- Email: [email protected]
Yesterday, today and tomorrow: An overview of research publications in the Journal of International Management
Journal of International Management 18 (2012) 102–110
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Journal of International Management
Yesterday, today and tomorrow: An overview of research publications in the Journal of International Management Tanvi Kothari a,⁎, Somnath Lahiri b, 1 a b
Management and Human Resources Department, College of Business, University of Wisconsin Oshkosh, Oshkosh, WI 54901, United States Management and Quantitative Methods Department, College of Business, Illinois State University, Normal, IL 61790-5580, United States1
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 31 August 2011 Received in revised form 7 September 2011 Accepted 7 September 2011 Available online 4 October 2011 Keywords: Overview of research publications
a b s t r a c t In this article, we provide an overview of the research articles that have been published in the Journal of International Management between 1998 and 2010. Our scrutiny of 287 articles published in these 13 years reveals a wide variety in the examined topics, authorship, author affiliations, research settings, and research foci. Significant variety is also evident in the utilized theoretical foundations, data collection methods and analytical tools. We present and discuss our findings and conclude by providing general research directions for future contributors. © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction Since its modest beginning in 1995, the Journal of International Management (JIM hereafter) has progressed to become one of the most-recognized journals in the field of international management. Over almost a decade and half, numerous articles have been published in JIM that sought to address a wide variety of international management phenomena that are interesting, important, and timely. Once considered a relatively low ranking international research outlet (Dubois and Reeb, 2000), JIM is currently regarded as one of the top international journals (Lahiri, 2011a, b; Quer et al., 2007. The German Academic Association for business research has ranked JIM second (immediately after Journal of International Business Studies) amongst the top 10 journals in international management (VHB, 2009, p. 195). In 2010, JIM joined the elite club of journals through its inclusion in the Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) and its first impact factor was 1.854. The 2010 impact factor is 1.298 (c.f. JIM homepage, 2011). The journal is published by Elsevier and is housed in the Fox School of Business, Temple University, USA. In light of the enhancing impact of JIM in the domain of international scholarship, it is probably apt to conduct an overview of research articles that have been published in the journal over the years. Such an exercise would allow us to engage in some form of stock-taking of past scholarship as well as suggest few useful directions that contributors may pursue in the future. The purpose of this article is to seek answers to a simple question: what types of research articles have been published in JIM in the last 13 years and how do we proceed thereon? Since a study of this nature has not been conducted for JIM before, our hope is that this article would appeal to scholars who have published in the journal in the past as well as those who plan to contribute in the future. 2. Research methodology We utilized EBSCOhost (Business Source Premier) and ScienceDirect online databases for downloading the published articles. Over the span of this study's time-frame (July 1998 2 (Vol. 4, issue 1) to December 2010 (Vol. 16, issue 4), 287 articles were ⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: + 1 920 424 7195. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (T. Kothari), [email protected] (S. Lahiri). 1 Tel.: + 1 309 438 8452. 2 We contacted the institution where the journal was housed prior to Temple University. However, we were unable to receive the copies of the articles published from 1995 to 1998. 1075-4253/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.intman.2011.09.001
T. Kothari, S. Lahiri / Journal of International Management 18 (2012) 102–110
103
published in JIM. This number includes full-length original research articles, commentaries, and guest editors' introduction to special issues. Other publications such as book reviews, call for papers, erratum, corrigendum, acknowledgement of reviewers, and letters from the editor were not included in the analysis. Each article in the sample was thoroughly scrutinized to arrive at various findings discussed below. 3. Research trends 3.1. Published issues JIM is “devoted to advancing an understanding of issues in the management of global enterprises, global management theory and practice; and providing theoretical and managerial implications useful for the further development of research” (c.f. JIM homepage, 2011). Most issues of the journal publish a variety of research articles that enhance our understanding of different themes in international management (Tsui, 2007; Werner, 2002). However, in the course of its growth JIM has published several special issues, i.e., issues dedicated to particular themes in international research. In addition, there have been few issues of the journal that incorporated articles focusing on a particular research theme along with other articles that were not focused on any specific theme. Table 1 highlights the year and theme of special / focused issues. 3.2. Type of articles published Of the 287 articles that forms our study sample, 184 (64%) were empirical in nature and 103 (36%) were theoretical or conceptual in nature. Within the 184 empirical articles, 140 (76%) were quantitative and the remaining 44 (24%) were qualitative. By quantitative we refer to those articles that used numerical data and analyzed it using statistical methods to test theorydriven hypotheses and arrive at definite findings. By qualitative we mean those articles that were exploratory in nature and analyzed qualitative data more for the purpose of producing insights than definitive results. It becomes evident that the number of published qualitative articles in JIM is significantly small compared to the number of published quantitative articles. 3.3. Authorship Our raw count suggests that 492 authors contributed to the 287 published articles during the 13 year time-span. The average number of authors contributing per publication is, therefore, about two. Among these 287 articles, a total of 90 articles (31%) were sole-authored and the remaining 197 (69%) were authored by multiple authors. Of the 197 co-authored articles, 126 (64%) were co-authored by two authors, 50 (25%) were co-authored by three authors and the remaining 21 (11%) were co-authored by more than 3 authors. The largest number of authors on an article was 12 (Perrewé et al., 2002). Table 2 summarizes the above information regarding year-wise article appearance, type of article and authorship. Although ranking of author appearances is beyond the scope of this paper (for details, see Lahiri, 2011a,b), nonetheless, we would like to report the names of few authors who made multiple appearances in JIM during our research period. These include authors Yadong Luo (10 appearances), Nir Kshetri (5), David Ralston (5), Brent Allred (4), K.S. Swan (4), Malika Richards (4), and Torben Pedersen (4). There were 12 authors (names not reported) who made three appearances. 3.4. Author affiliation Of the 492 contributing authors, 476 were affiliated with academic institutions and 16 were affiliated with non-academic institutions. While the former represented a total of 315 different academic institutions, the latter represented 16 non-academic Table 1 Information about focused/special issues. Year
Volume
Issue
Special/focus issue theme
2004 2004 2005 2005 2005 2006 2006 2007 2007 2008 2008 2008 2009 2009 2010
10 10 11 11 11 12 12 13 13 14 14 14 15 15 16
1 2 1 2 4 2 3 1 3 1 3 4 2 3 1
Research and development globalization and international business From markets to partnerships and hierarchies to coalitions: perspectives on the modern multinational corporation Governance and accountability in multinational enterprises Information technology and international business: theory and strategy Development Global security risks and international competitiveness Megatrends in world cultures and globalization Micro-politics and conflicts in multinational corporations International outsourcing of services: expanding the research agenda Emerging multinationals from developing economies: motivations, paths and performance International business and institutional development in Central and Eastern Europe Institutional changes and organizational transformation in developing economies The role of corporate social and environmental responsibility in international business Global sourcing and value creation: opportunities and challenges The emerging CEO agenda in multinational companies 50 years of IB research: what have we achieved, and what have we not yet achieved?
104
T. Kothari, S. Lahiri / Journal of International Management 18 (2012) 102–110
Table 2 Article information: type and authorship. Year
Total articles
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total
17 15 17 14 20 23 22 26 22 24 23 34 30 287
Article type
Authorship
Conceptual
Quantitative
Qualitative
Sole
Multiple
4 8 7 6 8 13 7 14 4 8 5 11 8 103
13 7 7 6 10 8 12 7 12 14 8 17 19 140
0 0 3 2 2 2 3 5 6 2 10 6 3 44
4 7 10 4 5 13 5 7 5 6 7 10 7 90
13 8 7 10 15 10 17 19 17 18 16 24 23 197
institutions. The academic institutions are located in 34 different countries spread across six different continents. These countries include Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Lithuania, Mexico, New Zealand, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Scotland, Singapore, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, Thailand, The Netherlands, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States, and Vietnam. Geographic distribution of non-academic institutions includes Brazil (1), Canada (1), China (1), Germany (1), Portugal (1), Spain (1), Switzerland (2), The Netherlands (1), United Kingdom (2), and United States (5). Examples of the non-academic institutions are Edson Queiroz Foundation (Brazil), United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, Division on Investment and Enterprise (Switzerland), Royal Bank of Canada (Canada), Weyerhaeuser China, Ltd. (China), ING Bank (The Netherlands), and Dell Computer, IBM Corporation, MetroHartford Chamber of Commerce (USA). Interestingly, on mapping authors with institutions, it becomes evident that a strong majority of the authors (244, 49.6%) are affiliated to institutions located in the United States, followed by those located in Europe excluding UK (108, 22.0%), Asia (67, 13.6%), UK (31, 6.3%) and others [Canada (24, 4.9%); Australia and New Zealand (12, 2.4%); South America (4, 0.8%); South Africa (2, 0.4%)]. Table 3 shows the ranked distribution of institutional affiliations across geographic area/country. We also found that for the 197 multiple-authored publications, there were 124 (62.9%) articles that had co-authors affiliated to same-country institutions. Besides, there were 73 (37.1%) articles wherein the authors are from different-country institutions. Examples of the second category include Beise and Cleff (2004) and Sonderegger and Taube (2010). Although this category, compared to the former, is relatively small in size; it suggests that the contributing authors in JIM do tend to collaborate across international boundaries. But more importantly, the wide geographic distribution of author affiliations clearly indicates the global scope that JIM has continued to represent over the years. 3.5. Research setting Careful review of the sampled articles suggests that a wide number of national settings have been utilized by the contributing authors for their investigations. There were 88 studies that utilized a single country setting of which 24 (27%) were U.S-based and 64 (73%) were non-U.S-based. In addition, there were 79 studies that involved a multi-country setting. Examples of this category include Beugelsdijk et al. (2009)) (studied 56 countries), Chakrabarty (2009) (studied 25 countries), and Richards (2000) (studied five countries: US, UK, Thailand, Malaysia and Singapore). Multi-country studies are appearing with a greater frequency in recent years. For example, there were 12 multi-country studies in 2009 and ten in 2006. Countries that were most used as research settings include China (30 studies), Germany (28 studies), Japan (26 studies), UK (24 studies), India (21 studies), Canada (19 studies), Mexico (16 studies), France (15 studies), Brazil (14 studies), The Netherlands (13 studies), Finland and Italy (12 studies), Belgium and Sweden (11 studies), Ireland and Australia (ten studies); Austria, Denmark, Hong Kong, and Spain (eight studies); and Argentina, Hungary, Portugal, South Africa and Switzerland (eight studies). Such wide variety in research settings allows us to infer that JIM is truly international in scope. Specifically, JIM's publications do not suggest a positive bias towards any particular country, for example, the US. 3.6. Theoretical foundations “JIM publishes theoretical and empirical research……and also solicits literature reviews and critiques that include a guide for improved theory and international management research” (c.f. JIM homepage, 2011). To enhance conceptualization or analysis, contributing scholars utilized various theoretical foundations. Such perspectives include almost all the major paradigms found in the business literature such as the resource-based view of the firm, knowledge based view, resource dependence theory, transaction cost analysis, social exchange theory, institutional theory, agency theory, theory of firm internalization, etc. While some scholars utilized a single theoretical foundation, for example, institutional theory (Kshetri, 2007) others utilized multiple
T. Kothari, S. Lahiri / Journal of International Management 18 (2012) 102–110
105
Table 3 Geographic distribution of contributing institutions. Institutional nationality
No. of contributing authors
Percent of total
USA Europe Germany Denmark Sweden The Netherlands Finland Ireland Spain France Switzerland Turkey Cyprus Austria Belgium Italy Lithuania Portugal Scotland Asia China Japan Israel Taiwan Singapore India Thailand Vietnam Korea, Republic of Hong Kong UK Canada Australia and New Zealand Brazil South Africa Total
244 108 20 14 13 12 7 7 7 7 4 4 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 67 30 9 8 7 4 3 3 1 1 1 31 24 12 4 2 492
49.59 21.95 4.07 2.85 2.64 2.44 1.42 63.62 1.42 1.42 0.81 0.81 0.61 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.20 0.20 13.62 6.10 1.83 1.63 1.42 0.81 0.61 0.61 0.20 0.20 0.20 6.30 4.88 2.44 0.81 0.41 100
perspectives e.g., resource-based view and social exchange theory (Lahiri and Kedia, 2009). Most used theories in our entire sample include transaction cost analysis (37 articles), institutional theory (33 articles), and resource-based view of the firm (30 articles). On the other side of the continuum, there were theoretical perspectives that were utilized in a handful studies such as Social Network Theory (three articles), and Upper-Echelons Theory (one article) etc.
3.7. Research focus Our review of the 287 published articles indicated a wide variety of research foci that are important in the domain of international management. These include international entry modes, firm strategy, competitive advantage, firm performance, and expatriation, etc. Such a wide diversity in research foci suggests that the authors have, over the years, focused at various levels of analysis (national, industry, firm and individual) while conducting research for publication in JIM. This is not surprising given that JIM is devoted towards publishing theoretical and empirical research “addressing international business strategy, comparative and cross-cultural management, risk management, organizational behavior, and human resource management, among others” (c.f. JIM homepage, 2011). Table 4 highlights these research foci and indicates the number of articles for each category.
3.8. Data collection and analytical tools Contributing scholars of the 179 empirical articles used a wide variety of techniques for obtaining data for their research. For the quantitative articles, data collection was done from primary, archival and secondary sources. Primary sources include interviews, case studies, questionnaire surveys, and field studies, while archival / secondary sources include World Bank data, OECD survey data, meta-analysis of prior literature, neural networks, CD-Rom Directory of Foreign-Invested Enterprises, and U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, etc. For the quantitative articles, scholars used different analytical tools to arrive at research findings. Table 5 highlights various data collection techniques and analytical tools and indicates the number of articles for each category.
106
T. Kothari, S. Lahiri / Journal of International Management 18 (2012) 102–110
Table 4 Research focus. Topic
Number of articles
Strategy/strategic management/functional strategy/organizational design/risk management Culture/cross-cultural issues Institutional (change/environment/distance) Ownership/control/structure/governance/leadership Internationalization/diversification/entry mode Knowledge management/transfer/organizational learning International joint ventures Foreign investments/locations International alliance/collaboration/partnership International outsourcing/offshoring/sourcing Subsidiary (performance/management) Liability of foreignness Globalization Competitiveness/competitive advantage/innovativeness Corporate responsibility/ ethics issues Expatriation Clusters IB research Performance International acquisitions/ cross border M&A Competition Industry/industry structure Total
41 23 21 20 19 18 17 15 13 13 12 12 10 8 8 7 6 6 5 5 4 4 287
4. Discussion and conclusion 4.1. What do JIM's past contributors think of the journal today? We contacted twenty-five scholars from a wide variety of institutional affiliations, many of them outside the US, to gain insight into their thoughts on JIM's current standing as a scholarly outlet and their experiences with JIM's review process. The scholars Table 5 Data collection and analysis. Number of articles Data source Primary Literary review Secondary Archival
123 105 57 24
Analytical tool Regression Factor analysis Hierarchical regression ANOVA Mean comparison Correlation OLS MANOVA Content analysis Structural equation modeling MANCOVA Chi-square Bibliographic analysis Discriminant analysis Determinant analysis Lisrel Path analysis Probit VAR ANCOVA Causal analysis Cluster analysis PLS Tobit analysis
72 20 14 12 12 12 11 7 5 5 5 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1
T. Kothari, S. Lahiri / Journal of International Management 18 (2012) 102–110
107
were chosen at random, contacted via e-mail, and were requested to share their views by specifically replying to our two questions. Comments of authors who responded are produced verbatim in Table 6. All the scholars are well known names in the field of international business management / business. 3 Collectively, the comments suggest that JIM's stature as a quality journal has enhanced over the years and it currently enjoys a very decent, upper level standing in the midst of several academic outlets in the field of international management / business. JIM's impact factor is noteworthy and its reputation as a leading journal continues to rise steadily. Although scholars perceive JIM to be at par with or above in stature with other well-known, long established journals in the field, it stands at a distance from the top slot. Several authors felt very positive about the role played by the journal editor in leading the journal's rise to recognition. The authors' comments also clearly upheld the salient features of JIM's review process: fair, fast, constructive / developmental and efficient. On average, the desk review is completed within 48 hours of manuscript submission; the review turnaround period is 38 days; and the acceptance rate is 9%. These are qualities that are hallmarks of top-tier, well respected journals in any field. JIM's well managed review system appeared to be a strong reason why contributing authors may have liked to continue publishing in the journal or may like to do so in the future.
4.2. Conclusion and future directions While the above analysis does not constitute a full-scale review, it does allow understanding the type of publications that have appeared in JIM in the last 13 years. Based on our overview, it can be concluded that a wide variety exists in the topics/issues covered in the publications over the years. Significant variety is also evident with regard to the utilized research settings, research foci, and theoretical foundations. In addition, high diversity is evident with regard to author affiliation, nature of authorship, utilized data collection methods and analytical tools. With such diversity, JIM has the potential to appeal to a wide variety of academic stakeholders such as doctoral students, junior scholars, and senior, established researchers to initiate and continue with meaningful empirical or conceptual research. Since JIM's editorial policy requires that the submitted manuscripts include discussion on managerial implications, articles published in the journal have the potential to appeal to practicing managers and policymakers as well. As a matter of fact, the published articles tend to explain how theoretical insights and empirical findings can benefit practice of international management. Based on the overall diversity as analyzed in this overview, it appears that JIM has evolved into a top quality, high ranking journal devoted to the field of international management. Such diversity and scope is comparable to any other leading journal in the field. Recognizing that international management as a field of study is significantly broad (Boddewyn et al., 2004) and engaging in international research is far from being simple (Early and Singh, 1995; Tsui, 2007) we understand that further enhancement of JIM's stature depends on the quality of contributions from researchers around the world. Specifically, it is the future scholars who can provide JIM with a tomorrow that is even brighter than its past and the present. Scholars desirous of contributing to JIM in the future need to realize that utilizing a non-US sample or involving a non-US affiliated co-author may not make their investigations truly international. They will need to focus on research themes that have cross-border and cross-cultural implications capable of generating new advances and developments (Tung and van Witteloostuijn, 2008). While it is not possible to identify particular avenues of research based on this overview's findings, we like to offer a few general suggestions for future contributors. Insightful studies based on interesting and important international topics would make JIM even more impactful in the time to come. Such studies could involve national, organizational, individual levels of analysis or even multilevel examinations (Hitt et al., 2007). Ideas for new research projects can most readily be found in the future research directions section of the articles published in JIM. Scholars may benefit from the discussion on eight specific areas of international management in the work of Ricks, Toyne, and Martinez (1990). In addition, review of research in 12 specific areas (Werner, 2002) can yield new research ideas. Ideas for further research may also be obtained from published articles that undertake review of prominent research topics and identifies useful research directions. Examples include cross-border M&As (Shimizu et al., 2004), international diversification (Hitt et al., 2006), strategic alliances (Kale and Singh, 2009), effect of culture (Kirkman et al., 2006) relationship quality (Athanasopoulou, 2009), global talent management (Tarique and Schuler, 2010) and so on. Future scholars may also benefit from studies that highlight emerging themes in international research, for example, Griffith et al. (2008) with regard to international business and Scullion et al. (2007) for international human resource management. Empirical examinations, both qualitative and quantitative in nature, based on rigorous multi-method techniques would result in meaningful interpretations and enhance our knowledge base. Future scholars may also consider engaging in longitudinal research and investigations that involve validation/cross-validation of a phenomenon under scrutiny. To improve upon research methodology, scholars may find the work of Scandura and Williams (2000) and Yang et al. (2006) very helpful. While the former paper discusses research methodologies used in the management field, the later provides a review of research methodologies in international business. Both of these articles provide adequate specific directions to improve research methodologies. Future authors may also benefit from the work of Singh (1995) that discusses the measurement issues in cross national research and the work of Nasif and colleagues (1991) that explains the methodological challenges that are likely to be encountered while conducting cross-cultural research. Finally, international management scholars desirous of executing multi-level research may find the
3
We thank the authors for sharing their views on JIM with us.
108
T. Kothari, S. Lahiri / Journal of International Management 18 (2012) 102–110
Table 6 Comments from past authors. Author namesa
Author's comment to: [please share your perception of Journal of International Management's current standing as a scholarly outlet.]
Brent Allred
I have now published in JIM three times and consider it as a primary target for much of my research, which is at the intersection of International Business and Strategy. JIM is a journal that is rising in reputation. I would consider it a solid B/B + journal that has moved up from the B position and it steadily strengthening its reputation. I have also published in MIR and JIBS, the top IB journals. While these two get more credit, since they are more highly ranked, I see JIBS as getting stronger and MIR weakening somewhat. This gives a journal like JIM an opportunity to become a top IB journal. Having Mike Kotabe as the Editor (and others on the Editorial Board) has been very important for JIM's reputation. It is seen as a legitimate journal, with quality papers.
Björn Ambos
Paul Beamish David Brock
Peter Buckley
Raveendra Chittoor
As an author, JIM's review process is a competitive advantage. Its goal to turn manuscripts around in 4 – 6 weeks is great for faculties that are actively researching and have time pressures. Early on, I had manuscripts sit at SMJ for 11 and 9 months, which was a problem, since I was under tenure pressure. The quality of JIM's reviews is also strong, providing authors with a chance to develop their manuscripts into pieces that can make a contribution to the field. As a reviewer, the short turn around can be a problem, especially when requests to review come during a busy semester. JIM has been understanding when I have indicated that I cannot agree to review a given manuscript because of the expected turnaround time. The staff of JIM could not be better. Kim Cahill has been wonderful to work with in the past. The staff is responsive and helpful, something I have not always experienced with other journals. Overall, I think JIM is a fine journal that I plan to continue publishing in throughout my career and would recommend others in IB to do so. I am fortunate, since my school will give credit for publications in crossdisciplinary journals. This is not the case at most research intensive universities, which can be a negative for JIM, since these schools might give marginal credit for publishing in JIBS, the premier IB journal. As a member of the editorial review board I am obviously biased here. Eventually any article (and journal) standing will depend on the But I think on top of the list come developmental and fast and well impact it has on the profession. In this regard indices like the ISI impact factor are ONE indication on how well a journal performs. On managed review process. this metric JIM achieved an outstanding rank (currently no3 in IB/IM if I am not mistaken). JIM's reputation as a scholarly outlet has been steadily increasing. The review process at JIM is highly developmental. The editor does a great job of providing quick yet comprehensive reviews. JIM is a leading IB/IM Journal. Among the ranking I have seen it always Excellent! I believe that JIM is a leader in the field of quality and efficiency of the review process. This was true (and quite unique) ranks in the top 5, often around 3rd place, and I concur with this going back about 5–7 years when I first submitted a paper to JIM. ranking. And this is certainly the case in sub-fields of international Fortunately for the field as a whole, in recent years a few Journals have management that I personally work. followed JIM's example in quality/efficiency of the review process. Currently this is not top status – in the UK journals have to be 3* or 4* Good and worthy of a higher ranking. on the Association of Business School (ABS) list. JIM is currently 2*and this prevents it from attracting top papers. Nothing could be more important than increasing this ranking. I was drawn to JIM primarily due to the stature of its editor Dr. Kotabe. Though JIM has a good scholarly readership, in terms of perception, it is still not rated as no.2 after JIBS, but maybe no.3 or no.4. The competition for no.2 position in IB is going to be tougher with Global Strategy Journal coming into the field. I think JIM should also actively promote itself so that it also occupies the ‘mindshare’ of IB scholars as no.2 journal (using outlets such as AIB conference etc.).
Farok J. I am not sure what you are after but JIM has risen from a third tier Contractor status a decade ago to one of the leading outlets for academic papers in IB and IM, I would put its content generally on a par with, or superior to, Journal of World Business, Management International Review and International Business Review. Pretty innovative in the type of papers accepted. Alvaro CuervoCazurra B. Elango A quality journal which continues to rise in stature among scholars working in the International Management area.
Michael A. Hitt
Ben L. Kedia
Author's comment to: [kindly share your overall experience with the review process at the Journal of International Management].
The review process at JIM has been great. The reviews are quick and are insightful. When I review the articles as a reviewer myself, the administration is always chasing me to do the reviews on time, which is good. JIM is also willing to truly accept innovative methodologies if the paper is insightful. These are some of the things that JIM should use to promote itself so that it becomes an attractive outlet to many IB scholars. The review process seems rigorous and well managed.
Very fast review process but it takes a long time to see the paper in print once it is accepted.
As a reviewer for this journal for over nine years, I commend the professionalism of the editorial office. In particular, I appreciate the fact that the editor writes a reflective cover letter incorporating the reviewer comments to authors making submissions. JIM is a quality scholarly journal. Its reputation and stature in the field My experiences with the JIM review and editorial decision processes have all been positive (not always positive decisions). The reviews are have steadily increased over the last several years. Of course, one reason for its upward trajectory is its increasing visibility and impact thorough and provide high quality feedback. Furthermore the decisions have been fast and fair. I do not think that authors can ask through the quality research published in the journal. As such, it is clearly on the list of journals that I strongly consider as an outlet for for more. my research. The review process is extremely fair. It is fast and provides useful Journal of International Management is an important outlet for publishing international management research. Since it is relatively a constructive comments to re-shape the article. The editor is also very helpful. new journal (13 years old), it ranks behind Journal of International
T. Kothari, S. Lahiri / Journal of International Management 18 (2012) 102–110
109
Table 6 (continued) Author namesa
Author's comment to: [please share your perception of Journal of International Management's current standing as a scholarly outlet.]
Author's comment to: [kindly share your overall experience with the review process at the Journal of International Management].
Business Studies, and Journal of World Business. However, I believe it is ahead of International Business Review, and European Management Journal. Journal of International Management continues to make progress and will become a major journal for international management research. The review process in JIM has been fair, quick, transparent and efficient. The journal has a fairly quick turnaround for authors. The reviewers are constructive most of the times. When a paper is asked for a revision, the editorial team often makes it clear as to what is expected from the authors.
Nir Kshetri
A number of indicators point to the fact that JIM is strengthening rapidly in terms of quality, topicality, relevance and originality of the articles published in the journal. The journal's strong impact factor reflects its ongoing success in providing IB scholars with the most timely and pertinent articles. JIM has been among the first journals to publish special issues in topical and important IB areas. It has also been successful in attracting leading scholars worldwide to write articles on important issues.
Torben Pedersen
The standing of JIM has improved a lot under the editorship of Mike The review process is very efficient and fair and it reflects an Kotabe. I perceive it today to be the second best journal in IB after JIBS ambitious journal that is moving up the ladder. on par with MIR and JWB.
Malika Richards
For scholars in the field of international management (especially The review process has been formative, and the turnaround time is international strategy/HR/OB), the JIM is really an “A−” journal now. excellent.
Dharam Deo JIM is a high class international journal. I regularly read JIM journal in Sharma order to keep myself in touch with the latest high quality, theoretical as well as empirical, research in the area of international management and international marketing. The authors publishing in JIM come from different parts of the world. Thus, by reading JIM, it is easy to keep trace of the latest and interesting developments taking place in the various parts of the world. a
My experience with the review process applied by JIM is positive. The reviewers were both qualified, as well as, helpful. The comments supplied by the reviewers allowed me, and my co-authors, to improve the quality of our paper. The views expressed by the reviewers on our paper(s) were critical, but positive and constructive. They encouraged us to improve the quality of the analysis in the paper.
Authors listed in alphabetical order. One of the authors declined to participate as he/she had a paper currently under review at the journal.
special research forum of the Academy of Management Journal [50 (6), 2007] a very useful starting point. For methodological issues within multi-level research authors may refer to Klein and Kzlowski (2000) and van de Vijver and Poortinga (2002).
References Athanasopoulou, P., 2009. Relationship quality: a critical literature review and research agenda European. Journal of Marketing 43 (5/6), 583–610. Beise, M., Cleff, T., 2004. Assessing the lead market potential of countries for innovation projects. Journal of International Management 10 (4), 453–477. Beugelsdijk, S., Pedersen, T., Petersen, B., 2009. Is there a trend towards global value chain specialization? — An examination of cross border sales of US foreign affiliates. Journal of International Management 15 (2), 126–141. Boddewyn, J., Toyne, B., Martinez, Z., 2004. The meanings of “international management”. Management International Review 44 (2), 195–212. Chakrabarty, S., 2009. The influence of national culture and institutional voids on family ownership of large firms: a country level empirical study. Journal of International Management 15 (1), 32–45. DuBois, F.L., Reeb, D.M., 2000. Ranking the international business journals. Journal of International Business Studies 31, 689–704. Early, P.C., Singh, H., 1995. International and intercultural management research: what's next? The Academy of Management Journal 38 (2), 327–340. Griffith, D.A., Cavusgil, S.T., Xu, S., 2008. Emerging themes in international business research. Journal of International Business Studies 39, 1220–1235. Hitt, M.A., Tihanyi, L., Miller, T., Connelly, B., 2006. International diversification: antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of Management 32 (6), 831–867. Hitt, M.A., Beamish, P.W., Jackson, S.E., Mathiew, J.E., 2007. Building theoretical and empirical bridges across levels: multilevel research in management. The Academy of Management Journal 50 (6), 1385–1399. JIM homepage, 2011. http://www.fox.temple.edu/jim/2011. Kale, P., Singh, H., 2009. Managing strategic alliances: what do we know now, and where do we go from here? Academy of Management Perspectives 23 (3), 45–62. Kirkman, B.L., Lowe, K.B., Gibson, C.B., 2006. A quarter century of culture's consequences: a review of empirical research incorporating Hofstede's cultural values framework. Journal of International Business Studies 37 (3), 285–320. Klein, K.J., Kzlowski, S.W., 2000. From micro to meso: critical steps in conceptualizing and conducting multilevel research. Organizational Research Methods 3 (3), 211–236. Kshetri, N., 2007. Institutional factors affecting offshore business process and information technology outsourcing. Journal of International Management 13 (1), 38–56. Lahiri, S., 2011a. India-focused publications in leading international business journals. Asia Pacific Journal of Management 28 (2), 427–447. Lahiri, S., 2011b. Brazil-focused publications in leading business journals. European Business Review 23 (1), 23–44. Lahiri, S., Kedia, B.L., 2009. The effects of internal resources and partnership quality on firm performance: an examination of Indian BPO providers. Journal of International Management 15 (2), 209–224. Nasif, E.G., Ai-Daeaj, H., Ebrahimi, B., Thibodeaux, M.S., 1991. Methodological problems in cross-cultural research: an updated review. Management International Review 31 (1), 79–91. Perrewé, P.L., Hochwarter, W.A., Rossi, A.M., Wallace, A., Maignan, I., Castro, S.L., Ralston, D.A., Westman, M., Vollmer, G., Tang, M., Wan, P., Van Deusen, C.A., 2002. Are work stress relationships universal? A nine-region examination of role stressors, general self-efficacy, and burnout. Journal of International Management 8 (2), 163–187. Quer, D., Claver, E., Rienda, L., 2007. Business and management in China: a review of empirical research in leading international journals. Asia Pacific Journal of Management 24, 359–384.
110
T. Kothari, S. Lahiri / Journal of International Management 18 (2012) 102–110
Richards, M., 2000. Control exercised by U.S. multinationals over their overseas affiliates: does location make a difference? Journal of International Management 6 (2), 105–120. Ricks, D.A., Toyne, B., Martinez, Z., 1990. Recent developments in international management research. Journal of International Management 16 (2), 219–253. Scandura, T.A., Williams, T.A., 2000. Research methodology in management: current practices, trends, and implications for future research. The Academy of Management Journal 43 (6), 1248–1264. Scullion, H., Collings, D.G., Gunnigle, P., 2007. International human resource management in the 21st century: emerging themes and contemporary debates. Human Resource Management Journal 17 (4), 304–319. Shimizu, K., Hitt, M.A., Vaidyanath, D., Pisano, V., 2004. Theoretical foundations of cross-border mergers and acquisitions: a review of current research and recommendations for the future. Journal of International Management 10 (3), 307–353. Singh, J., 1995. Measurement issues in cross-national research. Journal of International Business Studies 26 (3), 597–619. Sonderegger, P., Taube, F., 2010. Cluster life cycle and diaspora effects: evidence from the Indian IT cluster in Bangalore. Journal of International Management 16 (4), 383–397. Tarique, I., Schuler, R.S., 2010. Global talent management: literature review, integrative framework, and suggestions for further research. Journal of World Business 45 (2), 122–133. Tsui, A.S., 2007. From homogenization to pluralism. International management research in the academy and beyond. The Academy of Management Journal 50 (6), 1353–1364. Tung, R.L., van Witteloostuijn, A. Arjen, 2008. From the Editors: what makes a study sufficiently international? Journal of International Business Studies 39, 180–183. van de Vijver, F.J., Poortinga, Y.H., 2002. Structural equivalence in multilevel research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 33 (2), 141–156. VHB, 2009. VHB-JOURQUAL2: method, results, and implications of the German academic association for business research's journal ranking. BuR- Business Research Official Open Access Journal of VHB 2 (2), 180–204. Werner, S., 2002. Recent developments in international management research. A review of top 20 management journals. Journal of Management 28 (3), 277–305. Yang, Z., Wang, X., Su, C., 2006. A review of research methodologies in international business. International Business Review 15, 601–617.
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Journal of International Management
Yesterday, today and tomorrow: An overview of research publications in the Journal of International Management Tanvi Kothari a,⁎, Somnath Lahiri b, 1 a b
Management and Human Resources Department, College of Business, University of Wisconsin Oshkosh, Oshkosh, WI 54901, United States Management and Quantitative Methods Department, College of Business, Illinois State University, Normal, IL 61790-5580, United States1
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 31 August 2011 Received in revised form 7 September 2011 Accepted 7 September 2011 Available online 4 October 2011 Keywords: Overview of research publications
a b s t r a c t In this article, we provide an overview of the research articles that have been published in the Journal of International Management between 1998 and 2010. Our scrutiny of 287 articles published in these 13 years reveals a wide variety in the examined topics, authorship, author affiliations, research settings, and research foci. Significant variety is also evident in the utilized theoretical foundations, data collection methods and analytical tools. We present and discuss our findings and conclude by providing general research directions for future contributors. © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction Since its modest beginning in 1995, the Journal of International Management (JIM hereafter) has progressed to become one of the most-recognized journals in the field of international management. Over almost a decade and half, numerous articles have been published in JIM that sought to address a wide variety of international management phenomena that are interesting, important, and timely. Once considered a relatively low ranking international research outlet (Dubois and Reeb, 2000), JIM is currently regarded as one of the top international journals (Lahiri, 2011a, b; Quer et al., 2007. The German Academic Association for business research has ranked JIM second (immediately after Journal of International Business Studies) amongst the top 10 journals in international management (VHB, 2009, p. 195). In 2010, JIM joined the elite club of journals through its inclusion in the Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) and its first impact factor was 1.854. The 2010 impact factor is 1.298 (c.f. JIM homepage, 2011). The journal is published by Elsevier and is housed in the Fox School of Business, Temple University, USA. In light of the enhancing impact of JIM in the domain of international scholarship, it is probably apt to conduct an overview of research articles that have been published in the journal over the years. Such an exercise would allow us to engage in some form of stock-taking of past scholarship as well as suggest few useful directions that contributors may pursue in the future. The purpose of this article is to seek answers to a simple question: what types of research articles have been published in JIM in the last 13 years and how do we proceed thereon? Since a study of this nature has not been conducted for JIM before, our hope is that this article would appeal to scholars who have published in the journal in the past as well as those who plan to contribute in the future. 2. Research methodology We utilized EBSCOhost (Business Source Premier) and ScienceDirect online databases for downloading the published articles. Over the span of this study's time-frame (July 1998 2 (Vol. 4, issue 1) to December 2010 (Vol. 16, issue 4), 287 articles were ⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: + 1 920 424 7195. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (T. Kothari), [email protected] (S. Lahiri). 1 Tel.: + 1 309 438 8452. 2 We contacted the institution where the journal was housed prior to Temple University. However, we were unable to receive the copies of the articles published from 1995 to 1998. 1075-4253/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.intman.2011.09.001
T. Kothari, S. Lahiri / Journal of International Management 18 (2012) 102–110
103
published in JIM. This number includes full-length original research articles, commentaries, and guest editors' introduction to special issues. Other publications such as book reviews, call for papers, erratum, corrigendum, acknowledgement of reviewers, and letters from the editor were not included in the analysis. Each article in the sample was thoroughly scrutinized to arrive at various findings discussed below. 3. Research trends 3.1. Published issues JIM is “devoted to advancing an understanding of issues in the management of global enterprises, global management theory and practice; and providing theoretical and managerial implications useful for the further development of research” (c.f. JIM homepage, 2011). Most issues of the journal publish a variety of research articles that enhance our understanding of different themes in international management (Tsui, 2007; Werner, 2002). However, in the course of its growth JIM has published several special issues, i.e., issues dedicated to particular themes in international research. In addition, there have been few issues of the journal that incorporated articles focusing on a particular research theme along with other articles that were not focused on any specific theme. Table 1 highlights the year and theme of special / focused issues. 3.2. Type of articles published Of the 287 articles that forms our study sample, 184 (64%) were empirical in nature and 103 (36%) were theoretical or conceptual in nature. Within the 184 empirical articles, 140 (76%) were quantitative and the remaining 44 (24%) were qualitative. By quantitative we refer to those articles that used numerical data and analyzed it using statistical methods to test theorydriven hypotheses and arrive at definite findings. By qualitative we mean those articles that were exploratory in nature and analyzed qualitative data more for the purpose of producing insights than definitive results. It becomes evident that the number of published qualitative articles in JIM is significantly small compared to the number of published quantitative articles. 3.3. Authorship Our raw count suggests that 492 authors contributed to the 287 published articles during the 13 year time-span. The average number of authors contributing per publication is, therefore, about two. Among these 287 articles, a total of 90 articles (31%) were sole-authored and the remaining 197 (69%) were authored by multiple authors. Of the 197 co-authored articles, 126 (64%) were co-authored by two authors, 50 (25%) were co-authored by three authors and the remaining 21 (11%) were co-authored by more than 3 authors. The largest number of authors on an article was 12 (Perrewé et al., 2002). Table 2 summarizes the above information regarding year-wise article appearance, type of article and authorship. Although ranking of author appearances is beyond the scope of this paper (for details, see Lahiri, 2011a,b), nonetheless, we would like to report the names of few authors who made multiple appearances in JIM during our research period. These include authors Yadong Luo (10 appearances), Nir Kshetri (5), David Ralston (5), Brent Allred (4), K.S. Swan (4), Malika Richards (4), and Torben Pedersen (4). There were 12 authors (names not reported) who made three appearances. 3.4. Author affiliation Of the 492 contributing authors, 476 were affiliated with academic institutions and 16 were affiliated with non-academic institutions. While the former represented a total of 315 different academic institutions, the latter represented 16 non-academic Table 1 Information about focused/special issues. Year
Volume
Issue
Special/focus issue theme
2004 2004 2005 2005 2005 2006 2006 2007 2007 2008 2008 2008 2009 2009 2010
10 10 11 11 11 12 12 13 13 14 14 14 15 15 16
1 2 1 2 4 2 3 1 3 1 3 4 2 3 1
Research and development globalization and international business From markets to partnerships and hierarchies to coalitions: perspectives on the modern multinational corporation Governance and accountability in multinational enterprises Information technology and international business: theory and strategy Development Global security risks and international competitiveness Megatrends in world cultures and globalization Micro-politics and conflicts in multinational corporations International outsourcing of services: expanding the research agenda Emerging multinationals from developing economies: motivations, paths and performance International business and institutional development in Central and Eastern Europe Institutional changes and organizational transformation in developing economies The role of corporate social and environmental responsibility in international business Global sourcing and value creation: opportunities and challenges The emerging CEO agenda in multinational companies 50 years of IB research: what have we achieved, and what have we not yet achieved?
104
T. Kothari, S. Lahiri / Journal of International Management 18 (2012) 102–110
Table 2 Article information: type and authorship. Year
Total articles
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total
17 15 17 14 20 23 22 26 22 24 23 34 30 287
Article type
Authorship
Conceptual
Quantitative
Qualitative
Sole
Multiple
4 8 7 6 8 13 7 14 4 8 5 11 8 103
13 7 7 6 10 8 12 7 12 14 8 17 19 140
0 0 3 2 2 2 3 5 6 2 10 6 3 44
4 7 10 4 5 13 5 7 5 6 7 10 7 90
13 8 7 10 15 10 17 19 17 18 16 24 23 197
institutions. The academic institutions are located in 34 different countries spread across six different continents. These countries include Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Lithuania, Mexico, New Zealand, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Scotland, Singapore, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, Thailand, The Netherlands, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States, and Vietnam. Geographic distribution of non-academic institutions includes Brazil (1), Canada (1), China (1), Germany (1), Portugal (1), Spain (1), Switzerland (2), The Netherlands (1), United Kingdom (2), and United States (5). Examples of the non-academic institutions are Edson Queiroz Foundation (Brazil), United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, Division on Investment and Enterprise (Switzerland), Royal Bank of Canada (Canada), Weyerhaeuser China, Ltd. (China), ING Bank (The Netherlands), and Dell Computer, IBM Corporation, MetroHartford Chamber of Commerce (USA). Interestingly, on mapping authors with institutions, it becomes evident that a strong majority of the authors (244, 49.6%) are affiliated to institutions located in the United States, followed by those located in Europe excluding UK (108, 22.0%), Asia (67, 13.6%), UK (31, 6.3%) and others [Canada (24, 4.9%); Australia and New Zealand (12, 2.4%); South America (4, 0.8%); South Africa (2, 0.4%)]. Table 3 shows the ranked distribution of institutional affiliations across geographic area/country. We also found that for the 197 multiple-authored publications, there were 124 (62.9%) articles that had co-authors affiliated to same-country institutions. Besides, there were 73 (37.1%) articles wherein the authors are from different-country institutions. Examples of the second category include Beise and Cleff (2004) and Sonderegger and Taube (2010). Although this category, compared to the former, is relatively small in size; it suggests that the contributing authors in JIM do tend to collaborate across international boundaries. But more importantly, the wide geographic distribution of author affiliations clearly indicates the global scope that JIM has continued to represent over the years. 3.5. Research setting Careful review of the sampled articles suggests that a wide number of national settings have been utilized by the contributing authors for their investigations. There were 88 studies that utilized a single country setting of which 24 (27%) were U.S-based and 64 (73%) were non-U.S-based. In addition, there were 79 studies that involved a multi-country setting. Examples of this category include Beugelsdijk et al. (2009)) (studied 56 countries), Chakrabarty (2009) (studied 25 countries), and Richards (2000) (studied five countries: US, UK, Thailand, Malaysia and Singapore). Multi-country studies are appearing with a greater frequency in recent years. For example, there were 12 multi-country studies in 2009 and ten in 2006. Countries that were most used as research settings include China (30 studies), Germany (28 studies), Japan (26 studies), UK (24 studies), India (21 studies), Canada (19 studies), Mexico (16 studies), France (15 studies), Brazil (14 studies), The Netherlands (13 studies), Finland and Italy (12 studies), Belgium and Sweden (11 studies), Ireland and Australia (ten studies); Austria, Denmark, Hong Kong, and Spain (eight studies); and Argentina, Hungary, Portugal, South Africa and Switzerland (eight studies). Such wide variety in research settings allows us to infer that JIM is truly international in scope. Specifically, JIM's publications do not suggest a positive bias towards any particular country, for example, the US. 3.6. Theoretical foundations “JIM publishes theoretical and empirical research……and also solicits literature reviews and critiques that include a guide for improved theory and international management research” (c.f. JIM homepage, 2011). To enhance conceptualization or analysis, contributing scholars utilized various theoretical foundations. Such perspectives include almost all the major paradigms found in the business literature such as the resource-based view of the firm, knowledge based view, resource dependence theory, transaction cost analysis, social exchange theory, institutional theory, agency theory, theory of firm internalization, etc. While some scholars utilized a single theoretical foundation, for example, institutional theory (Kshetri, 2007) others utilized multiple
T. Kothari, S. Lahiri / Journal of International Management 18 (2012) 102–110
105
Table 3 Geographic distribution of contributing institutions. Institutional nationality
No. of contributing authors
Percent of total
USA Europe Germany Denmark Sweden The Netherlands Finland Ireland Spain France Switzerland Turkey Cyprus Austria Belgium Italy Lithuania Portugal Scotland Asia China Japan Israel Taiwan Singapore India Thailand Vietnam Korea, Republic of Hong Kong UK Canada Australia and New Zealand Brazil South Africa Total
244 108 20 14 13 12 7 7 7 7 4 4 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 67 30 9 8 7 4 3 3 1 1 1 31 24 12 4 2 492
49.59 21.95 4.07 2.85 2.64 2.44 1.42 63.62 1.42 1.42 0.81 0.81 0.61 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.20 0.20 13.62 6.10 1.83 1.63 1.42 0.81 0.61 0.61 0.20 0.20 0.20 6.30 4.88 2.44 0.81 0.41 100
perspectives e.g., resource-based view and social exchange theory (Lahiri and Kedia, 2009). Most used theories in our entire sample include transaction cost analysis (37 articles), institutional theory (33 articles), and resource-based view of the firm (30 articles). On the other side of the continuum, there were theoretical perspectives that were utilized in a handful studies such as Social Network Theory (three articles), and Upper-Echelons Theory (one article) etc.
3.7. Research focus Our review of the 287 published articles indicated a wide variety of research foci that are important in the domain of international management. These include international entry modes, firm strategy, competitive advantage, firm performance, and expatriation, etc. Such a wide diversity in research foci suggests that the authors have, over the years, focused at various levels of analysis (national, industry, firm and individual) while conducting research for publication in JIM. This is not surprising given that JIM is devoted towards publishing theoretical and empirical research “addressing international business strategy, comparative and cross-cultural management, risk management, organizational behavior, and human resource management, among others” (c.f. JIM homepage, 2011). Table 4 highlights these research foci and indicates the number of articles for each category.
3.8. Data collection and analytical tools Contributing scholars of the 179 empirical articles used a wide variety of techniques for obtaining data for their research. For the quantitative articles, data collection was done from primary, archival and secondary sources. Primary sources include interviews, case studies, questionnaire surveys, and field studies, while archival / secondary sources include World Bank data, OECD survey data, meta-analysis of prior literature, neural networks, CD-Rom Directory of Foreign-Invested Enterprises, and U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, etc. For the quantitative articles, scholars used different analytical tools to arrive at research findings. Table 5 highlights various data collection techniques and analytical tools and indicates the number of articles for each category.
106
T. Kothari, S. Lahiri / Journal of International Management 18 (2012) 102–110
Table 4 Research focus. Topic
Number of articles
Strategy/strategic management/functional strategy/organizational design/risk management Culture/cross-cultural issues Institutional (change/environment/distance) Ownership/control/structure/governance/leadership Internationalization/diversification/entry mode Knowledge management/transfer/organizational learning International joint ventures Foreign investments/locations International alliance/collaboration/partnership International outsourcing/offshoring/sourcing Subsidiary (performance/management) Liability of foreignness Globalization Competitiveness/competitive advantage/innovativeness Corporate responsibility/ ethics issues Expatriation Clusters IB research Performance International acquisitions/ cross border M&A Competition Industry/industry structure Total
41 23 21 20 19 18 17 15 13 13 12 12 10 8 8 7 6 6 5 5 4 4 287
4. Discussion and conclusion 4.1. What do JIM's past contributors think of the journal today? We contacted twenty-five scholars from a wide variety of institutional affiliations, many of them outside the US, to gain insight into their thoughts on JIM's current standing as a scholarly outlet and their experiences with JIM's review process. The scholars Table 5 Data collection and analysis. Number of articles Data source Primary Literary review Secondary Archival
123 105 57 24
Analytical tool Regression Factor analysis Hierarchical regression ANOVA Mean comparison Correlation OLS MANOVA Content analysis Structural equation modeling MANCOVA Chi-square Bibliographic analysis Discriminant analysis Determinant analysis Lisrel Path analysis Probit VAR ANCOVA Causal analysis Cluster analysis PLS Tobit analysis
72 20 14 12 12 12 11 7 5 5 5 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1
T. Kothari, S. Lahiri / Journal of International Management 18 (2012) 102–110
107
were chosen at random, contacted via e-mail, and were requested to share their views by specifically replying to our two questions. Comments of authors who responded are produced verbatim in Table 6. All the scholars are well known names in the field of international business management / business. 3 Collectively, the comments suggest that JIM's stature as a quality journal has enhanced over the years and it currently enjoys a very decent, upper level standing in the midst of several academic outlets in the field of international management / business. JIM's impact factor is noteworthy and its reputation as a leading journal continues to rise steadily. Although scholars perceive JIM to be at par with or above in stature with other well-known, long established journals in the field, it stands at a distance from the top slot. Several authors felt very positive about the role played by the journal editor in leading the journal's rise to recognition. The authors' comments also clearly upheld the salient features of JIM's review process: fair, fast, constructive / developmental and efficient. On average, the desk review is completed within 48 hours of manuscript submission; the review turnaround period is 38 days; and the acceptance rate is 9%. These are qualities that are hallmarks of top-tier, well respected journals in any field. JIM's well managed review system appeared to be a strong reason why contributing authors may have liked to continue publishing in the journal or may like to do so in the future.
4.2. Conclusion and future directions While the above analysis does not constitute a full-scale review, it does allow understanding the type of publications that have appeared in JIM in the last 13 years. Based on our overview, it can be concluded that a wide variety exists in the topics/issues covered in the publications over the years. Significant variety is also evident with regard to the utilized research settings, research foci, and theoretical foundations. In addition, high diversity is evident with regard to author affiliation, nature of authorship, utilized data collection methods and analytical tools. With such diversity, JIM has the potential to appeal to a wide variety of academic stakeholders such as doctoral students, junior scholars, and senior, established researchers to initiate and continue with meaningful empirical or conceptual research. Since JIM's editorial policy requires that the submitted manuscripts include discussion on managerial implications, articles published in the journal have the potential to appeal to practicing managers and policymakers as well. As a matter of fact, the published articles tend to explain how theoretical insights and empirical findings can benefit practice of international management. Based on the overall diversity as analyzed in this overview, it appears that JIM has evolved into a top quality, high ranking journal devoted to the field of international management. Such diversity and scope is comparable to any other leading journal in the field. Recognizing that international management as a field of study is significantly broad (Boddewyn et al., 2004) and engaging in international research is far from being simple (Early and Singh, 1995; Tsui, 2007) we understand that further enhancement of JIM's stature depends on the quality of contributions from researchers around the world. Specifically, it is the future scholars who can provide JIM with a tomorrow that is even brighter than its past and the present. Scholars desirous of contributing to JIM in the future need to realize that utilizing a non-US sample or involving a non-US affiliated co-author may not make their investigations truly international. They will need to focus on research themes that have cross-border and cross-cultural implications capable of generating new advances and developments (Tung and van Witteloostuijn, 2008). While it is not possible to identify particular avenues of research based on this overview's findings, we like to offer a few general suggestions for future contributors. Insightful studies based on interesting and important international topics would make JIM even more impactful in the time to come. Such studies could involve national, organizational, individual levels of analysis or even multilevel examinations (Hitt et al., 2007). Ideas for new research projects can most readily be found in the future research directions section of the articles published in JIM. Scholars may benefit from the discussion on eight specific areas of international management in the work of Ricks, Toyne, and Martinez (1990). In addition, review of research in 12 specific areas (Werner, 2002) can yield new research ideas. Ideas for further research may also be obtained from published articles that undertake review of prominent research topics and identifies useful research directions. Examples include cross-border M&As (Shimizu et al., 2004), international diversification (Hitt et al., 2006), strategic alliances (Kale and Singh, 2009), effect of culture (Kirkman et al., 2006) relationship quality (Athanasopoulou, 2009), global talent management (Tarique and Schuler, 2010) and so on. Future scholars may also benefit from studies that highlight emerging themes in international research, for example, Griffith et al. (2008) with regard to international business and Scullion et al. (2007) for international human resource management. Empirical examinations, both qualitative and quantitative in nature, based on rigorous multi-method techniques would result in meaningful interpretations and enhance our knowledge base. Future scholars may also consider engaging in longitudinal research and investigations that involve validation/cross-validation of a phenomenon under scrutiny. To improve upon research methodology, scholars may find the work of Scandura and Williams (2000) and Yang et al. (2006) very helpful. While the former paper discusses research methodologies used in the management field, the later provides a review of research methodologies in international business. Both of these articles provide adequate specific directions to improve research methodologies. Future authors may also benefit from the work of Singh (1995) that discusses the measurement issues in cross national research and the work of Nasif and colleagues (1991) that explains the methodological challenges that are likely to be encountered while conducting cross-cultural research. Finally, international management scholars desirous of executing multi-level research may find the
3
We thank the authors for sharing their views on JIM with us.
108
T. Kothari, S. Lahiri / Journal of International Management 18 (2012) 102–110
Table 6 Comments from past authors. Author namesa
Author's comment to: [please share your perception of Journal of International Management's current standing as a scholarly outlet.]
Brent Allred
I have now published in JIM three times and consider it as a primary target for much of my research, which is at the intersection of International Business and Strategy. JIM is a journal that is rising in reputation. I would consider it a solid B/B + journal that has moved up from the B position and it steadily strengthening its reputation. I have also published in MIR and JIBS, the top IB journals. While these two get more credit, since they are more highly ranked, I see JIBS as getting stronger and MIR weakening somewhat. This gives a journal like JIM an opportunity to become a top IB journal. Having Mike Kotabe as the Editor (and others on the Editorial Board) has been very important for JIM's reputation. It is seen as a legitimate journal, with quality papers.
Björn Ambos
Paul Beamish David Brock
Peter Buckley
Raveendra Chittoor
As an author, JIM's review process is a competitive advantage. Its goal to turn manuscripts around in 4 – 6 weeks is great for faculties that are actively researching and have time pressures. Early on, I had manuscripts sit at SMJ for 11 and 9 months, which was a problem, since I was under tenure pressure. The quality of JIM's reviews is also strong, providing authors with a chance to develop their manuscripts into pieces that can make a contribution to the field. As a reviewer, the short turn around can be a problem, especially when requests to review come during a busy semester. JIM has been understanding when I have indicated that I cannot agree to review a given manuscript because of the expected turnaround time. The staff of JIM could not be better. Kim Cahill has been wonderful to work with in the past. The staff is responsive and helpful, something I have not always experienced with other journals. Overall, I think JIM is a fine journal that I plan to continue publishing in throughout my career and would recommend others in IB to do so. I am fortunate, since my school will give credit for publications in crossdisciplinary journals. This is not the case at most research intensive universities, which can be a negative for JIM, since these schools might give marginal credit for publishing in JIBS, the premier IB journal. As a member of the editorial review board I am obviously biased here. Eventually any article (and journal) standing will depend on the But I think on top of the list come developmental and fast and well impact it has on the profession. In this regard indices like the ISI impact factor are ONE indication on how well a journal performs. On managed review process. this metric JIM achieved an outstanding rank (currently no3 in IB/IM if I am not mistaken). JIM's reputation as a scholarly outlet has been steadily increasing. The review process at JIM is highly developmental. The editor does a great job of providing quick yet comprehensive reviews. JIM is a leading IB/IM Journal. Among the ranking I have seen it always Excellent! I believe that JIM is a leader in the field of quality and efficiency of the review process. This was true (and quite unique) ranks in the top 5, often around 3rd place, and I concur with this going back about 5–7 years when I first submitted a paper to JIM. ranking. And this is certainly the case in sub-fields of international Fortunately for the field as a whole, in recent years a few Journals have management that I personally work. followed JIM's example in quality/efficiency of the review process. Currently this is not top status – in the UK journals have to be 3* or 4* Good and worthy of a higher ranking. on the Association of Business School (ABS) list. JIM is currently 2*and this prevents it from attracting top papers. Nothing could be more important than increasing this ranking. I was drawn to JIM primarily due to the stature of its editor Dr. Kotabe. Though JIM has a good scholarly readership, in terms of perception, it is still not rated as no.2 after JIBS, but maybe no.3 or no.4. The competition for no.2 position in IB is going to be tougher with Global Strategy Journal coming into the field. I think JIM should also actively promote itself so that it also occupies the ‘mindshare’ of IB scholars as no.2 journal (using outlets such as AIB conference etc.).
Farok J. I am not sure what you are after but JIM has risen from a third tier Contractor status a decade ago to one of the leading outlets for academic papers in IB and IM, I would put its content generally on a par with, or superior to, Journal of World Business, Management International Review and International Business Review. Pretty innovative in the type of papers accepted. Alvaro CuervoCazurra B. Elango A quality journal which continues to rise in stature among scholars working in the International Management area.
Michael A. Hitt
Ben L. Kedia
Author's comment to: [kindly share your overall experience with the review process at the Journal of International Management].
The review process at JIM has been great. The reviews are quick and are insightful. When I review the articles as a reviewer myself, the administration is always chasing me to do the reviews on time, which is good. JIM is also willing to truly accept innovative methodologies if the paper is insightful. These are some of the things that JIM should use to promote itself so that it becomes an attractive outlet to many IB scholars. The review process seems rigorous and well managed.
Very fast review process but it takes a long time to see the paper in print once it is accepted.
As a reviewer for this journal for over nine years, I commend the professionalism of the editorial office. In particular, I appreciate the fact that the editor writes a reflective cover letter incorporating the reviewer comments to authors making submissions. JIM is a quality scholarly journal. Its reputation and stature in the field My experiences with the JIM review and editorial decision processes have all been positive (not always positive decisions). The reviews are have steadily increased over the last several years. Of course, one reason for its upward trajectory is its increasing visibility and impact thorough and provide high quality feedback. Furthermore the decisions have been fast and fair. I do not think that authors can ask through the quality research published in the journal. As such, it is clearly on the list of journals that I strongly consider as an outlet for for more. my research. The review process is extremely fair. It is fast and provides useful Journal of International Management is an important outlet for publishing international management research. Since it is relatively a constructive comments to re-shape the article. The editor is also very helpful. new journal (13 years old), it ranks behind Journal of International
T. Kothari, S. Lahiri / Journal of International Management 18 (2012) 102–110
109
Table 6 (continued) Author namesa
Author's comment to: [please share your perception of Journal of International Management's current standing as a scholarly outlet.]
Author's comment to: [kindly share your overall experience with the review process at the Journal of International Management].
Business Studies, and Journal of World Business. However, I believe it is ahead of International Business Review, and European Management Journal. Journal of International Management continues to make progress and will become a major journal for international management research. The review process in JIM has been fair, quick, transparent and efficient. The journal has a fairly quick turnaround for authors. The reviewers are constructive most of the times. When a paper is asked for a revision, the editorial team often makes it clear as to what is expected from the authors.
Nir Kshetri
A number of indicators point to the fact that JIM is strengthening rapidly in terms of quality, topicality, relevance and originality of the articles published in the journal. The journal's strong impact factor reflects its ongoing success in providing IB scholars with the most timely and pertinent articles. JIM has been among the first journals to publish special issues in topical and important IB areas. It has also been successful in attracting leading scholars worldwide to write articles on important issues.
Torben Pedersen
The standing of JIM has improved a lot under the editorship of Mike The review process is very efficient and fair and it reflects an Kotabe. I perceive it today to be the second best journal in IB after JIBS ambitious journal that is moving up the ladder. on par with MIR and JWB.
Malika Richards
For scholars in the field of international management (especially The review process has been formative, and the turnaround time is international strategy/HR/OB), the JIM is really an “A−” journal now. excellent.
Dharam Deo JIM is a high class international journal. I regularly read JIM journal in Sharma order to keep myself in touch with the latest high quality, theoretical as well as empirical, research in the area of international management and international marketing. The authors publishing in JIM come from different parts of the world. Thus, by reading JIM, it is easy to keep trace of the latest and interesting developments taking place in the various parts of the world. a
My experience with the review process applied by JIM is positive. The reviewers were both qualified, as well as, helpful. The comments supplied by the reviewers allowed me, and my co-authors, to improve the quality of our paper. The views expressed by the reviewers on our paper(s) were critical, but positive and constructive. They encouraged us to improve the quality of the analysis in the paper.
Authors listed in alphabetical order. One of the authors declined to participate as he/she had a paper currently under review at the journal.
special research forum of the Academy of Management Journal [50 (6), 2007] a very useful starting point. For methodological issues within multi-level research authors may refer to Klein and Kzlowski (2000) and van de Vijver and Poortinga (2002).
References Athanasopoulou, P., 2009. Relationship quality: a critical literature review and research agenda European. Journal of Marketing 43 (5/6), 583–610. Beise, M., Cleff, T., 2004. Assessing the lead market potential of countries for innovation projects. Journal of International Management 10 (4), 453–477. Beugelsdijk, S., Pedersen, T., Petersen, B., 2009. Is there a trend towards global value chain specialization? — An examination of cross border sales of US foreign affiliates. Journal of International Management 15 (2), 126–141. Boddewyn, J., Toyne, B., Martinez, Z., 2004. The meanings of “international management”. Management International Review 44 (2), 195–212. Chakrabarty, S., 2009. The influence of national culture and institutional voids on family ownership of large firms: a country level empirical study. Journal of International Management 15 (1), 32–45. DuBois, F.L., Reeb, D.M., 2000. Ranking the international business journals. Journal of International Business Studies 31, 689–704. Early, P.C., Singh, H., 1995. International and intercultural management research: what's next? The Academy of Management Journal 38 (2), 327–340. Griffith, D.A., Cavusgil, S.T., Xu, S., 2008. Emerging themes in international business research. Journal of International Business Studies 39, 1220–1235. Hitt, M.A., Tihanyi, L., Miller, T., Connelly, B., 2006. International diversification: antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of Management 32 (6), 831–867. Hitt, M.A., Beamish, P.W., Jackson, S.E., Mathiew, J.E., 2007. Building theoretical and empirical bridges across levels: multilevel research in management. The Academy of Management Journal 50 (6), 1385–1399. JIM homepage, 2011. http://www.fox.temple.edu/jim/2011. Kale, P., Singh, H., 2009. Managing strategic alliances: what do we know now, and where do we go from here? Academy of Management Perspectives 23 (3), 45–62. Kirkman, B.L., Lowe, K.B., Gibson, C.B., 2006. A quarter century of culture's consequences: a review of empirical research incorporating Hofstede's cultural values framework. Journal of International Business Studies 37 (3), 285–320. Klein, K.J., Kzlowski, S.W., 2000. From micro to meso: critical steps in conceptualizing and conducting multilevel research. Organizational Research Methods 3 (3), 211–236. Kshetri, N., 2007. Institutional factors affecting offshore business process and information technology outsourcing. Journal of International Management 13 (1), 38–56. Lahiri, S., 2011a. India-focused publications in leading international business journals. Asia Pacific Journal of Management 28 (2), 427–447. Lahiri, S., 2011b. Brazil-focused publications in leading business journals. European Business Review 23 (1), 23–44. Lahiri, S., Kedia, B.L., 2009. The effects of internal resources and partnership quality on firm performance: an examination of Indian BPO providers. Journal of International Management 15 (2), 209–224. Nasif, E.G., Ai-Daeaj, H., Ebrahimi, B., Thibodeaux, M.S., 1991. Methodological problems in cross-cultural research: an updated review. Management International Review 31 (1), 79–91. Perrewé, P.L., Hochwarter, W.A., Rossi, A.M., Wallace, A., Maignan, I., Castro, S.L., Ralston, D.A., Westman, M., Vollmer, G., Tang, M., Wan, P., Van Deusen, C.A., 2002. Are work stress relationships universal? A nine-region examination of role stressors, general self-efficacy, and burnout. Journal of International Management 8 (2), 163–187. Quer, D., Claver, E., Rienda, L., 2007. Business and management in China: a review of empirical research in leading international journals. Asia Pacific Journal of Management 24, 359–384.
110
T. Kothari, S. Lahiri / Journal of International Management 18 (2012) 102–110
Richards, M., 2000. Control exercised by U.S. multinationals over their overseas affiliates: does location make a difference? Journal of International Management 6 (2), 105–120. Ricks, D.A., Toyne, B., Martinez, Z., 1990. Recent developments in international management research. Journal of International Management 16 (2), 219–253. Scandura, T.A., Williams, T.A., 2000. Research methodology in management: current practices, trends, and implications for future research. The Academy of Management Journal 43 (6), 1248–1264. Scullion, H., Collings, D.G., Gunnigle, P., 2007. International human resource management in the 21st century: emerging themes and contemporary debates. Human Resource Management Journal 17 (4), 304–319. Shimizu, K., Hitt, M.A., Vaidyanath, D., Pisano, V., 2004. Theoretical foundations of cross-border mergers and acquisitions: a review of current research and recommendations for the future. Journal of International Management 10 (3), 307–353. Singh, J., 1995. Measurement issues in cross-national research. Journal of International Business Studies 26 (3), 597–619. Sonderegger, P., Taube, F., 2010. Cluster life cycle and diaspora effects: evidence from the Indian IT cluster in Bangalore. Journal of International Management 16 (4), 383–397. Tarique, I., Schuler, R.S., 2010. Global talent management: literature review, integrative framework, and suggestions for further research. Journal of World Business 45 (2), 122–133. Tsui, A.S., 2007. From homogenization to pluralism. International management research in the academy and beyond. The Academy of Management Journal 50 (6), 1353–1364. Tung, R.L., van Witteloostuijn, A. Arjen, 2008. From the Editors: what makes a study sufficiently international? Journal of International Business Studies 39, 180–183. van de Vijver, F.J., Poortinga, Y.H., 2002. Structural equivalence in multilevel research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 33 (2), 141–156. VHB, 2009. VHB-JOURQUAL2: method, results, and implications of the German academic association for business research's journal ranking. BuR- Business Research Official Open Access Journal of VHB 2 (2), 180–204. Werner, S., 2002. Recent developments in international management research. A review of top 20 management journals. Journal of Management 28 (3), 277–305. Yang, Z., Wang, X., Su, C., 2006. A review of research methodologies in international business. International Business Review 15, 601–617.