1,7
)1.41
(1,14)
1.27
(1,6
)1.31
(1,6)
1.67
(1,20)
1.60
(1,21)
1.60
(1,9
)1.66
(1,13)
a The
min
andmax
numberof
papersare,respectiv
ely,presentedwith
intheparenthesesbelowtheaverageforeach
set.
bThisisbasedon
asimplecounto
fpapersandthereported
setsdeterm
ined
byasortingof
thosevalues
such
thateach
setiscomposedof
only
thatmany
values
asspecified
bytheparticular
set(i.e.,thefirst10
values
comprisethetop10;thenext
15values
thetop11–25set;thenext
25thetop26–50set,
etc.).WenotethatforMS,
only
thosepapersaccepted
bythe“O
MDepartm
ent”areincluded
inthecount.
c Onlyatotalo
f18
6authorspu
blishedin
MSO
Mdu
ring
the20
01–2
005period
.dOverallsignifies
forallauthorswho
have
publishedin
theparticular
journal.
54 OM Research
Table 16: Profile of what it takes to place among the top OM institutions acrossall four journals combined.
Institution Seta
Average andthe Minb andMax Numberof Papers this
Set ofInstitutions
Published Overthe 5-YearPeriod of2001–2005
Average andthe Min andMax Numberof Papers this
Set ofInstitutions
Published Overthe 5-YearPeriod of2006–2010
Average andthe Min andMax Numberof Papers this
Set ofInstitutions
Published Overthe 5-YearPeriod of2011–2015
Average andthe Min andMax Numberof Papers this
Set ofInstitutions
Published Overthe Entire
15-Year Periodof 2001–2015
Top 10 26.00 (19, 36) 31.50 (26, 40) 37.40 (32, 46) 90.40 (75, 107)Top 11–25 13.60 (11, 18) 19.67 (17, 25) 26.33 (19, 31) 59.00 (47, 74)Top 26–50 7.60 (6, 10) 10.24 (7, 17) 15.96 (13, 19) 32.24 (23, 46)Top 51–100 3.84 (3, 6) 4.50 (3, 7) 8.40 (6, 13) 15.68 (11, 23)Top 101–150 1.96 (1, 3) 2.54 (2, 3) 4.28 (3, 6) 8.26 (7, 11)Top 151–200 1.00 (1, 1) 1.82 (1, 2) 2.46 (2, 3) 5.24 (4, 7)Top 201–250 1.00 (1, 1) 1.00 (1, 1) 1.76 (1, 2) 3.42 (3, 4)Overallc 1.41 (0, 36) 1.91 (0, 40) 2.83 (0, 46) 6.15 (1, 107)
aThis is based on a simple count of papers published across all four journals and the reportedsets determined by a sorting of those values such that each set includes only thatmany valuesas specified by the particular set (i.e., the first 10 values comprise the top 10; the next 15values the top 11–25 set; the next 25 the top 26–50 set, etc.). We note that for MS, onlythose papers accepted by the “OM Department” are included in the count.bThe min and max number of papers are, respectively, presented within the parenthesesafter the average for each set.cOverall signifies for all institutions who have published in any of these four journals.
most-published institutions in JOMhad on average a yearly publication rate of 0.48papers in JOM. The output levels of the various top-tier institution sets presentedin Table 17 can serve as a useful guide for assessing where an institution mightstand relative to the top tiers for each journal.
CONCLUSION, LIMITATIONS, AND FUTURE RESEARCH
We reviewed the top most published authors and institutions based on data fromfour journals over a 15-year period while using a variety of metrics. We also ex-amined the degree to which the top most published OM authors and institutionswork with practitioners. We note, however, that many of these authors also placetheir best work with other premier journals, such as the Decision Sciences or Op-erations Research, and sometimes they cross traditional functional boundaries andpublish in journals such as Academy of Management Journal, Strategic Manage-ment Journal, orMIS Quarterly. Thus, in this manuscript we partially evaluate theoverall contributions of individuals and institutions. Future research may examinea wider spectrum of journals.
To assure accuracy of the data for this study, we painstakingly spent over1,000 hours to manually enter data points and construct the data set while also
Koufteros et al. 55
Table17:Profi
leof
whatittakes
toplaceam
ongthetopOM
institu
tions
ofeach
individualjournal.
Average
andtheMin
andMax
a
Num
berof
PapersthisSeto
fInstitu
tions
Publishedin
the
Particular
JournalO
verthe
5-YearPe
riod
of20
01–2
005
Average
andtheMin
andMax
Num
berof
PapersthisSeto
fInstitu
tions
Publishedin
the
Particular
JournalO
verthe
5-YearPe
riod
of20
06–2
010
Average
andtheMin
andMax
Num
berof
PapersthisSeto
fInstitu
tions
Publishedin
the
Particular
JournalO
verthe
5-YearPe
riod
of20
11–2
015
Average
andtheMin
andMax
Num
berof
PapersthisSeto
fInstitu
tions
Publishedin
the
Particular
JournalO
vertheEntire
15-YearPe
riod
of20
01–2
015
Institu
tion
Setb
JOM
POM
MSO
MMS
JOM
POM
MSO
MMS
JOM
POM
MSO
MMS
JOM
POM
MSO
MMS
Top10
10.80
(5,22)
6.40
(4,9)
6.30
(4,10)
11.70
(8,2
2)12
.20
(7,2
7)10
.10
(7,2
2)10
.60
(8,1
6)11
.60
(8,1
7)11
.10
(7,1
6)19
.70
(14,
32)
10.20
(8,1
4)9.30
(7,1
5)31
.20
(15,65
)32
.10
(23,56
)25
.70
(18,38
)30
.30
(22,
52)
Top11
–25
3.67
(3,5
)3.33
(3,4)
2.87
(2,4
)5.27
(4,7
)4.47
(4,6
)4.93
(4,6
)5.33
(4,8)
5.07
(3,7
)5.53
(4,7
)11
.80
(10,
14)
6.47
(5,8
)5.20
(4,7
)11
.87
(9,1
4)19
.00
(15,23
)14
.00
(12,17
)15
.00
(12,
21)
Top26
–50
2.36
(2,3
)2.00
(2,2)
1.56
(1,2
)2.52
(2,4
)2.72
(2,3
)3.32
(2,4
)2.32
(2,3)
1.68
(1,3
)3.36
(3,4
)7.16
(6,9
)3.72
(3,5
)2.48
(2,3
)7.16
(6,9
)11
.64
(9,14)
7.04
(5,1
1)5.88
(4,1
1)To
p51
–100
1.22
(1,2
)1.08
(1,2)
0.74
c
(0,1
)1.06
(1,2
)1.78
(1,2
)1.54
(1,2
)1.20
(1,2)
0.84
(0,1
)1.60
(1,2
)4.10
(3,6
)1.64
(1,3
)1.02
(1,2
)4.16
(3,6
)6.20
(4,9
)2.96
(2,5)
2.30
(1,4
)To
p10
1–15
01.00
(1,1
)1.00
(1,1)
0.00
(0,0
)0.54
(0,1
)1.00
(1,1
)1.00
(1,1
)0.70
(0,1)
0.00
(0,0
)1.00
(1,1
)2.30
(2,3
)1.00
(1,1
)0.02
(0,1
)2.66
(2,3
)3.52
(3,4
)1.46
(1,2)
1.00
(1,1
)To
p15
1–20
00.08
(0,1
)0.08
(0,1)
0.00
(0,0
)0.00
(0,0
)1.00
(1,1
)1.00
(1,1
)0.00
(0,0)
0.00
(0,0
)1.00
(1,1
)1.30
(1,2
)0.22
(0,1
)0.00
(0,0
)1.74
(1,2
)2.06
(2,3
)1.00
(1,1)
1.00
(1,1
)To
p20
1–25
00.00
(0,0
)0.00
(0,0)
0.00
(0,0
)0.00
(0,0
)0.38
(0,1
)0.36
(0,1
)0.00
(0,0)
0.00
(0,0
)0.30
(0,1
)1.00
(1,1
)0.00
(0,0
)0.00
(0,0
)1.00
(1,1
)1.52
(1,2
)0.84
(0,1)
0.20
(0,1
)Overalld
0.42
(0,22)
0.34
(0,9)
0.23
(0,10)
0.42
(0,2
2)0.58
(0,2
7)0.57
(0,2
2)0.42
(0,1
6)0.34
(0,1
7)0.59
(0,1
6)1.34
(0,3
2)0.54
(0,1
4)0.36
(0,1
5)1.59
(0,6
5)2.24
(0,56)
1.19
(0,3
8)1.12
(0,5
2)a The
min
andmax
numberof
papersare,respectiv
ely,presentedwith
intheparenthesesbelowtheaverageforeach
set.
bThisisbasedon
asimplecounto
fpapersandthereported
setsdeterm
ined
byasortingof
thosevalues
such
thateach
setiscomposedof
only
thatmany
values
asspecified
bytheparticular
set(i.e.,thefirst10
values
comprisethetop10;thenext
15values
thetop11–25set;thenext
25thetop26–50set,
etc.).WenotethatforMS,
only
thosepapersaccepted
bythe“O
MDepartm
ent”areincluded
inthecount.
c Onlyatotalo
f87
institu
tions
publishedin
MSO
Mduring
the2001–2005period.
dOverallsignifies
forallinstitutions
who
have
publishedin
theparticular
journal.
56 OM Research
preparing the various data files. Nevertheless, our data set is limited and we donot delve into qualitative issues or dynamics of networks in our study. Our dataset does not contain information on attributes, such as whether a particular authorhas served as an editor, associate editor, or department editor with these (or someother) journals; whether linkages between highly ranked researchers and their PhDstudents who may also exhibit high productivity levels exist; whether the individ-ual who an author has published with was earlier his/her PhD student or a studentin a PhD program of an institution which that author may have been affiliated with;and whether connections outside of joint publications that someone may have hadwith others existed; etc. While we made every effort to assure data accuracy, anomission, if any, that may have crept in is inadvertent. Our data (other than Ta-ble 6, which spans 2001–2019) set also spans only a 15-year period of 2001–2015.There remains an opportunity for future research to examine and offer insights intoqualitative aspects of networks. Using data sets that may either be more focused,contain more detailed information, or which span longer periods of time, future re-search offers opportunities to examine dynamics of networks and what role, if any,PhD programs, service in editorial capacity, institutional status, prior publicationrecord, etc., play in the context of research networks and collaborations.
When examining the most published institutions and their respective net-works, we did not adjust or normalize the data based on the number of research-active faculty they deploy or have employed over the years. Institutions that count alarge number of research-active faculty simply have the potential to generate morepapers. Accounting for the number of research-active faculty each institution re-tains over the years is not an easy feat as the faculty count changes over the years.Furthermore, faculty listed in a given department may hold administrate roles at thedepartmental, college or university levels, respectively. Thus, it is not easy to deci-pher on a year-by-year basis, and in a retroactive fashion, the number of research-active faculty across hundreds of institutions. We consider this a limitation of ourcurrent work. An additional limitation is that our analysis is based on number ofpapers published, not impact (citations or some other such measure) of the papers.
Are there any tangible benefits from networking? It appears based on corre-lation analysis that researchers that score high on centrality measures also demon-strate high productivity. We compiled a list of all 63 researchers that appeared inthe list of most productive researchers or had the highest centrality measures andcorrelated their respective measures. The correlations between the total number ofpapers with total degree centrality and Bonacich power centrality are 0.93 and 0.90,respectively. Similarly, the correlations between the twomeasures of centrality andthe yearly publication record corrected for the number of years holding a PhD are0.84 and 0.83, respectively. The correlations between the centrality measures withweighted number of papers and with weighted yearly publication rate correctedfor the number of years holding a PhD over the review period are somewhat lower(i.e., 0.61 and 0.57, and 0.49 and 0.47, respectively), but substantive. In essence,the number of direct connections in the network as well as being connected withthose that are highly connected may be fruitful as far as productivity is concerned.Simultaneously, highly productive researchers may be rather attractive to other po-tential network partners, eliciting interest to jointly produce manuscripts, furtherincreasing the productivity levels of focal agents.
Koufteros et al. 57
While networking renders benefits, it should not be inferred that only thosewho network with others that are influential are able to publish in these leadingjournals. Ten (i.e., Stephen C. Graves, Hau L. Lee, Erica L. Plumbeck, VinodR. Singhal, Xuanming Su, Terry A. Taylor, Brian Tomlin, Ward Whitt, FuqiangZhang, and Ӧzer Ӧzalp) of the top 50 authors (see Table 2a) are not listed in Ta-bles 4 and 5, which present the top 50 individuals that boast the highest levels ofcentrality. Furthermore, the number of unique authors whose work these journalspublished increased from 924 during the first 5-year period of 2001–2005 to 1,204during 2006–2010 and 1,684 during 2011–2015. Such increase in participation isencouraging and indicative of excellent research being welcome and published inthese journals irrespective of author networks.
We also present a profile of the productivity levels and show what it takes forauthors and institutions to rank among the top tiers. Such profiles furnish insightsinto yearly publication rates and underlying trends that can be useful in the contextof promotion and tenure and in assessing the standings of individuals and institu-tions relative to leadership benchmarks. Table 6 is rather informative for promo-tion/tenure decisions as it rests on publication records of those who ranked amongthe top 100 and graduated during 2001–2009. It includes data from 2001–2019to assure a full 10-year period for those that have graduated in 2009 and containsall Management Science papers irrespective of departmental affiliation. The tableproduced faculty productivity for the first five and 10 years post-graduation inter-vals and reveals that productivity levels, at least within the realm of the journal setexamined here, soared 63% for the second 5-year period vis-à-vis the first 5-yearperiod. This represents extraordinary growth.
Finally, as our findings show, top ranked authors have displayed a lowerpropensity to collaborate with practitioners in the authorship of research than thatdisplayed by the overall set of all authors who have published in these journals. Inview of the benefits that can accrue from greater practitioner participation in re-search, we encourage academic institutions, administrators, and editors to considerways by which greater participation by practitioners and higher levels of collabo-rations between academicians and practitioners can be achieved. Funding of suchcollaborations and promoting and rewarding joint academic–practitioner publica-tions can help in furthering this cause.
REFERENCES
Acedo, F. J., Barroso, C., Casanueva, C., & Galan, J. L. (2006). Co-authorship inmanagement and organizational studies: An empirical and network analysis.Journal of Management Studies, 43(5), 957–983.
Agarwal, V. K. (2002). Constituencies of journals in production and operationsmanagement: Implications on reach and quality. Production and OperationsManagement, 11(2), 101–108.
Allred, C. R., Fawcett, S. E., Wallin, C., & Magnan, G. M. (2011). A dynamiccollaboration capability as a source of competitive advantage. Decision Sci-ences, 42(1), 129–161.
58 OM Research
Amabile, T. M., Patterson, C., Mueller, J., Wojcik, T., Odomirok, P. W., Marsh, M.& Kramer, S. J. (2001). Academic-practitioner collaboration in managementresearch: A case of cross-profession collaboration. Academy of ManagementJournal, 44(2), 418–431.
Babbar S., Behara R. S., Koufteros X. A., Wong C. W. Y. (2018). Charting leader-ship in SCM research from Asia and Europe. International Journal of Pro-duction Economics, 203, 350–378.
Babbar S., Koufteros X., Behara R. S., Wong C. W. Y. (2019). SCM research lead-ership: The ranked agents and their networks. Supply Chain Management:An International Journal, 24(6), 821–854.
Babbar S., Koufteros X., Bendoly E., Behara R., Metters R., Boyer K. (2020).Looking at ourselves: Lessons about the operations management fieldlearned from our top journals. Journal of Operations Management, 66(3),349–364.
Barabási, A. L., Jeong, H., Néda, Z., Ravasz, E., Schubert, A., & Vicsek, T.(2002). Evolution of the social network of scientific collaborations. PhysicaA, 311(4), 590–614.
Benedek, G., Lublóy, Á., & Vastag, G. (2014). The importance of social embed-dedness: Churn models at mobile providers. Decision Sciences, 45(1), 175–201.
Bonacich, P. (1972). Factoring and weighing approaches to clique identification.Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 2(1), 113–120.
Borgatti, S. P., & Foster, P. C. (2003). The network paradigm in organizationalresearch: A review and typology. Journal of Management, 29(6), 991–1013.
Borgatti, S. P., & Li, X. (2009). On social network analysis in a supply chain con-text. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 45(2), 5–22.
Brass, D. J. (1984). Being in the right place: A structural analysis of individualinfluence in an organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29(4), 518–539.
Buhman, C., Kekre, S., & Singhal, J. (2005). Interdisciplinary and interorganiza-tional research: Establishing the science of enterprise networks. Productionand Operations Management, 14(4), 493–513.
Burt, R. S. (1997). The contingent value of social capital. Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 42(1), 157–171.
Carter, C. R., Ellram, L. M., & Tate, W. (2007). The use of social network analysisin logistics research. Journal of Business Logistics, 28(1), 137–168.
Carter, C. R., Leuschner, R., & Rogers, D. S. (2007). A social network analysis ofthe Journal of Supply Chain Management: Knowledge generation, knowl-edge diffusion and thought leadership. Journal of Supply Chain Manage-ment, 43(2), 15–28.
Koufteros et al. 59
Cascio, W. F. (2008). To prosper, organizational psychology should … bridge ap-plication and scholarship. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(4), 455–468.
Chang, Y. (2019). A comparison of researcher-practitioner collaborations in libraryand information science, education, and sociology. Journal of Librarianshipand Information Science, 51(1), 208–217.
Claver, E., González, R., & Llopis, J. (2000). An analysis of research in informa-tion systems (1981–1997). Information & Management, 37(4), 181–195.
Dong, M. C., Liu, Z., Yu, Y., & Zheng, J. H. (2015). Opportunism in distributionnetworks: The role of network embeddedness and dependence. Productionand Operations Management, 24(10), 1657–1670.
Faust, K. (1997). Centrality in affiliation networks. Social Networks, 19(2), 157–191.
Fischer, C. S., & Shavit, Y. (1995). National differences in network density: Israeland the United States. Social Networks, 17(2), 129–145.
Fombrun, C. J. (1982). Strategies for network research in organizations. Academyof Management Review, 7(2), 280–291.
Fombrun, C. J. (1983). Attributions of power across a social network. Human Re-lations, 36(6), 493–508.
Freeman, L. C. (1979). Centrality in social networks: Conceptual clarification. So-cial Networks, 1(3), 215–239.
Garvin, D. A. (1993). Building a learning organization. Harvard Business Review,74(4), 78–91.
Grover, V., Segars, A. H., & Simon, S. J. (1992). An assessment of institutionalresearch productivity in MIS. Database, 24(4), 5–9.
Gulati, R. (1998). Alliances and networks. Strategic Management Journal, 19(4),293–317.
Gulati, R. (1999). Network location and learning: The influence of network re-sources and firm capabilities on alliance formation. Strategic ManagementJournal, 20(5), 397–420.
Gulati, R., Nohria, N., & Zaheer, A. (2000). Strategic networks. Strategic Man-agement Journal, 21(3), 203–215.
Gunnec, D., & Raghavan, S. (2017). Integrating social network effects in the share-of-choice problem. Decision Sciences, 48(6), 1098–1131.
Guo, H., Pathak, P., & Cheng, H. K. (2015). Estimating social influences fromsocial networking sites—Articulated friendships versus communication in-teractions. Decision Sciences, 46(1), 135–163.
Han, H., & Stenhouse, N. (2015). Bridging the research-practice gap in climatecommunication: Lessons from one academic-practitioner collaboration. Sci-ence Communication, 37(3), 396–404.
Hayes, R. H. (2008). Operations management’s next source of galvanizing energy?Production and Operations Management, 17(6), 567–572.
60 OM Research
Hsieh, P., & Chang, P. (2009). An assessment of world-wide research productivityin production and operations management. International Journal of Produc-tion Economics, 120(2), 540–551.
Hult, G. T. M., Ketchen, D. J., & Nichols, E. L. (2003). Organizational learning asa strategic resource in supply management. Journal of Operations Manage-ment, 21(5), 541–556.
Kearns, G. S., & Lederer, A. L. (2003). A resource-based view of strategic it align-ment: How knowledge sharing creates competitive advantage. Decision Sci-ences, 34(1), 1–29.
Kernaghan, K. (2009). Speaking truth to academics: The wisdom of the practition-ers. Canadian Public Administration, 52(4), 503–523.
Kielhofner, G. (2005). Scholarship and practice: Bridging the divide. AmericanJournal of Occupational Therapy, 59(2), 231–239.
Kraatz, M. (1998). Learning by association? Interorganizational networks andadaption to environmental change. Academy of Management Journal, 41(6),621–643.
Laband, D. N., & Tollison, R. D. (2000). Intellectual collaborations. Journal ofPolitical Economy, 108(3), 632–662.
Levina, T., Levin, Y., McGill, J., & Nediak, M. (2015). Strategic consumer coop-eration in a name-your-own-price channel. Production and Operations Man-agement, 24(12), 1883–1900.
Lovejoy, W. S., & Sinha, A. (2010). Efficient structures for innovative social net-works. Management Science, 56(7), 1127–1145.
Malhotra, M. K., & Kher, H. V. (1996). Institutional research productivity in pro-duction and operations management. Journal of Operations Management,14(1), 55–77.
Martins, M. E., Martins, G. S., Csillag, J. M., & Pereira, S. C. F. (2012). Ser-vice’s scientific community: A social network analysis (1995–2010). Journalof Service Management, 23(3), 455–469.
Mazzola, E., Perrone, G., & Kamuriwo, D. S. (2015). Network embeddedness andnew product development in the biopharmaceutical industry: The moderat-ing role of open innovation flow. International Journal of Production Eco-nomics, 160, 106–119.
McGregor, J. (2006, February 27). The office chart that really counts. BusinessWeek, February 27, 48–49.
Meredith, J. R., Steward, M. D., & Lewis, B. R. (2011). Knowledge disseminationin operations management: Published perceptions versus academic reality.Omega, 39(4), 435–466.
Moody, J. (2004). The structure of a social science collaboration network: Disci-plinary cohesion from 1963 to 1999. American Sociological Review, 69(2),213–238.
Koufteros et al. 61
Morris, M., Bessant, J., & Barnes, J. (2006). Using learning networks to enable in-dustrial development: Case studies from South Africa. International Journalof Operations & Production Management, 26(5), 532–557.
Olson, J. E. (2005). Top-25-business-school professors rate journals in operationsmanagement and related fields. Interfaces, 35(4), 323–338.
Prasad, S., Babbar, S., & Motwani, J. (2001). International operations strategy:Current efforts and future directions. International Journal of Operations &Production Management, 21(5–6), 645–665.
Revilla, E., & Villena, V. H. (2012). Knowledge integration taxonomy in buyer-supplier relationships: Trade-offs between efficiency and innovation. Inter-national Journal of Production Economics, 140(2), 845–864.
Ronchetto, J. R., Hutt, M. D., & Reingen, P. H. (1989). Embedded influence pat-terns in organizational buying systems. Journal of Marketing, 53(4), 51–62.
Roth, A., Singhal, J., Singhal, K., & Tang, C. S. (2016). Knowledge creation anddissemination in operations and supply chain management. Production andOperations Management, 25(9), 473–1488.
Sarker, S., Sarker, S., Kirkeby, S., & Chakraborty, S. (2011). Path to “stardom” inglobally distributed hybrid teams: An examination of a knowledge-centeredperspective using social network analysis. Decision Sciences, 42(2), 339–370.
Scott, J. (2000). Social network analysis: A handbook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.
Shang, G., Saladin, B., Fry, T., & Donohue, J. (2015). Twenty-six years of oper-ations management research (1985-2010): Authorship patterns and researchconstituents in eleven top rated journals. International Journal of ProductionResearch, 53(20), 6161–6197.
Short, D. C., Keefer, J., & Stone, S. J. (2009). The link between research and prac-tice: Experiences of HRD and other professions. Advances in DevelopingHuman Resources, 11(4), 420–437.
Short, D. C., & Shindell, T. J. (2009). Defining HRD scholar-practitioners. Ad-vances in Developing Human Resources, 11(4), 472–485.
Singhal, K., & Singhal, J. (2012a). Imperatives of the science of operations andsupply-chain management. Journal of Operations Management, 30(3), 237–244.
Singhal, K., & Singhal, J. (2012b). Opportunities for developing the science of op-erations and supply-chain management. Journal of Operations Management,30(3), 245–252.
Sosa, M. E. (2014). Realizing the need for rework: From task interdependenceto social networks. Production and Operations Management, 23(8), 1312–1331.
Srinivasan, A., Guo, H., & Devaraj, S. (2017). Who cares about your big day?Impact of life events on dynamics of social networks. Decision Sciences,48(6), 1062–1097.
62 OM Research
Theoharakis, V., Voss, C., Hadjinicola, G. C., & Soteriou, A. C. (2007). Insightsinto factors affecting production and operations management (POM) journalevaluation. Journal of Operations Management, 25(4), 932–955.
Tomas, G., & Hult, M. (2003). An integration of thoughts on knowledge manage-ment. Decision Sciences, 34(2), 189–195.
Trieschmann, J. S., Dennis, A. R., Northcraft, G. B., & Nieme, A. W. Jr. (2000).Serving constituencies in business schools: MBA program versus researchperformance. Academy of Management Journal, 43(6), 1130–1141.
University of Texas-Dallas. (2020). UTD Top 100 Business School ResearchRankings. http://jindal.utdallas.edu/the-utd-top-100-business-school-research-rankings/journals
Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and appli-cations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Young, S. T., Baird, B. C., & Pullmam, M. E. (1996). POM research productivityin U.S. business schools. Journal of Operations Management, 14(1), 41–53.
XenophonKoufteros is a professor of supply chainmanagement at theMaysBusi-ness School, Texas A&M University, where he also holds the Jenna & Calvin R.Guest Professorship in Business and the Eppright University Professorship in Un-dergraduate Teaching Excellence. He also serves as Director of the Supply ChainConsortium at the Mays Business School. He has published more than 50 articlesin refereed journals, including Decision Sciences Journal, Journal of OperationsManagement, Production and Operations Management, Journal of Supply ChainManagement, Structural Equations Modeling, International Journal of Produc-tion Research, International Journal of Production Economics, and InternationalJournal of Production and Operations Management, among others. He is nowserving as co-Editor-in-Chief of the Decision Sciences. He received the best as-sociate editor award for Journal of Operations Management and for Journal ofSupply Chain Management multiple times and the Best Empirical Paper Awardfor Decision Sciences. Prof. Koufteros received numerous teaching awards, suchas the Association of Former Students (AFS) Distinguished Achievement Awardin Teaching at the university level and at the Mays Business School. In 2019, hereceived theWickham Skinner Teaching Award from the Production & OperationsManagement Society, while in 2018 he received the designation of Poets &Quants’top 50 Undergraduate Business Professors, a global recognition. He also receivedseveral awards for his service to the profession and students, such as the Distin-guished Achievement Award—Individual Student Relationships, at the universitylevel, Association of Former Students, Texas A&M University.
Sunil Babbar is a professor of operationsmanagement in the Information Technol-ogy and OperationsManagement Department of the College of Business at FloridaAtlantic University. He received his PhD in operations management from KentState University in Ohio. His primary research interests are in the areas of qualitymanagement, service quality, business ethics, and social networks. He has twicereceived the Researcher of the Year Award of the College of Business at Florida At-lantic University. He has also received numerous awards for excellence in teaching
Koufteros et al. 63
at both the college and university level, including the Stewart Distinguished Profes-sorship Award of FAU’s College of Business in 2007 and the Teaching ExcellenceAward in 2012 and 2016. He has published some 35 articles in refereed journals,with many of his articles appearing in leading journals such as Journal of Oper-ations Management, International Journal of Operations & Production Manage-ment, Decision Sciences, Academy of Management Executive, OMEGA, Interna-tional Journal of Production Economics, and Long Range Planning, among others.His research has received recognition from the American Federation of Labor andCongress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) for its public policy implications.He serves on the editorial boards of a number of journals and is the recipient of theBest Reviewer Award of the Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Educationfor 2010, 2011, and 2015.
Ravi S. Behara is a professor in the Department of Information Technology &Operations Management in the College of Business at Florida Atlantic University.He is also currently the SBA Communications Distinguished Professor. His cur-rent research interests are in healthcare and service operations analytics. He haspublished in the Journal of Operations Management, European Journal of Opera-tions Research, International Journal of Operations and Production Management,International Journal of Production Economics, Decision Support Systems, IEEEJournal of Biomedical and Health Informatics, Journal of Big Data, and Interna-tional Journal of Accounting Information Systems, and in research books, such asHandbooks in Information Systems and Advances in Patient Safety. His healthcareresearch has been NSF funded, and he is currently part of a research team thatis funded by HRSA. His business experience includes operations consulting andworking as an electrical engineer on global power plant construction projects. Heholds a PhD in service operations.
Milad Baghersad is an assistant professor in the Department of Information Tech-nology and Operations Management in the College of Business at Florida AtlanticUniversity. He received his PhD in business information technology from the Pam-plin College of Business at Virginia Tech. His primary research interests includesupply chain disruptions and disaster operations management. Milad has publishedpapers in peer-reviewed journals, including the Decision Sciences, InternationalJournal of Production Economics, Transportation Research Part E, and the Socio-Economic Planning Sciences.
64 OM Research
App
endixA:Mostp
ublishedOM
authorsby
journa
l(For
MS,
thistableinclud
espa
pers
accepted
bytheOM
depa
rtmenta
tMSas
wella
sthoseha
ving
linka
geto
OM
butaccepted
bydepa
rtmentsotherthan
OM)
With
allfour
journalsbeingam
ongthemostprestig
ious
outletsforOM
research
andyethaving
theirow
nidentity,edito
rial
philo
sophy,
guidelines,and
requisites,itwould
beinterestingto
seewho
themostp
ublishedauthorsareby
journal.The
Tablebelowpresentsthemost
publishedauthorsby
journal.Interestingly,thesetsof
top-threeauthorsby
journalare
mutually
exclusiveacross
thefour
journals.R
oger
G.
Schroeder(with
20papersinJO
M)and
Ram
Narasim
han(16)
arethetwomostpublishedauthorsinJO
M,followed
byKevinW.L
inderm
an(14)
andMorganL.S
wink(14)
inatie
forthird.Luk
N.V
anWassenhove(w
ith21
papersin
POM),Su
resh
P.Sethi(17),andChristopher
S.Tang
(15)
arethethreemostp
ublishedauthorsin
POM.P
anos
Kouvelis
(with
10papersin
MSO
M)isthemostp
ublishedauthor
inMSO
M,
follo
wed
byCharles
J.Corbett(8)andJing-Sheng
Song
(7).ChristianTerw
iesch(w
ith16
papers
inMS)
isthemostpublishedauthor
inMS,
follo
wed
bySergueiN
etessine
(15)
andGérardP.Cachon(14).
Journal
Rank
JOM
aRank
POM
Rank
MSO
Ma
Rank
MS
1Sc
hroeder,Rog
erG.
(20,
Uof
Minnesota)
1Wassenhove,Luk
N.V
an(21,IN
SEADFrance)
1Kou
velis,P
anos
(10,
WashingtonU)
1Terw
iesch,
Christian
(16,Uof
Penn
sylvania)
2Narasim
han,
Ram
(16,Mihigan
StateU)
2Se
thi,Su
resh
P.(17,The
Uof
Texasat
Dallas)
2Corbett,
Charles
J.(8,U
ofCalifornia,Los
Angeles)
2Netessine,S
erguei
(15,Uof
Penn
sylvania)
3Linderm
an,K
evin
W.
(14,
Uof
Minnesota)
3Tang,C
hristopher
S.(15,Uof
California,
Los
Ang
eles)
3So
ng,Jing-Sh
eng
(7,D
ukeU)
3Cachon,GérardP.
(14,Uof
Penn
sylvania)
Swink,
MorganL.
(14,
TexasChristianU)
4Daw
ande,M
ilind
(14,The
Uof
Texasat
Dallas)
4Cachon,
GérardP.
(6,U
ofPe
nnsylvania)
4Katok
,Elena
(11,The
Uof
Texasat
Dallas)
5Roth,
Aleda
V.
(13,
ClemsonU)
Sriskandarajah,C
helliah
(13,TexasA&M
U)
Daw
ande,M
illind
(6,T
heUof
Texasat
Dallas)
5Taylor,T
erry
A.
(10,Uof
California,
Berkeley)
Continued
Koufteros et al. 65
App
endixA:Contin
ued.
Journal
Rank
JOM
aRank
POM
Rank
MSO
Ma
Rank
MS
6Boyer,K
enneth
K.
(12,
The
OhioStateU)
6Chen,
Ying-Ju
(12,The
Hon
gKon
gU
ofSc
ienceand
Techno
logy
)
Graves,StephenC.
(6,M
assachusetts
Institu
teof
Techno
logy
)
6Loch,Christoph
H.
(9,U
ofCam
bridge)
Choi,Thomas
Y.
(12,
Arizona
StateU)
7Kou
velis,P
anos
(11,WashingtonU)
Hsu,V
ernonN.
(6,T
heChinese
Uof
Hon
gKon
g)
7Beil,Dam
ianR.
(8,U
ofMichigan)
8Malhotra,Manoj
K.
(11,
CaseWestern
Reserve
U)
8Roth,
Aleda
V.
(10,ClemsonU)
Mieghem
,Jan
A.V
.(6,N
orthwestern
U)
Gaur,Vishal
(8,C
ornellU)
Rungtusanatham,M
anus
J. (11,
YorkU)
Swam
inathan,
JayashankarM.
(10,Uof
North
CarolinaatChapel
Hill)
Netessine,S
erguei
(6,U
ofPe
nnsylvania)
Ho,
Teck-H
ua(8,N
ationalU
ofSingapore)
10Klassen,R
obertD
.(10,
Western
U)
10Atasu,A
talay
(8,G
eorgiaInstitu
teof
Techno
logy
)
Plam
beck,E
rica
L.
(6,S
tanfordU)
Mieghem
,Jan
A.V
.(8,N
orthwestern
U)
Pagell,
Mark
(10,
UCollege
Dublin
)Geism
ar,H
.Neil
(8,T
exas
A&M
U)
Secomandi,N
icola
(6,C
arnegieMellonU)
Oliv
ares,M
arcelo
(8,U
ofChile)
12Benton,
W.C
.Jr.
(9,T
heOhioStateU)
Guide,V
.DanielR
.Jr.
(8,P
ennsylvaniaState
U)
Whitt,
Ward
(6,C
olum
biaU)
Plam
beck,E
rica
L.
(8,S
tanfordU) Continued
66 OM Research
App
endixA:Contin
ued.
Journal
Rank
JOM
aRank
POM
Rank
MSO
Ma
Rank
MS
13Bendoly,E
lliot
(8,T
heOhioStateU)
Ketzenb
erg,MichaelE.
(8,T
exas
A&M
U)
13Babich,
Volod
ymyr
(5,G
eorgetow
nU)
Su,X
uanm
ing
(8,U
ofPe
nnsylvania)
Devaraj,S
arv
(8,U
ofNotre
Dam
e)Seshadri,S
ridhar
(8,U
ofIllin
ois
Urbana-Champaign)
Baron,O
pher
(5,U
ofTo
ronto)
Wassenhove,Luk
N.V
an(8,INSE
ADFrance)
Rabinovich,
Elliot
(8,A
rizona
StateU)
Souza,Gilv
anC.
(8,Ind
iana
UBloom
ington)
Ferguson
,MarkE.
(5,U
ofSo
uth
Carolina)
15Duenyas,Izak
(7,U
ofMichigan)
Vonderembse,MarkA.
(8,U
ofTo
ledo
)16
Bendoly,E
lliot
(7,T
heOhioStateU)
Gallego,G
uillerm
o(5,T
heHon
gKon
gU
ofSc
ienceand
Techno
logy
)
Iravani,SeyedM.R
.(7,N
orthwestern
U)
17Droge,C
ornelia
(7,M
ichiganStateU)
Feng,Q
iA.
(7,P
urdueU)
Gupta,D
iwakar
(5,T
heUof
Texasat
Austin
)
Kou
velis,P
anos
(7,W
ashingtonU)
Hult,To
mas
G.M
.(7,M
ichiganStateU)
Ferguson
,MarkE.
(7,U
ofSo
uth
Carolina)
Hopp,
Wallace
J.(5,U
ofMichigan)
Krishnan,
Viswanathan
(7,U
ofCalifornia,San
Diego)
Patel,PankajC.
(7,V
illanovaU)
Lee,H
auL.
(7,S
tanfordU)
Huh
,Woo
ngheeT.
(5,T
heUof
British
Colum
bia)
Rudi,Nils
(7,Y
aleU)
Rosenzw
eig,
Eve
D.
(7,E
moryU)
Shen,Z
uo-Jun
M.
(7,U
ofCalifornia,
Berkeley)
Koole,G
er(5,V
rijeUniversiteit
Amsterdam)
Toktay,L
.Beril
(7,G
eorgiaInstitu
teof
Techno
logy
)
Continued
Koufteros et al. 67
App
endixA:Contin
ued.
Journal
Rank
JOM
aRank
POM
Rank
MSO
Ma
Rank
MS
Ward,
PeterT.
(7,T
heOhioStateU)
Simchi-Levi,David
(7,M
assachusetts
Institu
teof
Techno
logy
)
Lariviere
Martin
A.
(5,N
orthwestern
U)
Whitt,
Ward
(7,C
olum
biaU)
Yeung
,And
yC.L
.(7,T
heHon
gKon
gPo
lytechnicU)
Toktay,L
.Beril
(7,G
eorgiaInstitu
teof
Techno
logy
)
Rob
inson,
Law
renceW.
(5,C
ornellU)
22Allo
n,Gad
(6,U
ofPe
nnsylvania)
23Choo,
Adrian,
S.(6,M
ichiganStateU)
23Anderson,Edw
ardG.Jr.
(6,T
heUof
Texasat
Austin
)
Sethi,Su
resh
P.(5,T
heUof
Texasat
Dallas)
Cohen,M
orrisA.
(6,U
ofPe
nnsylvania)
Das,A
jay
(6,B
aruchCollege)
Boyacı,Tamer
(6,T
heEurop
ean
Scho
olof
Managem
ent
andTechno
logy
)
Sriskandarajah,C
helliah
(5,T
exas
A&M
U)
Debo,
Laurens
G.
(6,D
artm
outh
College)
Flynn,
Barbara
B.
(6,Ind
iana
UBloom
ington)
Chen,
Jian
(6,T
singhuaU)
Swam
inathan,
JayashankarM.
(5,U
ofNorth
Carolina
atChapelH
ill)
Federgruen,A
wi
(6,C
olum
biaU)
Goldstein,S
usan
M.
(6,U
ofMinnesota)
Gaimon,C
heryl
(6,G
eorgiaInstitu
teof
Techno
logy
)
Wang,Yun
zeng
(5,U
ofCalifornia,
Riverside)
Girotra,K
aran
(6,INSE
ADFrance)
Handley,S
eanM.
(6,U
ofSo
uth
Carolina)
Iravani,SeyedM.R
.(6,N
orthwestern
U)
Wassenhove,Luk
N.V
an(5,INSE
ADFrance)
Kapuscinski,R
oman
(6,U
ofMichigan)
Nair,Anand
(6,M
ichiganStateU)
Koster,RenéB.M
.D.
(6,E
rasm
usU)
Zhang
,Fuq
iang
(5,W
ashingtonU)
Kavadias,Stylianos
(6,U
ofCam
bridge)
Continued
68 OM ResearchApp
endixA:Contin
ued.
Journal
Rank
JOM
aRank
POM
Rank
MSO
Ma
Rank
MS
Shah,R
achn
a(6,U
ofMinnesota)
Loch,Christoph
H.
(6,U
ofCam
bridge)
Ziya,Se
rhan
(5,U
ofNorth
Carolina
atChapelH
ill)
Kim
,Sang-Hyun
(6,Y
aleU)
Singhal,Vinod
R.
(6,G
eorgiaInstitu
teof
Techno
logy
)
Mookerjee,V
ijayS.
(6,T
heUof
Texasat
Dallas)
30Benjaafar,S
aif
(4,U
ofMinnesota)
Ӧzer,Ӧzalp
(6,T
heUof
Texasat
Dallas)
Voss,Christopher
A.
(6,L
ondonBusiness
Scho
ol)
Stecke,K
athryn
E.
(6,T
heUof
Texasat
Dallas)
Bernstein,F
ernando
(4,D
ukeU)
Tomlin
,Brian
(6,D
artm
outh
College)
Wu,
Zhaoh
ui(6,O
regonStateU)
Yan,H
oumin
(6,C
ityUof
Hong
Kon
g)
Dada,Maqbo
ol(4,Johns
Hopkins
U)
Zhang
,Fuq
iang
(6,W
ashingtonU)
33Calantone,R
oger
J.(5,M
ichiganStateU)
Zhang
,Jun
(6,F
udan
U)
Debo,
Laurens
G.
(4,D
artm
outh
College)
33Arya,Anil
(5,T
heOhioStateU)
Forza,Cipriano
(5,U
niversità
diPadova)
34Aksin
O.Z
.(5,K
oçÜ)
Erhun
,Feryal
(4,U
ofCam
bridge)
Aviv,Yossi
(5,T
elAvivU)
Ketchen,D
avid
J.Jr.
(5,A
uburnU)
Arya,Anil
(5,T
heOhioStateU)
Fisher,M
arshallL
.(4,U
ofPe
nnsylvania)
Bassambo,A
chal
(5,N
orthwestern
U)
Ketokivi,Mikko
A.
(5,IEU)
Boyer,K
enneth
K.
(5,T
heOhioStateU)
Gans,Noah
(4,U
ofPe
nnsylvania)
Benjaafar,S
aif
(5,U
ofMinnesota)
Koufteros,X
enophonA.
(5,T
exas
A&M
U)
Cai,G
angshu
(5,S
antaClara
U)
Gurvich,Itai
(4,C
ornellU)
Bernstein,F
ernando
(5,D
ukeU)
Krause,DanielR
.(5,C
oloradoStateU)
Cakanyildirim
,Metin
(5,T
heUof
Texasat
Dallas)
Kapuscinski,R
oman
(4,U
ofMichigan)
Corbett,
Charles
J.(5,U
ofCalifornia,Los
Angeles)
Continued
Koufteros et al. 69
App
endixA:Contin
ued.
Journal
Rank
JOM
aRank
POM
Rank
MSO
Ma
Rank
MS
Liu,Y
i(5,S
hang
haiJiaoTo
ngU)
Chao,
Xiuli
(5,U
ofMichigan)
Kok,G
urhanA.
(4,K
oçÜ)
DeC
roix,G
regory
A.
(5,U
ofWisconsin-M
adison)
Scho
enherr,T
obias
(5,M
ichiganStateU)
Hausm
an,W
arrenH.
(5,S
tanfordU)
Ray,S
aibal
(4,M
cGill
U)
Gallego,G
uillerm
o(5,T
heHon
gKon
gU
ofSc
ienceand
Techno
logy
)Singhal,Jaya
(5,U
ofBaltim
ore)
Heese,H
ansS.
(5,N
orth
Carolina
StateU)
Ryzin,G
arrettJ.V.
(4,C
ornellU)
Gans,Noah
(5,U
ofPe
nnsylvania)
Singhal,Kalyan
(5,U
ofBaltim
ore)
Krishnan,
Viswanathan
(5,U
ofCalifornia,San
Diego)
Shang,Kevin
H.
(4,D
ukeU)
Lee,H
auL.
(5,S
tanfordU)
Tatik
onda,M
ohan
V.
(5,Ind
iana
UBloom
ington)
Ovchinnikov,A
nton
(5,Q
ueensU)
Shen,Z
uo-Jun
M.
(4,U
ofCalifornia,
Berkeley)
Li,Lod
e(5,Y
aleU)
Treville,S
uzanne
D.
(5,U
ofLausann
e)Ӧzer,Ӧzalp
(5,T
heUof
Texasat
Dallas)
Tang,C
hristopher
S.(4,U
ofCalifornia,Los
Angeles)
Mendelson,H
aim
(5,S
tanfordU)
Verma,Rohit
(5,C
ornellU)
Parker,G
eoffreyG.
(5,D
artm
outh
College)
Tomlin
,Brian
(4,D
artm
outh
College)
Seshadri,S
ridhar
(5,U
ofIllin
ois,
Urbana-Champaign)
Zhao,Xiand
e(5,C
hina
Europ
eInternationalB
usiness
Scho
ol)
Pinedo
,Michael
(5,N
ewYorkU)
Vulcano,G
ustavo
(4,U
niversidad
Torcuato
diTella)
Siem
sen,
Enn
o(5,U
ofWisconsin-M
adison)
Continued
70 OM ResearchApp
endixA:Contin
ued.
Journal
Rank
JOM
aRank
POM
Rank
MSO
Ma
Rank
MS
Ram
an,A
nanth
(5,H
arvard
U)
Wu,
Owen
Q.
(4,Ind
iana
UBloom
ington)
Swam
inathan,
JayashankarM.
(5,U
ofNorth
Carolina
atChapelH
ill)
Ryan,
Jennifer
K.
(5,U
ofNebraska-
Lincoln)
Zeevi,A
ssaf
(4,C
olum
biaU)
Vulcano,G
ustavo
J.(5,U
niversidad
Torcuato
diTella)
Schroeder,Rog
erG.2
(5,U
ofMinnesota)
Zipkin,
Paul
H.
(4,D
ukeU)
Xiao,
Wenqiang
(5,N
ewYorkU)
Shanthikum
ar,G
eorgeJ.
(5,P
urdueU)
Xu,
SusanH.
(5,P
ennsylvaniaState
U)
Sodh
i,Manmoh
anS.
(5,C
ityULondon)
Zenios,Stefanos
A.
(5,S
tanfordU)
Subram
anian,Ravi
(5,G
eorgiaInstitu
teof
Techno
logy
)To
paloglu,Huseyin
(5,C
ornellU)
Whitt,
Ward
(5,C
olum
biaU)
Xia,Y
usen
(5,G
eorgiaStateU)
Zho
u,Se
anX.
(5,T
heChinese
Uof
Hon
gKon
g)a Includedin
thistableareonly
46authorsforJO
Mand49
forMSO
Mbecauseof
thevery
largenumberof
tiesatthenext
lower
papercount.