|
on Sociology of Economics |
| By: | Orhan, Mehmet A. (EM Normandie Business School); van Rossenberg, Yvonne; Bal, P. Matthijs |
| Abstract: | Ideally, the academic publication process should be meritocratic, fair, and open to diverse groups of researchers. Yet, many scholarly disciplines are far from this ideal. To investigate the extent and nature of overrepresentation in management and organizational research, we examined 60-year publication trends in three closely related subfields: Management (MNGT), Human Resource Management (HRM), and Industrial-Organizational Psychology (IOP). Analyzing over 60, 000 publications from 42 top-tier journals, our study reveals an increasing trend in authorship inequalities and a growing dominance of the scientific elite. Individual-level analyses, along with journal and field-level comparisons, show that a select group of researchers has become more influential over time, leading to rising disparities in authorship. Field-level comparisons also show that the most productive IOP researchers publish significantly more articles than those in other fields. Besides rising numbers of publications, the super-elite of IOP are found to dominate more journals, as evidenced by a higher frequency of the same authors appearing on the top-10 most productive list in IOP than in the other two fields. Through network analyses, we revealed that IOP consistently shows a large giant component, indicating that a large portion of IOP authors is part of the “same connected network, ” reflecting a highly collaborative field where even smaller groups are connected to the broader network. We recommend future advancements in theory, practice, and policy to address these inequalities and promote a more inclusive and equitable research environment. |
| Date: | 2024–10–01 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:osf:osfxxx:tzx92_v1 |
| By: | Ankel-Peters, Jörg (RWI – Leibniz Institute for Economic Research and University Duisburg-Essen); Brodeur, Abel (University of Ottawa); Dreber Almenberg, Anna (Stockholm School of Economics); Johannesson, Magnus (Stockholm School of Economics); Neubauer, Florian (RWI – Leibniz Institute for Economic Research and University Duisburg-Essen); Rose, Julian (RWI) |
| Abstract: | Robustness reproductions and replicability discussions are on the rise in response to concerns about a potential credibility crisis in economics. This paper proposes a protocol to structure reproducibility and replicability assessments, with a focus on robustness. Starting with a computational reproduction upon data availability, the protocol encourages replicators to prespecify robustness tests, prior to implementing them. The protocol contains three different reporting tools to streamline the presentation of results. Beyond reproductions, our protocol assesses adherence to the pre-analysis plans in the replicated papers as well as external and construct validity. Our ambition is to put often controversial debates between replicators and replicated authors on a solid basis and contribute to an improved replication culture in economics. |
| Keywords: | replication, reproducibility, robustness, research transparency, meta-science |
| JEL: | A11 C18 |
| Date: | 2025–02 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:iza:izadps:dp17691 |
| By: | Orhan, Mehmet A. (EM Normandie Business School); Bal, P. Matthijs; van Rossenberg, Yvonne |
| Abstract: | This article presents a fictional narrative about Professor Sackker, the solitary researcher in the field of Sackker Studies, once known as Management and Organizational Studies. Despite its absurdity, the story portrays Sackker’s dominance, marked by his inevitable rise with record-breaking publications and citations, stifling competition, and leaving him as the ultimate winner and ruler. Through personal reflections, his story explores his career strategies, provides insights into his success, and explains how he shaped, transformed, and eventually (but unwittingly) destroyed the field. This narrative, though fictional, mirrors real concerns in today’s reality: growing inequalities, the dominance of elite scholars, and erosion of meaning in academic careers as a function of hyper-competition. We examine the prevalence of systemic issues plaguing academia. Despite challenges, the article also aims to inspire hope. By illuminating these problems and integrating them into scholarly discussions, there lies an opportunity for change, empowering the next generation of academics. |
| Date: | 2024–07–26 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:osf:osfxxx:r63uz_v1 |