ArticlePloS one2025
The influence of publication ranking specifications on publication strategy and academic careers in business administration.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study examines the impact of methodological variations in publication-based rankings on the evaluation of individual research performance in business administration. Drawing on a unique dataset comprising complete personal publication lists of 233 professors from Austrian public universities (2009-2018), we apply ten distinct ranking variants that differ in their treatment of data sources, co-authorship, publication languages, article lengths, and journal qualities. These variants are categorized into purely quantity-focused and predominantly quality-focused rankings. Our results demonstrate that researcher rankings are susceptible to specification choices. While quantity-focused rankings produce relatively small performance differentials and high variability, quality-focused variants consistently identify a stable group of leading researchers. These scholars publish more frequently in English, in journals indexed by Web of Science (WoS), and in top-tier outlets according to the JOURQUAL ranking. Notably, leading researchers publish over twice as many articles in high-ranking journals as their peers. The findings underscore the significant implications of ranking design for career advancement and research strategy. For early-career researchers, aligning publication efforts with the logic of quality-focused rankings-favoring English-language publications in highly ranked, peer-reviewed journals-is crucial for enhancing academic visibility and competitiveness. Moreover, our study offers a methodological stress test for ranking systems, revealing the extent to which technical design influences outcomes. By leveraging comprehensive and multilingual publication data and systematically comparing multiple ranking methodologies, this study contributes to both the academic evaluation literature and practical guidance for researchers navigating the demands of a metric-driven academic environment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.