om research: leading authors and institutions...decision sciences volume 0 number 0 may 2020...

Decision SciencesVolume 0 Number 0May 2020

© 2020 Decision Sciences Institute

OM Research: Leading Authorsand Institutions

Xenophon A. Koufteros†Department of Information and Operations Management, College of Business, Texas A&MUniversity, 320 Wehner Building, College Station, TX 77845-4217,e-mail: [email protected]

Sunil Babbar, Ravi S. Behara, and Milad BaghersadDepartment of Information Technology and Operations Management, College of Business,Florida Atlantic University, 777 Glades Road, Boca Raton, FL 33431-0991,e-mail: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

ABSTRACT

In this study, we focus on papers published in a set of four premier journals, Journal ofOperations Management, Production and Operations Management,Manufacturing andService Operations Management, and Management Science over the 15-year period of2001–2015. Using simple and weighted counts of papers along with network measuresof Total Degree centrality and Bonacich Power centrality, we provide rankings of topauthors and institutions in the field of Operations Management (OM) serving as hubs ofresearch, connectivity, and productivity from across the world. In view of benefits thatcan accrue from increased research collaboration between academicians and practition-ers, we examine the levels of practitioner participation in the research works publishedacross these premier journals. We survey the extent to which the top ranked authors andinstitutions network with practitioners in producing joint publications in these journals.By identifying the top ranked authors and institutions in OM, this study provides in-formation that can be useful to stakeholders who may wish to engage in collaborativeresearch with the leading agents, or pursue educational opportunities with them. Thestudy also presents a profile of productivity levels and what it takes for authors and in-stitutions to rank among the top tiers. In so doing, it offers insights into yearly publicationrates and underlying trends—insights that can be useful in the context of promotion andtenure, faculty evaluations, and in assessing the standings of individuals and institutionsrelative to leadership benchmarks. [Submitted: November 6, 2019. Revised: April 22,2020. Accepted: April 22, 2020.]

Subject Areas: Faculty Evaluation, Operations Management Research,Practitioner Participation, Promotion and Tenure, Rankings, ResearchLeadership, Social Networks, Research Productivity, Benchmarks, Top Au-thors, and Top Institutions.

Correction added on July 13, 2020 after first online publication: Counts for POM, MSOM, and MS wereslightly changed for certain individuals and respective universities after a reevaluation for accuracy.

† Corresponding author.

1

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9245-2810

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2748-9577

2 OM Research

INTRODUCTION

With the ever-increasing importance of research and research engagement, thisstudy examines the body of Operations Management (OM) papers publishedin a selected set of four premier journals: Journal of Operations Manage-ment (JOM), Production and Operations Management (POM), Manufacturingand Service Operations Management (MSOM), and Management Science (MS)to identify leading authors and institutions serving as important hubs of con-nectivity and productivity in OM research. We primarily examine publicationssince the turn of the century over the 15-year period of 2001–2015. In addi-tion to measures of research output, we also employ social network measuresof centrality to identify leading OM authors and institutions from across theworld.

Social network analysis has been used extensively in empirical and theoret-ical studies in the social sciences out of interest in examining patterns of humaninteraction (Wasserman & Faust, 1994; Fischer & Shavit, 1995). The structure ofsocial networks can have a myriad of implications, such as the spread of informa-tion, ideas, knowledge, and sharing of resources. Social networks have importantimplications not only for research in the field of OM, but also for research in gen-eral. The aspect of co-authorship in research endeavors, as a form of social net-working, is increasingly drawing the interest of the academic community (Laband& Tollison, 2000; Barabási et al., 2002; Moody, 2004; Acedo, Barroso, Casanueva,& Galan, 2006; Martins, Martins, Csillag, & Pereira, 2012). Research collabora-tions hold considerable appeal as they serve to dynamically spur the sharing ofideas, knowledge, competencies, and perspectives. They also have the potential toimprove quality of the research effort and research productivity. Accordingly, inour study, we recognize authors and institutions not only by the count of paperson which they are included in authorship, but also based on network measures ofcentrality. The centrality measures we use are indicative of the extent and natureof relationships authors and institutions have developed as well as their potentialto influence research by serving as informational bridges between entities engagedin OM research endeavors.

In view of the potential benefits that can accrue from greater interactionsbetween academicians and practitioners in research endeavors (Cascio, 2008;Chang, 2019), we examine the levels of practitioner participation in the authorshipof research published across the four journals. We also probe the extent to whichthe top ranked authors and institutions network with practitioners in producingjoint publications.

Additionally, we also present a profile of the productivity levels and what ittakes for authors and institutions to rank among the top tiers. Such profiles offerinsights into yearly publication rates and underlying trends—insights that can beuseful in the context of promotion and tenure, faculty evaluations, the granting ofawards and recognitions, and in assessing the standings of individuals and institu-tions relative to leadership benchmarks and aspirations.

Koufteros et al. 3

METHODOLOGY

Selection of the Journal Set

A number of studies across various business disciplines have ranked authorsand institutions based on publications appearing in a selected set of highly ratedjournals within their particular discipline (Grover, Segars, & Simon, 1992; Claver,González, & Llopis, 2000; Trieschmann, Dennis, Northcraft, & Nieme, 2000). Inthe field of OM, numerous studies have used such methodology. As some exam-ples, Young, Baird, and Pullmam (1996) identified and ranked the top 100 authorsand institutions based on publications appearing in an exclusive set of highly ratedjournals over a 5-year period. Babbar, Koufteros, Bendoly, Behara, Metters, &Boyer (2020) analyzed aspects of dispersion displayed by highly published authorsand institutions, and drew attention to lessons that may be learned, based on publi-cations appearing in a select set of premier OM journals. Malhotra and Kher (1996)ranked institutions in the field of OM based on publications appearing across fivehighly regarded journals over a span of 15 years. In a similar manner, Hsieh andChang (2009) identified and ranked the top 20 authors in the field of OM based onpublications appearing across a set of five leading journals.

Accordingly, the analysis undertaken in our study is based on papers pub-lished in four premier journals: JOM, POM, MSOM, and MS. These journalsare among the most highly respected outlets for OM research (Agarwal, 2002;Olson, 2005; Theoharakis, Voss, Hadjinicola, & Soteriou, 2007; Meredith,Steward, & Lewis, 2011; Shang, Saladin, Fry, & Donohue, 2015) and are all in-cluded in the Financial Times select list of top 50 journals. They are also includedin the University of Texas-Dallas (2020) select list of premier business journals.

In order to measure contribution, Malhotra and Kher (1996) used standard-ized number of pages published as a primary measure and number of paperspublished as a secondary measure—also showing that these two measures arehighly correlated across the journals, with Spearman’s rank correlation coeffi-cient being .89 (significant at the .001 level). In our study, we use the number ofpapers published as a measure of contribution for three reasons. First, the correla-tion between the standardized number of pages and the number of papers publishedis found to be very high (i.e., .89), as alluded to by Malhotra and Kher (1996).Second, we are hesitant to equate contribution with the standardized number ofpages published as factually some of the most highly cited papers appearing inthese journals are relatively short papers. Third, journals have different standardsor traditions for manuscript length and these standards continue to evolve.

Data Collection

As our research aims to identify top authors and institutions in the field of “OM,”every paper published in the core operations management journals JOM, POM,and MSOM over the 15-year period of 2001–2015 was included in the data set forthis research.

Being a journal of much broader business scope, MS publishes research fromacross a wide range of disciplines such as accounting, behavioral economics, busi-ness strategy, entrepreneurship and innovation, finance, information systems, mar-keting, operationsmanagement, etc. Each of these areas (referred to as departments

4 OM Research

by MS) is assigned Department Editors who administer the review process ofmanuscripts deemed as belonging to their respective department. Starting with is-sue number 5 of the year 2004, every article appearing in MS identifies the partic-ular department the paper was deemed to belong to. Accordingly, from that pointforward, every paper that listed its department as being operations and supply chainmanagement, supply chain management, operations management, or manufactur-ing was included in the 15-year data set of our study. For simplicity, going forwardand throughout the article, we shall refer to these departments collectively as theOM department. It should be noted that during certain periods in time MS alsopublished papers under the umbrella (i.e., department) of interdisciplinary man-agement research, and public sector applications. We examined all such papersand included from among them those that had a definitive OM focus in their inter-disciplinary composition or in the nature of their public sector application. For theset of papers appearing in MS from 2001 through issue number 4 of 2004, as theydid not list the particular department they belonged to, all papers were reviewedand those deemed to be OM papers were included in our data set. A second authoralso reviewed the papers independently from 2001 through issue number 4 of 2004fromMS and identified OMpapers. There was a high degree of agreement betweenthe two reviewers. The very few papers that were not mutual to both were discussedand inclusion from among these was based on agreement between the reviewers.

We note that an exception is made on two occasions and specifically whengenerating two tables (i.e., Tables 2b and 6). For those two tables, our selectionof MS papers was more inclusive; in essence, we are including papers that havean OM interface or linkage but those papers were accepted by other departmentssuch as Decision Analysis, Optimization, and Marketing among others. The moti-vation to construct those two tables is to offer the constituents an ability to examineoverall productivity for promotion and tenure decisions (or other recognitions suchas professorships or awards). Towards this purpose, each author took the respon-sibility to review every single paper over a different 3 year period across all MSdepartments during 2004–2015 and generated a list of additional MS papers ashaving an OM interface or linkage.

No Editorials, Replies, Rejoinders, or Erratums were included. Accordingly,this data set comprised 627 papers from JOM, 880 from POM, 479 from MSOM,and 461 from MS, for a total of 2447 papers from across these journals. The fieldsof data entry for each paper in our data set included the title of the journal, theyear of publication, volume number, issue number, name of each of the authors ofthe paper, the institutional affiliation of each author as it appeared on the paper,and the country/region of location of each author’s affiliated institution as notedon the paper. In addition to the credit given to authors, the data, as entered, alsogave credit to institutions based on how these appeared in the author affiliations aslisted on the paper.

Figure 1 shows the trend in the number of published papers overall and byjournal over the 15-year period of 2001–2015. While a positive slope is visible inthe aggregate, POM can, for the most part, be credited for this growth in that thenumber of papers published in POM increased from 146 to 177 to 363, respectively,over the consecutive 3-year periods of 2007–2009, 2010–2012, and 2013–2015.

Koufteros et al. 5

Figure 1: Trend in the number of published papers.

Year

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 20150

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

240

260

Nu

mb

er o

f P

ap

ers

117

145

101

37

27

37

27

37

26

46

56

39

39

3849

49

28

48

3938

3848

59

40

30

40

70

30

1515

35

35

45

2515

34

44

34

44

34

34

32

22

52

42

32

23

33

2333

23

3323

53

81

41

31

31

21

31

MS

POM

JOM

MSOM

Data Standardization

To ensure accuracy and reliability of the data, we carefully checked and standard-ized all fields of the data. As an example, in some cases we found inconsistencyin how the name of a particular author appeared across different papers publishedin these journals. On some papers, the author’s first name appeared as a nick namerather than the complete first name. In some other cases, while the author’s com-plete namewas listed on a particular paper, the author’s middle initial was excludedon some other(s). Before performing the analysis, we carefully checked and stan-dardized each author’s name in the database such that it read exactly the sameacross every record containing that author’s name. We similarly checked and stan-dardized the names of each of the institutions of affiliation and countries/regionslisted across papers in order to ensure that they are identical across the entiredata set.

Our standardization of records in the data set ensured the accuracy of countsas well as accuracy of the network measures of centrality that we employed in thisstudy. In constituting our data set, we assigned each paper a unique identifier, suchas JOM200101, comprising the journal name (JOM), year of publication (2001),and the sequential number (01) assigned to the paper in keepingwith the order of itsinclusion from that journal. We used this same nomenclature in the assigning of aunique identification marker to every paper included from across all four journals.

6 OM Research

Joint Publications and Network Measures of Centrality

The proportion of co-authored papers in published research has continued to risefor quite some time (Acedo et al., 2006). Our analysis of authorship of paperspublished across our four journals also confirms such trend. We found the per-centage of sole-authored papers to have systematically declined over the 15-yearperiod of our study: from an average of 14.9% for the 5-year period of 2001–2005,to 10.4% for 2006–2010, and 7.2% for 2011–2015, essentially cut in half. Duringthis same period, we found the percentage of papers with three or more authorshaving increased from an average of 38.7% for 2001–2005, to 45.3% for 2006–2010, to 56.9% for 2011–2015; almost a 50% increase.

A natural outcome of greater numbers of multiauthored papers has been thepromulgation of networking in research endeavors, with social networks receivingincreased attention in the research literature (Borgatti & Li, 2009; Martins et al.,2012). Members of networks benefit from synergy via the sharing of information,ideas, expertise and resources and, by doing so, they are able to enhance the workof others in the network (Moody, 2004; Buhman, Kekre, & Singhal, 2005; Acedoet al., 2006; Hayes, 2008; Singhal & Singhal, 2012a). Social network analysismaps relational linkages among agents in terms of things such as membership,communication, workflow, the sharing of resources, or exchange of goods, withthe agents in a research context representing entities such as authors or institutions(Scott, 2000; Carter, Ellram, & Tate, 2007). In such analysis, individual agents areviewed as being part of the larger structure they are embedded in (Fombrun, 1982;Benedek, Lublóy, & Vastag, 2014).

Social network analysis has been used extensively to examine linkageswithinand across organizations, both vertically and horizontally and at the individualand organizational levels (Gulati, 1998; Borgatti & Foster, 2003; Sarker, Sarker,Kirkeby, & Chakraborty, 2011). As social networks affect collaboration and deci-sion making, organizations benefit from tapping the knowledge of social networksto identify greater opportunities for collaboration (McGregor, 2006; Levina, Levin,McGill, & Nediak, 2015), innovation (Lovejoy & Sinha, 2010; Mazzola, Perrone,& Kamuriwo, 2015), learning (Kraatz, 1998), product development (Gunnec &Raghavan, 2017), marketing (Guo, Pathak, & Cheng, 2015; Srinivasan, Guo, &Devaraj, 2017), and recognition of needs (Sosa, 2014). Other benefits, derivedfrom across varied contexts, can include matters such as cost reduction, transactionefficiency, increased collaboration in research, and the pooling of resources.

In the context of business, a firm’s ability to access key resources through itsnetwork of alliances has the potential to engender competitive advantage (Gulati,Nohria, & Zaheer, 2000; Morris, Bessant, & Barnes, 2006; Allred, Fawcett,Wallin, & Magnan, 2011) with the pooled network resources constituting a formof social capital for the networked firms (Burt, 1997; Gulati, 1999). Just as orga-nizations create and manage knowledge in order to gain competitive advantages(Garvin, 1993; Hult, Ketchen, & Nichols, 2003; Kearns & Lederer 2003; Tomas& Hult, 2003; Carter et al., 2007; Revilla & Villena, 2012), in the context ofresearch, stakeholders, such as faculty, students, and practitioners, can benefitfrom knowing who the top ranked authors and institutions are based not only onthe count of papers published but also the network measures of centrality.

Koufteros et al. 7

The importance or prominence of agents in a network is usually defined bymeasures of their location in the network. These measures include total degree(also referred to as degree) and Bonacich power, which are different centralitymeasures in dichotomous (nondirectional) relationships such as those in this study.With research showing network centrality as affecting the agent’s influence and op-portunism (Fombrun, 1983; Brass, 1984; Ronchetto, Hutt, &Reingen, 1989; Dong,Liu, Yu, & Zheng, 2015), measures of centrality have been extensively used for as-sessing the prominence of agents in networks (Freeman, 1979; Faust, 1997; Acedoet al., 2006; Carter, Leuschner, & Rogers, 2007; Martins et al., 2012; Babbar,Behara, Koufteros, & Wong, 2018; Babbar, Koufteros, Behara, & Wong, 2019).

The total degree centrality of an agent is a measure based on the relativenumber of direct connections the particular agent (in our case, an author or an in-stitution hereafter) haswith other agents in the network. It is calculated based on theagent × agent matrices. Agents scoring high on this metric have more connectionsto others in the same network, are considered as being “in the know,” and likelyto receive and pass important information on to others in the network because oftheir being linked to so many others. By virtue of their position, these agents haveaccess to resources such as ideas, perspectives, knowledge, and expertise of manyothers (Wasserman & Faust, 1994).

A characteristic that further adds to the leadership role of agents lies in thefact that while these agents are connected to others, those that they are connectedto are also in turn highly connected with others. In this sense, the prominence ofa central agent in a network is enhanced by the extent to which its neighbors arealso central. The measure of such centrality of an agent is the Bonacich powercentrality, which computes the centrality of each agent based on the centrality ofits neighbors (Bonacich, 1972). This measure of centrality captures the weightinessof connections and is calculated based on the agent × agent matrices.

When the entire network is the unit of modeling, the measure of networkdensity describes the level of links or connections among the agents in the net-work. Network density is defined as the ratio of the number of links betweenagents relative to the maximum possible links for a network. When consideringco-authorships within an academic discipline (such as in OM) across the world,one can expect the actual level of collaboration among individuals to be very lowcompared to all possible links.

With respect to the simple count of papers published, single authors are ac-counted for in the same way as other authors who have co-authored papers withothers. This is because the simple count of number of papers assigned to each au-thor includes the papers on which the author is either a single author or part ofa team of co-authors. However, we also compute, present, and recognize authorsbased on the measure of weighted count of published papers that includes consid-eration of the number of authors on a paper.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Before presenting and discussing our findings on top authors and institutions, wepresent some descriptive statistics of our overall data set in Table 1.

8 OM Research

Table1:

Somedescriptivestatisticsof

theoveralld

ataset.a

Journal

TotalP

apers

theJournal

Published

No.

ofUnique

Authorswho

Have

Publishedin

theJournal

Average

No.

ofUniqu

eAuthorswho

Have

Publishedin

theJournal

PerPaper

Average

No.

ofAuthors

PerPaper

Percentage

ofPapers

thatareSo

leAuthored

No.

ofUnique

Institu

tions

thatHave

Publishedin

theJournal

Average

No.

ofUniqu

eInstitu

tions

thatHave

Publishedin

theJournal

PerPaper

Average

No.

ofInstitu

tions

PerPaper

JOM

627

992

1.58

2.64

9.89

%37

80.60

c2.04

POM

880

1,39

61.59

2.54

8.98

%48

50.55

2.04

MSO

M47

974

21.55

2.47

11.69%

242

0.50

2.00

MS

461b

670

1.44

2.40

11.06%

210

0.45

1.95

Total(overall)

2,44

72,87

81.18

2.53

10.13%

801

0.33

2.01

a These

statisticsareforthe15-yearperiod

of2001–2015of

thisstudy.

bAsMSisan

interdisciplinaryjournal,thisisthenumbero

fpaperspublishedinMSthatwereidentifi

edas

beingOM

papersbasedon

thepaper’saccepting

department.The

461OM

papersin

MSrepresent2

0.73%

ofthe2224

papersMSpublishedover

the15-yearperiod.F

ortheotherthreeprim

aryjournals,

allp

aperspublishedin

them

wereconsidered

asbeingOM

papers.

c The

differencesin

theaveragenumberof

unique

institu

tions

that

have

publishedin

thejournalperpaperarestatistically

significant

across

journals(at

leastatanalph

aof

.05)

except

betw

eenPO

MandMSO

MandMSO

MandMS.

Koufteros et al. 9

On average, roughly 2.5 authors appear on each paper published in any of thefour journals, while the percentage of papers that are sole authored hovers around10%. The average number of institutions represented per paper is about two.Whileall four journals share roughly the same average number of authors per paper, a sim-ilar percentage of papers that are sole authored, and a comparable average numberof institutions per paper, Management Science displays a slightly lower averagenumber of unique authors who have published in the journal per paper and a loweraverage number of unique institutions that have published in the journal per paper.

The Top Authors

In this section, we identify the most-published authors as well as those foundto rank among the top based on network measures of total degree centrality andBonacich power centrality.

The most-published authors

Table 2a presents the top 50 most-published OM authors from across the worldbased on total number of papers on which the individual is included as author fromacross all four journals over the 15-year period of 2001–2015. We also include forthese top authors their weighted count of papers, with weighted counts computedsuch that an author receives a credit of 1/n toward that author’s weighted count,where n is the number of authors on the paper.

As seen in Table 2a, the top two most-published OM authors are Luk N.Van Wassenhove and Aleda V. Roth, having published 38 and 28 papers, respec-tively, across all four journals over the 15-year period. They are followed by PanosKouvelis with 27, Roger G. Schroeder with 26, and Suresh P. Sethi with 24. Ofthe top five authors, four are from U.S.-based institutions (i.e., their current insti-tutional affiliation is in the United States), and one (i.e., Luk N. Van Wassenhove)from a French institution. Of the top 50 authors (51 in all, including ties), 44 arebased in the United States, two in each of Canada and Hong Kong, and one in eachof France, Ireland, and the United Kingdom. When the weighted number of papersmetric is considered, the top three authors respectively are Luk N. Van Wassen-hove, Aleda V. Roth, and Panos Kouvelis, followed by Gérard P. Cachon at #4 andRoger G. Schroeder at #5.

While the counts presented in Table 2a include all papers from JOM, POM,and MSOM, and those accepted by the OM department of MS, we wanted to ex-amine whether the list of the most published authors differs if we were to be moreinclusive when pondering publications at MS. Thus, we considered additional pa-pers that have an OM linkage or interface but which were accepted for publica-tion by a MS department other than OM (e.g., Decision Analysis, Optimization,Entrepreneurship and Innovation). As such, we examined all papers authors havepublished in MS over the 15-year period of this study and, from among those, weidentified all of their papers that had some linkage/interface to OM—irrespectiveof their departmental affiliation. The initial batch of papers that were identified byeach author was reviewed by a second author and final selection and inclusion ofpapers deemed as having some linkage to OMwas based upon agreement betweenthe researchers.

10 OM Research

Table2a:To

p50

OM

authorsby

totaln

umberof

papers.

Rank

Author

Total

Papers

aWeightedNum

berof

PapersAuthoredb

Current

Institu

tionalA

ffiliatio

ncCurrent

Country

orRegionof

Affiliatio

nd

1Wassenh

ove,Luk

N.V

an38

13.43

INSE

AD(France)

France

2Roth,

Aleda

V.

2811.25

ClemsonUniversity

USA

3Kouvelis,P

anos

2711.00

WashingtonUniversity

USA

4Sc

hroeder,Rog

erG.e

268.98

University

ofMinnesota

USA

5Se

thi,Su

resh

P.24

7.48

The

University

ofTexasatDallas

USA

6Tang,C

hristopher

S.23

8.58

University

ofCalifornia,Los

Angeles

USA

7Daw

ande,M

ilind

215.98

The

University

ofTexasatDallas

USA

8Netessine,S

erguei

208.17

University

ofPennsylvania

USA

9Cachon,

GérardP.

1910.25

University

ofPennsylvania

USA

Swam

inathan,

JayashankarM.

197.42

University

ofNorth

CarolinaatChapelH

illUSA

Linderm

an,K

evin

W.

196.20

University

ofMinnesota

USA

Sriskandarajah,C

helliah

195.40

TexasA&M

University

USA

13Loch,Christoph

H.

187.42

University

ofCam

bridge

UK

Swink,

MorganL.

187.00

TexasChristianUniversity

USA

Boyer,K

enneth

K.

186.78

The

OhioStateUniversity

USA

Narasim

han,

Ram

e18

6.45

MichiganStateUniversity

USA

17Seshadri,S

ridhar

165.92

University

ofIllin

oisUrbana-Champaign

USA

18Mieghem

,Jan

A.V

.15

8.25

Northwestern

University

USA

Bendoly,E

lliot

157.28

The

OhioStateUniversity

USA

Continued

Koufteros et al. 11

Table2a:Contin

ued.

Rank

Author

Total

Papers

aWeightedNum

berof

PapersAuthoredb

Current

Institu

tionalA

ffiliatio

ncCurrent

Country

orRegionof

Affiliatio

nd

Katok,E

lena

156.25

The

University

ofTexasatDallas

USA

Terw

iesch,

Christian

156.17

University

ofPennsylvania

USA

Klassen,R

obertD

.15

6.15

Western

University

Canada

Toktay,L

.Beril

156.00

GeorgiaInstitu

teof

Technology

USA

24Corbett,

Charles

J.14

6.67

University

ofCalifornia,Los

Angeles

USA

Chen,

Ying-Ju

146.50

The

HKUof

ScienceandTechno

logy

Hon

gKon

gSh

en,Z

uo-jun

M.

145.36

University

ofCalifornia,Berkeley

USA

Choi,Thomas

Y.

145.28

Arizona

StateUniversity

USA

Ferguson

,MarkE.

144.92

University

ofSo

uthCarolina

USA

29Taylor,T

erry

A.

138.00

University


USA

Whitt,

Ward

137.83

Colum

biaUniversity

USA

Plam

beck,E

rica

L.

136.67

Stanford

University

USA

Ӧzer,Ӧzalp

136.17

The

University

ofTexasatDallas

USA

Singhal,Vinod

R.

135.83

GeorgiaInstitu

teof

Technology

USA

Rungtusanatham,M

anus

J.13

4.98

YorkUniversity

Canada

Gaur,Vishal

134.70

CornellUniversity

USA

Iravani,SeyedM.R

.13

4.42

Northwestern

University

USA

Guide,V

.DanielR

.Jr.

134.25

PennsylvaniaStateUniversity

USA

Souza,Gilv

anC.

134.25

IndianaUniversity

Bloom

ington

USA

Continued

12 OM Research

Table2a:Contin

ued.

Rank

Author

Total

Papers

aWeightedNum

berof

PapersAuthoredb

Current

Institu

tionalA

ffiliatio

ncCurrent

Country

orRegionof

Affiliatio

nd

39Su

,Xuanm

ing

128.17

University

ofPe

nnsylvania

USA

Tomlin

,Brian

126.83

Dartm

outh

College

USA

Zhang,F

uqiang

126.50


USA

Rosenzw

eig,

Eve

D.

125.50

EmoryUniversity

USA

Feng,Q

iA.

125.17

Purdue

University

USA

Graves,StephenC.

125.17

MassachusettsInstitu

teof

Technology

USA

Lee,H

auL.

125.00

Stanford

University

USA

Pagell,

Mark

124.93

University

College

Dublin

Ireland

Gallego

,Guille

rmo

124.82

The

HKUof

ScienceandTechno

logy

Hon

gKon

gAtasu,A

talay

124.67

GeorgiaInstitu

teof

Technology

USA

Ram

an,A

nanth

124.50

Harvard

University

USA

Hopp,

Wallace

J.12

4.28

University

ofMichigan

USA

Devaraj,S

arv

124.25

University

ofNotre

Dam

eUSA

a Thiscountincludesallp

aperspublishedin

JOM,P

OM,and

MSO

Mand“papersfrom

MSonly

accepted

bythe‘O

Mdepartment’.”

bThiscounto

fweightednumberof

papersauthored

across

thefour

journalsover

the15-yearperiod

of2001-2015isdeterm

ined

bycrediting

theauthor1/n

foreach

paperwith

nbeingthenumberof

authorson

thepaper.

c Thisistheauthor’scurrentinstitutionor,iftheauthor

isretired,the

mostrecentinstitutiontheretired

author

was

affiliatedwith

.dThisisthecountryor

region

ofaffiliatio

nof

theinstitu

tiontheauthor

iscurrently

ator

oftheinstitu

tionwhere

theauthor

retired

from

.e A

nauthor

who

isretired.

Koufteros et al. 13

Table 2b presents the more expansive body of papers of these authors thathave linkage to OM and ranks the authors based on the counts so derived. Giventhis broader consideration, only two more researchers (Viswanathan Krishnan andLaurens Debo) were added to the list. This signifies that the most published OMfaculty primarily do publish papers with the core OM department, as expected.However, the relative ranking across the authors has somewhat shifted. As can beseen in this table, Luk N. Van Wassenhove remains the top author based on totalpapers, with Panos Kouvelis and Aleda V. Roth in a tie for second, followed byRoger G. Schroeder at number 4 and Suresh P. Sethi at number 5. When one looksat the weighted number of papers, the top author, Luk N. VanWassenhove, remainsthe same, followed by Panos Kouvelis at number 2, Aleda V. Roth and Gérard P.Cachon in a tie at number 3, and Ward Whitt at number 5. For additional insights,we also provide in Table 2b the year of earning a PhD for each of these top authorsalong with the corrected yearly publication and weighted yearly publication ratesbased on the number of years the author held a PhD over the 15-year review period.Such corrections in the yearly rates affect those who earned their PhD “during” the15-year period of this study.When the corrected publication rate is considered, thetop three researchers remain the same as those by total papers, Ying-Ju Chen placesat number 4, and Roger G. Schroeder at number 5. On the other hand, when theweighted corrected publication rate is considered, the top author remains the same,Ying-Ju Chen places at number 2, Xuanming Su at number 3, Panos Kouvelis atnumber 4, and Aleda V. Roth and Gérard P. Cachon in a tie at number 5.

With all four journals being among the most prestigious outlets for OM spe-cific research and yet having their own identity, editorial philosophy, guidelines,and requisites, it would be interesting to see who the most published OM authorsare by journal. Accordingly, Table 3 presents the most published OM authors byjournal. Interestingly, the sets of top three authors by journal are mutually exclu-sive across the four journals. Roger G. Schroeder (with 20 papers in JOM) andRam Narasimhan (16) are the two most published authors in JOM, followed byKevin W. Linderman (14) and Morgan L. Swink (14) in a tie for third. Luk N. VanWassenhove (with 21 papers in POM), Suresh P. Sethi (17), and Christopher S.Tang (15) are the three most published authors in POM. Panos Kouvelis (with 9papers in MSOM) and Charles J. Corbett (8) are the two most published authorsin MSOM, followed by Jing-Sheng Song (7) in third. Serguei Netessine (with 14papers in MS) is the most published author in MS when only papers from theOM department are considered, followed by Gérard P. Cachon (12) in second andChristian Terwiesch (11) in third. For the interested reader, Appendix A presentsan identical table—except it is more inclusive for MS.

While the frequency of papers offers a descriptive statistic of research outputof individual authors, it does not provide insights into the prominence of agentsbased on their location within networks and the potential they possess to stimu-late research and influence the quality of research outcomes by serving as hubs ofconnectivity and informational bridges between entities engaged in OM research.Accordingly, we also deploy social network measures and present the top 50 au-thors based on network measures of total degree centrality and Bonacich powercentrality.

14 OM Research

Table2b

:To

p50

authorsby

totaln

umberof

papers(nom

inal,w

eighted,

andcorrected).a

Rank

Author

Total

Papers

Weighted

Num

berof

Papers

Authoredb

Yearof

Earning

PhD

Degree

#of

Years

Holding

aPh

DDegree

Overthe

Review

Period

c

Yearly

Publication

Rate

Corrected

forthe

Num

berof

Years

Holding

aPh

DOver

theReview

Period

Weighted

Yearly

Publication

Rate

Corrected

forthe

Num

berof

Years

Holding

aPh

DOver

theReview

Period

Current

Institu

tional

Affiliatio

nd

Current

Country

orRegionof

Affiliatio

ne

1Wassenhove,Luk

N.

Van

3813.43g

1979

152.533g

0.89

5gIN

SEAD(France)

France

2Kou

velis,P

anos

2811

.50

1988

151.867

0.767


USA

Roth,

Aleda

V.

2811

.25

1986

151.867

0.750

ClemsonUniversity

USA

4Sc

hroeder,Rog

erG.f

268.98

1966

151.733

0.599

University

ofMinnesota

USA

5Se

thi,Su

resh

P.25

7.82

1972

151.66

70.52

1The

University

ofTexas

atDallas

USA

6Tang,C

hristopher

S.23

8.58

1985

151.533

0.572

University

ofCalifornia,

Los

Ang

eles

USA

Daw

ande,M

ilind

236.48

1997

151.53

30.43

2The

University

ofTexas

atDallas

USA

8Cacho

n,GérardP.

2111

.25

1995

151.40

00.750

University

ofPe

nnsylvania

USA

Netessine,S

erguei

218.42

2001

14.5

1.448

0.581

University

ofPe

nnsylvania

USA

Continued

Koufteros et al. 15

Table2b

:Contin

ued.

Rank

Author

Total

Papers

Weighted

Num

berof

Papers

Authoredb

Yearof

Earning

PhD

Degree

#of

Years

Holding

aPh

DDegree

Overthe

Review

Period

c

Yearly

Publication

Rate

Corrected

forthe

Num

berof

Years

Holding

aPh

DOver

theReview

Period

Weighted

Yearly

Publication

Rate

Corrected

forthe

Num

berof

Years

Holding

aPh

DOver

theReview

Period

Current

Institu

tional

Affiliatio

nd

Current

Country

orRegionof

Affiliatio

ne

Swam

inathan,

JayashankarM.

218.25

1996

151.400

0.550

University

ofNorth

CarolinaatChapelH

illUSA

11Katok

,Elena

208.25

1996

151.33

30.55

0The

University

ofTexas

atDallas

USA

Loch,Christoph

H.

208.17

1991

151.333

0.545

University

ofCam

bridge

UK

Terw

iesch,

Christian

207.87

1997

151.333

0.525

University

ofPe

nnsylvania

USA

Sriskandarajah,

Chelliah

205.65

1986

151.333

0.377

TexasA&M

University

USA

15Linderm

an,K

evin

W.

196.20

1998

151.267

0.413

University

ofMinnesota

USA

16Whitt,

Ward

1811.08

1969

151.200

0.739

Colum

biaUniversity

USA

Swink,

MorganL.

187.00

1992

151.20

00.46

7TexasChristia

nUniversity

USA

Boyer,K

enneth

K.

186.78

1994

151.200

0.452

The

OhioStateUniversity

USA

Continued

16 OM ResearchTa

ble2b

:Contin

ued.

Rank

Author

Total

Papers

Weighted

Num

berof

Papers

Authoredb

Yearof

Earning

PhD

Degree

#of

Years

Holding

aPh

DDegree

Overthe

Review

Period

c

Yearly

Publication

Rate

Corrected

forthe

Num

berof

Years

Holding

aPh

DOver

theReview

Period

Weighted

Yearly

Publication

Rate

Corrected

forthe

Num

berof

Years

Holding

aPh

DOver

theReview

Period

Current

Institu

tional

Affiliatio

nd

Current

Country

orRegionof

Affiliatio

ne

Narasim

han,

Ram

f18

6.45

1976

151.200

0.430


USA

20Seshadri,S

ridhar

176.25

1993

151.133

0.417

University

ofIllin

ois

Urbana-Champaign

USA

21Mieghem

,Jan

A.V

.16

8.75

1995

151.067

0.583

Northwestern

University

USA

Toktay,L

.Beril

166.25

1998

151.067

0.417

GeorgiaInstitu

teof

Techno

logy

USA

23Bendoly,E

lliot

157.28

2001

14.5

1.034

0.502

The

OhioStateUniversity

USA

Chen,

Ying-Ju

157.00

2007

8.5

1.765

0.82

4The

HKUof

Scienceand

Techno

logy

Hon

gKon

g

Corbett,

Charles

J.15

7.00

1996

151.000

0.467

University

ofCalifornia,

Los

Ang

eles

USA

Klassen,R

obertD

.15

6.15

1995

151.000

0.410

Western

University

Canada

Shen,Z

uo-jun

M.

155.70

2000

151.000

0.380

University

ofCalifornia,

Berkeley

USA

Ferguson

,MarkE.

155.17

2001

151.00

00.34

5University

ofSo

uth

Carolina

USA

Continued

Koufteros et al. 17

Table2b

:Contin

ued.

Rank

Author

Total

Papers

Weighted

Num

berof

Papers

Authoredb

Yearof

Earning

PhD

Degree

#of

Years

Holding

aPh

DDegree

Overthe

Review

Period

c

Yearly

Publication

Rate

Corrected

forthe

Num

berof

Years

Holding

aPh

DOver

theReview

Period

Weighted

Yearly

Publication

Rate

Corrected

forthe

Num

berof

Years

Holding

aPh

DOver

theReview

Period

Current

Institu

tional

Affiliatio

nd

Current

Country

orRegionof

Affiliatio

ne

Iravani,SeyedM.R

.15

5.08

1997

151.000

0.339

Northwestern

University

USA

30Su

,Xuanm

ing

149.17

2004

11.5

1.21

70.797

University

ofPe

nnsylvania

USA

Plam

beck,E

rica

L.

147.17

2000

150.933

0.478

Stanford

University

USA

Krishnan,

Viswanathan

146.83

1993

150.933

0.455

University

ofCalifornia,

SanDiego

USA

Singhal,Vinod

R.

146.33

1988

150.933

0.422

GeorgiaInstitu

teof

Techno

logy

USA

Choi,Thomas

Y.

145.28

1992

150.933

0.352

Arizona

StateUniversity

USA

Gaur,Vishal

145.03

2001

14.5

0.966

0.347

CornellUniversity

USA

36Taylor,T

erry

A.

138.00

2000

150.867

0.533

University

ofCalifornia,

Berkeley

USA

Zhang

,Fuq

iang

137.00

2004

11.5

1.13

00.60

9Washing

tonUniversity

USA

Ӧzer,Ӧzalp

136.17

2000

150.86

70.41

1The

University

ofTexas

atDallas

USA

Continued

18 OM Research

Table2b

:Contin

ued.

Rank

Author

Total

Papers

Weighted

Num

berof

Papers

Authoredb

Yearof

Earning

PhD

Degree

#of

Years

Holding

aPh

DDegree

Overthe

Review

Period

c

Yearly

Publication

Rate

Corrected

forthe

Num

berof

Years

Holding

aPh

DOver

theReview

Period

Weighted

Yearly

Publication

Rate

Corrected

forthe

Num

berof

Years

Holding

aPh

DOver

theReview

Period

Current

Institu

tional

Affiliatio

nd

Current

Country

orRegionof

Affiliatio

ne

Gallego,G

uillerm

o13

5.32

1988

150.867

0.355

The

HKUof

Scienceand

Techno

logy

Hon

gKon

g

Rungtusanatham,

Manus

J.13

4.98

1995

150.867

0.332

YorkUniversity

Canada

Hopp,Wallace

J.13

4.62

1984

150.867

0.308

University

ofMichigan

USA

Devaraj,S

arv

134.58

1997

150.867

0.305

University

ofNotre

Dam

eUSA

Guide,V

.DanielR

.Jr.

134.25

1992

150.86

70.28

3Pe

nnsylvaniaState

University

USA

Souza,Gilv

anC.

134.25

2000

150.867

0.283

IndianaUniversity

Bloom

ington

USA

45To

mlin

,Brian

126.83

2000

150.800

0.455

Dartm

outh

College

USA

Rosenzw

eig,

Eve

D.

125.50

2002

13.5

0.889

0.407

EmoryUniversity

USA

Feng

,QiA

.12

5.17

2006

9.5

1.26

30.54

3Pu

rdue

University

USA

Graves,StephenC.

125.17

1977

150.800

0.345


teof

Techno

logy

USA

Continued

Koufteros et al. 19

Table2b

:Contin

ued.

Rank

Author

Total

Papers

Weighted

Num

berof

Papers

Authoredb

Yearof

Earning

PhD

Degree

#of

Years

Holding

aPh

DDegree

Overthe

Review

Period

c

Yearly

Publication

Rate

Corrected

forthe

Num

berof

Years

Holding

aPh

DOver

theReview

Period

Weighted

Yearly

Publication

Rate

Corrected

forthe

Num

berof

Years

Holding

aPh

DOver

theReview

Period

Current

Institu

tional

Affiliatio

nd

Current

Country

orRegionof

Affiliatio

ne

Lee,H

auL.

125.00

1983

150.800

0.333

Stanford

University

USA

Pagell,

Mark

124.93

1997

150.800

0.329

University

College

Dublin

Ireland

Atasu,A

talay

124.67

2007

8.5

1.412

0.549

GeorgiaInstitu

teof

Techno

logy

USA

Ram

an,A

nanth

124.50

1994

150.800

0.300

Harvard

University

USA

Debo,

Laurens

G.

124.33

2002

130.92

30.33

3Dartm

outh

College

USA

a Thistableincludes

papersfrom

MSthatwerepublishedby

the“O

Mdepartment”andby

otherdepartmentsas

long

asthepaperhadan

OM

linkage.

bThiscountof

weightednumberof

papers

authored

across

thefour

journalsover

the15-yearperiod

of2001-2015isdeterm

ined

bycrediting

theauthor

basedon

thenu

mberof

authorson

each

papersuch

thattheauthor

receives

acreditof

1.0towards

thiscoun

tfor

apaperthatissoleauthored,a

creditof

0.2forapaperhaving

fiveauthors,etc.The

topfiv

escores

arehigh

lighted

ingrey.

c The

values

thatcontain(end

in)halfyear

areindicativ

eof

theauthor

receivingthePh

Dduring

the15-yearperiod

ofthisstudy(and

around

themiddleof

thatyear

asistypical).

dThisistheauthor’scurrentinstitutionalaffiliatio

nor,iftheauthor

isretired,the


author

was

affiliatedwith

.e Thisisthecountryor

region

ofaffiliatio

nof

theinstitu

tiontheauthor

iscurrently

ator

oftheinstitu

tionwhere

theauthor

retired

from

.f A

nauthor

who

isretired.

gThe

topfiv

ecorrectedscores

arehighlig

hted

ingray.

20 OM Research

Table3:

Mostp

ublishedOM

authorsby

journal.a

,b

Journal

Rank

JOM

cRank

POM

Rank

MSO

Mc

Rank

MS

1Sc

hroeder,Rog

erG.

(20,Uof

Minnesota)

1Wassenhove,Luk

N.V

an(21,IN

SEADFrance)

1Kou

velis,P

anos

(10,

WashingtonU)

1Netessine,S

erguei

(14,

Uof

Penn

sylvania)

2Narasim

han,

Ram

(16,Mihigan

StateU)

2Se

thi,Su

resh

P.(17,The

Uof

Texasat

Dallas)

2Corbett,

Charles

J.(8,U

ofCalifornia,Los

Angeles)

2Cachon,GérardP.

(12,

Uof

Penn

sylvania)

3Linderm

an,K

evin

W.

(14,Uof

Minnesota)

3Tang,C

hristopher

S.(15,Uof

California,Los

Angeles)

3So

ng,Jing-Sh

eng

(7,D

ukeU)

3Terw

iesch,

Christian

(11,

Uof

Penn

sylvania)

Swink,

MorganL.

(14,TexasChristianU)

4Daw

ande,M

ilind

(14,The

Uof

Texasat

Dallas)

4Cachon,

GérardP.

(6,U

ofPe

nnsylvania)

4Taylor,T

erry

A.

(10,

Uof

California,

Berkeley)

5Roth,

Aleda

V.

(13,ClemsonU)

5Sriskandarajah,C

helliah

(13,TexasA&M

U)

5Daw

ande,M

illind

(6,T

heUof

Texasat

Dallas)

5Beil,Dam

ianR.

(8,U

ofMichigan)

6Boyer,K

enneth

K.

(12,The

OhioStateU)

6Chen,

Ying-Ju

(12,The

Hon

gKon

gU

ofSc

ienceand

Techno

logy

)

Graves,StephenC.

(6,M

assachusetts

Institu

teof

Technology)

Wassenhove,Luk

N.V

an(8,INSE

ADFrance)

Choi,Thomas

Y.

(12,Arizona

StateU)

7Kou

velis,P

anos

(11,WashingtonU)

Hsu,V

ernonN.

(6,T

heChinese

Uof

Hon

gKon

g)

7Duenyas,Izak

(7,U

ofMichigan)

8Malhotra,Manoj

K.

(11,CaseWestern

Reserve

U)

8Roth,

Aleda

V.

(10,ClemsonU)

Mieghem

,Jan

A.V

.(6,N

orthwestern

U)

Gaur,Vishal

(7,C

ornellU)

Continued

Koufteros et al. 21

Table3:

Contin

ued.

Journal

Rank

JOM

cRank

POM

Rank

MSO

Mc

Rank

MS

Rungtusanatham,M

anus

J.(11,YorkU)

Swam

inathan,

Jayashankar

M.

(10,Uof

North

Carolina

atChapelH

ill)

Netessine,S

erguei

(6,U

ofPe

nnsylvania)

Loch,Christoph

H.

(7,U

ofCam

bridge)

10Klassen,R

obertD

.(10,Western

U)

10Atasu,A

talay

(8,G

eorgiaInstitu

teof

Techno

logy

)

Plam

beck,E

rica

L.

(6,S

tanfordU)

Mieghem

,Jan

A.V

.(7,N

orthwestern

U)

Pagell,

Mark

(10,UCollege

Dublin

)Geism

ar,H

.Neil

(8,T

exas

A&M

U)

Secomandi,N

icola

(6,C

arnegieMellonU)

Oliv

ares,M

arcelo

(7,U

ofChile)

12Benton,

W.C

.Jr.

(9,T

heOhioStateU)

Guide,V

.DanielR

.Jr.

(8,P

ennsylvaniaState

U)

Whitt,

Ward

(6,C

olum

biaU)

Plam

beck,E

rica

L.

(7,S

tanfordU)

13Bendoly,E

lliot

(8,T

heOhioStateU)

Ketzenb

erg,

MichaelE.

(8,T

exas

A&M

U)

13Babich,

Volod

ymyr

(5,G

eorgetow

nU)

13Allo

n,Gad

(6,U

ofPe

nnsylvania)

Devaraj,S

arv

(8,U

ofNotre

Dam

e)Seshadri,S

ridhar

(8,U

ofIllin

ois

Urbana-Champaign)

Baron,O

pher

(5,U

ofTo

ronto)

Cohen,M

orrisA.

(6,U

ofPe

nnsylvania)

Rabinovich,

Elliot

(8,A

rizona

StateU)

Souza,Gilv

anC.

(8,Ind

iana

UBloom

ington)

Ferguson

,MarkE.

(5,U

ofSo

uthCarolina)

Federgruen,A

wi

(6,C

olum

biaU)

Vonderembse,MarkA.

(8,U

ofTo

ledo

)16

Bendoly,E

lliot

(7,T

heOhioStateU)

Gallego,G

uillerm

o(5,T

heHon

gKon

gUof

ScienceandTechno

logy

)

Ho,

Teck-H

ua(6,N

ationalU

ofSingapore)

Continued

22 OM Research

Table3:

Contin

ued.

Journal

Rank

JOM

cRank

POM

Rank

MSO

Mc

Rank

MS

17Droge,C

ornelia

(7,M

ichiganStateU)

Feng,Q

iA.

(7,P

urdueU)

Gupta,D

iwakar

(5,T

heUof

Texasat

Austin

)

Kapuscinski,R

oman

(6,U

ofMichigan)

Hult,To

mas

G.M

.(7,M

ichiganStateU)

Ferguson

,MarkE.

(7,U

ofSo

uthCarolina)

Hopp,

Wallace

J.(5,U

ofMichigan)

Katok

,Elena

(6,T

heUof

Texasat

Dallas)

Patel,PankajC.

(7,V

illanovaU)

Lee,H

auL.

(7,S

tanfordU)

Huh

,Woo

ngheeT.

(5,T

heUof

British

Colum

bia)

Kim

,Sang-Hyun

(6,Y

aleU)

Rosenzw

eig,

Eve

D.

(7,E

moryU)

Shen,Z

uo-Jun

M.

(7,U

ofCalifornia,

Berkeley)

Koole,G

er(5,V

rijeUniversiteit

Amsterdam)

Kou

velis,P

anos

(6,W

ashingtonU)

Ward,Pe

terT.

(7,T

heOhioStateU)

Simchi-Levi,David

(7,M

assachusetts

Institu

teof

Technology)

Lariviere

Martin

A.

(5,N

orthwestern

U)

Ӧzer,Ӧzalp

(6,T

heUof

Texasat

Dallas)

Yeung

,And

yC.L

.(7,T

heHon

gKon

gPo

lytechnicU)

Toktay,L

.Beril

(7,G

eorgiaInstitu

teof

Techno

logy

)

Rob

inson,

Law

renceW.

(5,C

ornellU)

Rudi,Nils

(6,Y

aleU)

23Choo,

Adrian,

S.(6,M

ichiganStateU)

23Anderson,

Edw

ardG.Jr.

(6,T

heUof

Texasat

Austin

)

Sethi,Su

resh

P.(5,T

heUof

Texasat

Dallas)

Su,X

uanm

ing

(6,U

ofPe

nnsylvania)

Das,A

jay

(6,B

aruchCollege)

Boyacı,Tamer

(6,T

heEurop

eanSc

hool

ofManagem

entand

Techno

logy

)

Sriskandarajah,C

helliah

(5,T

exas

A&M

U)

Toktay,L

.Beril

(6,G

eorgiaInstitu

teof

Techno

logy

)

Continued

Koufteros et al. 23

Table3:

Contin

ued.

Journal

Rank

JOM

cRank

POM

Rank

MSO

Mc

Rank

MS

Flynn,Barbara

B.

(6,Ind

iana

UBloom

ington)

Chen,

Jian

(6,T

singhuaU)

Swam

inathan,

Jayashankar

M.

(5,U

ofNorth

Carolina

atChapelH

ill)

Tomlin

,Brian

(6,D

artm

outh

College)

Goldstein,S

usan

M.

(6,U

ofMinnesota)

Gaimon,C

heryl

(6,G

eorgiaInstitu

teof

Techno

logy

)

Wang,Yun

zeng

(5,U

ofCalifornia,

Riverside)

26Aviv,Yossi

(5,T

elAvivU)

Handley,S

eanM.

(6,U

ofSo

uthCarolina)

Iravani,SeyedM.R

.(6,N

orthwestern

U)

Wassenhove,Luk

N.V

an(5,INSE

ADFrance)

Bernstein,F

ernando

(5,D

ukeU)

Nair,Anand

(6,M

ichiganStateU)

Koster,RenéB.M

.D.

(6,E

rasm

usU)

Zhang

,Fuq

iang

(5,W

ashingtonU)

Debo,

Laurens

G.

(5,D

artm

outh

College)

Shah,R

achn

a(6,U

ofMinnesota)

Loch,Christoph

H.

(6,U

ofCam

bridge)

Ziya,Se

rhan

(5,U

ofNorth

Carolina

atChapelH

ill)

DeC

roix,G

regory

A.

(5,U

ofWisconsin-M

adison)

Singhal,Vinod

R.

(6,G

eorgiaInstitu

teof

Techno

logy

)

Mookerjee,V

ijayS.

(6,T

heUof

Texasat

Dallas)

30Benjaafar,S

aif

(4,U

ofMinnesota)

Iravani,SeyedM.R

.(5,N

orthwestern

U)

Voss,Christopher

A.

(6,L

ondonBusiness

Scho

ol)

Stecke,K

athryn

E.

(6,T

heUof

Texasat

Dallas)

Bernstein,F

ernando

(4,D

ukeU)

Lee,H

auL.

(5,S

tanfordU)

Wu,

Zhaoh

ui(6,O

regonStateU)

Yan,H

oumin

(6,C

ityUof

Hong

Kon

g)

Dada,Maqbo

ol(4,Johns

Hopkins

U)

Li,Lod

e(5,Y

aleU)

Continued

24 OM Research

Table3:

Contin

ued.

Journal

Rank

JOM

cRank

POM

Rank

MSO

Mc

Rank

MS

33Calantone,R

oger

J.(5,M

ichiganStateU)

Zhang

,Jun

(6,F

udan

U)

Debo,

Laurens

G.

(4,D

artm

outh

College)

Vulcano,G

ustavo

J.(5,U

niversidad

Torcuato

diTella)

Forza,Cipriano

(5,U

niversità

diPadova)

34Aksin

O.Z

.(5,K

oçÜ)

Erhun

,Feryal

(4,U

ofCam

bridge)

Zenios,Stefanos

A.

(5,S

tanfordU)

Ketchen,D

avid

J.Jr.

(5,A

uburnU)

Arya,Anil

(5,T

heOhioStateU)

Fisher,M

arshallL

.(4,U

ofPe

nnsylvania)

Zhang

,Fuq

iang

(5,W

ashingtonU)

Ketokivi,Mikko

A.

(5,IEU)

Boyer,K

enneth

K.

(5,T

heOhioStateU)

Gans,Noah

(4,U

ofPe

nnsylvania)

36Bassamboo,Achal

(4,N

orthwestern

U)

Koufteros,X

enophonA.

(5,T

exas

A&M

U)

Cai,G

angshu

(5,S

antaClara

U)

Gurvich,Itai

(4,C

ornellU)

Benjaafar,S

aif

(4,U

ofMinnesota)

Krause,DanielR

.(5,C

oloradoStateU)

Cakanyildirim

,Metin

(5,T

heUof

Texasat

Dallas)

Kapuscinski,R

oman

(4,U

ofMichigan)

Chen,Fang

ruo

(4,S

hang

haiJiaoTo

ngU)

Liu,Y

i(5,S

hang

haiJiaoTo

ngU)

Chao,

Xiuli

(5,U

ofMichigan)

Kok,G

urhanA.

(4,K

oçÜ)

Corbett,

Charles

J.(4,U

ofCalifornia,Los

Angeles)

Scho

enherr,T

obias

(5,M

ichiganStateU)

Hausm

an,W

arrenH.

(5,S

tanfordU)

Ray,S

aibal

(4,M

cGill

U)

Gallego,G

uillerm

o(4,T

heHon

gKon

gUof

ScienceandTechno

logy

)Singhal,Jaya

(5,U

ofBaltim

ore)

Heese,H

ansS.

(5,N

orth

CarolinaState

U)

Ryzin,G

arrettJ.V.

(4,C

ornellU)

Gans,Noah

(4,U

ofPe

nnsylvania)

Continued

Koufteros et al. 25

Table3:

Contin

ued.

Journal

Rank

JOM

cRank

POM

Rank

MSO

Mc

Rank

MS

Singhal,Kalyan

(5,U

ofBaltim

ore)

Krishnan,

Viswanathan

(5,U

ofCalifornia,San

Diego)

Shang,Kevin

H.

(4,D

ukeU)

Girotra,K

aran

(4,INSE

ADFrance)

Tatik

onda,M

ohan

V.

(5,Ind

iana

UBloom

ington)

Ovchinnikov,A

nton

(5,Q

ueensU)

Shen,Z

uo-Jun

M.

(4,U

ofCalifornia,

Berkeley)

Ha,AlbertY

.(4,T

heHon

gKon

gUof

ScienceandTechno

logy

)Treville,S

uzanne

D.

(5,U

ofLausann

e)Ӧzer,Ӧzalp

(5,T

heUof

Texasat

Dallas)

Tang,C

hristopher

S.(4,U

ofCalifornia,Los

Angeles)

Iyer,A

nanthV.

(4,P

urdueU)

Verma,Rohit

(5,C

ornellU)

Parker,G

eoffreyG.

(5,D

artm

outh

College)

Tomlin

,Brian

(4,D

artm

outh

College)

Janakiraman,G

anesh

(4,T

heUof

Texasat

Dallas)

Zhao,Xiand

e(5,C

hina

Europ

eInternationalB

usiness

Scho

ol)

Pinedo

,Michael

(5,N

ewYorkU)

Vulcano,G

ustavo

(4,U

niversidad

Torcuato

diTella)

Kekre,S

under

(4,C

arnegieMellonU)

Ram

an,A

nanth

(5,H

arvard

U)

Wu,

Owen

Q.

(4,Ind

iana

UBloom

ington)

Lai,G

uoming

(4,T

heUof

Texasat

Austin

)Ryan,

Jennifer

K.

(5,U

ofNebraska-

Lincoln)

Zeevi,A

ssaf

(4,C

olum

biaU)

Liu,L

iming

(4,L

ingn

anU)

Schroeder,Rog

erG.2

(5,U

ofMinnesota)

Zipkin,

Paul

H.

(4,D

ukeU)

Martín

ezde

Aalbéniz,

Víctor

(4,U

niversidad

deNavarra)

Shanthikum

ar,G

eorgeJ.

(5,P

urdueU)

Mendelson,H

aim

(4,S

tanfordU) Continued

26 OM ResearchTa

ble3:

Contin

ued.

Journal

Rank

JOM

cRank

POM

Rank

MSO

Mc

Rank

MS

Sodh

i,Manmoh

anS.

(5,C

ityULondon)

Nagarajan,M

ahesh

(4,T

heUof

British

Colum

bia)

Subram

anian,Ravi

(5,G

eorgiaInstitu

teof

Techno

logy

)

Rajagopalan,S

ampath

(4,U

ofSo

uthern

California)

Topaloglu,Huseyin

(5,C

ornellU)

Ram

an,A

nanth

(4,H

arvard

U)

Whitt,

Ward

(5,C

olum

biaU)

Ryzin,G

arrettJ.V.

(4,C

ornellU)

Xia,Y

usen

(5,G

eorgiaStateU)

Seshadri,S

ridhar

(4,U

ofIllin

oisUrbana-

Champaign)

Zho

u,Se

anX.

(5,T

heChinese

Uof

Hon

gKon

g)

Shum

sky,RobertA

.(4,D

artm

outh

College)

Swinney,Robert

(4,D

ukeU)

Tang,C

hristopher

S.(4,U

ofCalifornia,Los

Angeles)

Wein,Law

renceM.

(4,S

tanford)

Xiao,

Wenqiang

(4,N

ewYorkU)

a Bynumberof

paperspublished;

forMS,

only

papersaccepted

bythe“O

MDepartm

ent”areincluded.

bThe

interested

reader

isreferred

toAppendixAforamoreinclusiveconsiderationof

MS.

c Includedin

thistableareonly

46authorsforJO

Mand49

forMSO

Mbecauseof

thevery

largenumberof

tiesatthenext

lower

papercount.

Koufteros et al. 27

The top OM authors by total degree centrality

The total degree centrality of an agent (the author in this case) is a measure basedon the relative number of direct connections the agent has with other agents inthe network. For the author × author network with shared papers (2,878 authors,network density 0.0008787), the top 50 authors based on the measure of total de-gree centrality are presented in Table 4. These authors have the most direct connec-tions to other authors and thus have access to the ideas, thoughts, and perspectivesof the many authors they are connected to in working relationships.

As can be seen in Table 4, Luk N. Van Wassenhove, Suresh P. Sethi, andRoger G. Schroeder are, respectively, the top three authors based on the measureof total degree centrality. Of the top five authors, four are based in the United Statesand one in France. Of the top 50 authors, 41 are based in the United States, threein Canada, two in each of Hong Kong and the United Kingdom, and one in eachof France and Ireland.

The top OM authors by Bonacich power centrality

An important characteristic that raises the leadership role of an author in networkslies in the author being connected to authors who are highly connected with others.In this sense, the prominence of an author in a network is enhanced by the extent towhich his or her co-authors are also central. The measure of this kind of centralityis Bonacich power centrality that captures the weightiness of connections. In anorganizational context, this measure reveals who is connected to the most powerful(e.g., other highly connected) people and thus is more influential. For the author× author network with shared papers (2878 authors, network density 0.0008787),the top 50 authors based on Bonacich power centrality are presented in Table 5.

Luk N. Van Wassenhove leads all authors, followed by Milind Dawande insecond, and Roger G. Schroeder in third. Of the top five authors, four are basedin the United States and one in France. Of the top 50 authors, 41 are based in theUnited States, three in Canada, two in each of HongKong and theUnitedKingdom,and one in each of France and Ireland.

Extent to which top OM authors network with each other, levels of output,and emerging top authors

It is interesting to note that the top 50 authors (Table 2a) have a total of 686 uniquepapers over the 15 years covered by this study. Of these, 562 (81.92%) papershave only one author who is in the top 50 list, while 116 papers (16.91%) have twoauthors who belong to this group. Only eight papers (1.17%) have three top 50authors co-authoring. This signifies lack of collaborative relationships among theleading authors—the type of collaborations that can potentially accelerate progressof the discipline. Nevertheless, there appears to be a greater degree of collabora-tion of top 50 authors with authors from different countries. Among the papers bythe top 50 authors, 440 papers (64.14%) have all-U.S. authors, while 30 papers(4.37%) have all-non-U.S. authors. However, it is very encouraging to note that216 papers (31.49%) have mixed-authorship of U.S. and non-U.S. authors, indi-cating that many U.S.-based authors are collaborating with peers from other partsof the world, thereby facilitating exchange of ideas across global networks.

28 OM ResearchTa

ble4:

Top50

OM

authorsbasedon

totald

egreecentrality.

a

Rank

Author

TotalD

egree

Centrality

Current

Institu

tionalA

ffiliatio

nbCountry/Region

ofAffiliatio

nc

1Wassenh

ove,Luk

N.V

an0.10

5IN

SEADFrance

France

2Se

thi,Su

resh

P.0.074

The

University

ofTexasatDallas

USA

3Sc

hroeder,Rog

erG.d

0.073

University

ofMinnesota

USA

4Daw

ande,M

ilind

0.070

The

University

ofTexasatDallas

USA

Roth,

Aleda

V.

0.070

ClemsonUniversity

USA

6Kouvelis,P

anos

0.063


USA

Sriskandarajah,C

helliah

0.063

TexasA&M

University

USA

8Tang,C

hristopher

S.0.060

University

ofCalifornia,Los

Angeles

USA

9Linderm

an,K

evin

W.

0.056

University

ofMinnesota

USA

10Narasim

han,

Ram

d0.049


USA

11Netessine,S

ergu

ei0.04

8Uof

Penn

sylvania

USA

Swam

inathan,

JayashankarM.

0.048

University

ofNorth

CarolinaatChapelH

illUSA

13Boyer,K

enneth

K.

0.047

The

OhioStateUniversity

USA

14Sw

ink,

MorganL.

0.045


USA

15Loch,Christoph

H.

0.042

University

ofCam

bridge

UK

16Seshadri,S

ridhar

0.041

University

ofIllin

oisUrbana-Champaign

USA

17Klassen,R

obertD

.0.040

Western

University

Canada

18Fe

rguson

,MarkE.

0.03

9University

ofSo

uthCarolina

USA

19Choi,Thomas

Y.

0.038

Arizona

StateUniversity

USA

Guide,V

.DanielR

.Jr.

0.038


USA

Souza,Gilv

anC.

0.038

IndianaUniversity

Bloom

ington

USA

22Cachon,

GérardP.

0.037

University

ofPennsylvania

USA

Rungtusanatham,M

anus

J.0.037

YorkUniversity

Canada

24Bendoly,E

lliot

0.036

The

OhioStateUniversity

USA

Gaur,Vishal

0.036

CornellUniversity

USA

Iravani,SeyedM.R

.0.036

Northwestern

University

USA

Continued

Koufteros et al. 29

Table4:

Contin

ued.

Rank

Author

TotalD

egree

Centrality

Current

Institu

tionalA

ffiliatio

nbCountry/Region

ofAffiliatio

nc

Terw

iesch,

Christian

0.036

University

ofPennsylvania

USA

Toktay,L

.Beril

0.036

GeorgiaInstitu

teof

Technology

USA

29Katok

,Elena

0.03

5The

University

ofTexasatDallas

USA

30Pagell,

Mark

0.034

University

College

Dublin

Ireland

31Hopp,

Wallace

J.0.033

University

ofMichigan

USA

Shen,Z

uo-Jun

M.

0.033

University


USA

33Devaraj,S

arv

0.032

University

ofNotre

Dam

eUSA

34Gallego,G

uillerm

o0.031

The

HongKongUniversity

ofScienceandTechnology

HongKong

Gavirneni,S

rinagesh

0.031

CornellUniversity

USA

Mieghem

,Jan

A.V

.0.031

Northwestern

University

USA

Ram

an,A

nanth

0.031

Harvard

University

USA

38Chen,

Ying-Ju

0.03

0The

Hon

gKon

gUniversity

ofSc

ienceandTechno

logy

Hon

gKon

gCorbett,

Charles

J.0.030

University

ofCalifornia,Los

Angeles

USA

Duenyas,Izak

0.030

University

ofMichigan

USA

Erhun,F

eryal

0.030

University

ofCam

bridge

UK

42Atasu,A

talay

0.029

GeorgiaInstitu

teof

Technology

USA

Beil,Dam

ianR.

0.029

University

ofMichigan

USA

Debo,

Laurens

G.

0.029

Dartm

outh

College

USA

Feng,Q

iA.

0.029

Purdue

University

USA

Huh,W

oongheeT.

0.029

The

University

ofBritishColum

bia

Canada

47Geism

ar,H

.Neil

0.028

TexasA&M

University

USA

Kekre,S

under

0.028

CarnegieMellonUniversity

USA

Malhotra,Manoj

K.

0.028

CaseWestern

Reserve

University

USA

Simchi-Levi,David

0.028


teof

Technology

USA

a For

MS,

only

papersaccepted

bythe“O

MDepartm

ent”areincluded.

bThisistheauthor’scurrentinstitutionalaffiliatio

nor,iftheauthor

isretired,the


author

was

affiliatedwith

.c Thisisthecountryor

region

ofaffiliatio

nof

theinstitu

tiontheauthor

iscurrently

ator

oftheinstitu

tionwhere

theauthor

retired

from

.dAnauthor

who

isretired.

30 OM ResearchTa

ble5:

Top50

OM

authorsbasedon

Bonacichpower

centrality.

a

Rank

Author

BonacichPo

wer

Centrality

Current

Institu

tionalA

ffiliatio

nbCountry/Region

ofAffiliatio

nc

1Wassenh

ove,Luk

N.V

an0.51

4IN

SEADFrance

France

2Daw

ande,M

ilind

0.330

The

University

ofTexasatDallas

USA

3Sc

hroeder,Rog

erG.d

0.328

University

ofMinnesota

USA

4Se

thi,Su

resh

P.0.317

The

University

ofTexasatDallas

USA

5Sriskandarajah,C

helliah

0.301

TexasA&M

University

USA

6Roth,

Aleda

V.

0.294

ClemsonUniversity

USA

7Linderm

an,K

evin

W.

0.250

University

ofMinnesota

USA

Kouvelis,P

anos

0.250


USA

9Tang,C

hristopher

S.0.236

University

ofCalifornia,Los

Angeles

USA

10Narasim

han,

Ram

d0.182


USA

11Netessine,S

ergu

ei0.18

0Uof

Penn

sylvania

USA

12Sw

aminathan,

JayashankarM.

0.179

University

ofNorth

CarolinaatChapelH

illUSA

13Boyer,K

enneth

K.

0.177

The

OhioStateUniversity

USA

14Sw

ink,

MorganL.

0.172


USA

15Guide,V

.DanielR

.Jr.

0.166


USA

16Loch,Christoph

H.

0.154

University

ofCam

bridge

UK

17Seshadri,S

ridhar

0.153

University

ofIllin

oisUrbana-Champaign

USA

Souza,Gilv

anC.

0.153

IndianaUniversity

Bloom

ington

USA

19To

ktay,L

.Beril

0.152

GeorgiaInstitu

teof

Technology

USA

20Fe

rguson

,MarkE.

0.14

8University

ofSo

uthCarolina

USA

21Klassen,R

obertD

.0.143

Western

University

Canada

22Cachon,

GérardP.

0.139

University

ofPennsylvania

USA

23Atasu,A

talay

0.136

GeorgiaInstitu

teof

Technology

USA

24Choi,Thomas

Y.

0.134

Arizona

StateUniversity

USA

Rungtusanatham,M

anus

J.0.134

YorkUniversity

Canada

26Terw

iesch,

Christian

0.133

University

ofPennsylvania

USA

Continued

Koufteros et al. 31

Table5:

Contin

ued.

Rank

Author

BonacichPo

wer

Centrality

Current

Institu

tionalA

ffiliatio

nbCountry/Region

ofAffiliatio

nc

27Gaur,Vishal

0.132

CornellUniversity

USA

28Bendoly,E

lliot

0.131

The

OhioStateUniversity

USA

29Geism

ar,H

.Neil

0.130

TexasA&M

University

USA

30Iravani,SeyedM.R

.0.127

Northwestern

University

USA

31Gavirneni,S

rinagesh

0.122

CornellUniversity

USA

Katok

,Elena

0.12

2The

University

ofTexasatDallas

USA

33Moo

kerjee,V

ijayS.

0.12

1The

University

ofTexasatDallas

USA

34Pagell,

Mark

0.119

University

College

Dublin

Ireland

35Debo,

Laurens

G.

0.118

Dartm

outh

College

USA

36Feng,Q

iA.

0.116

Purdue

University

USA

Hopp,

Wallace

J.0.116

University

ofMichigan

USA

38Devaraj,S

arv

0.114

University

ofNotre

Dam

eUSA

Shen,Z

uo-Jun

M.

0.114

University


USA

40Mieghem

,Jan

A.V

.0.113

Northwestern

University

USA

41Ram

an,A

nanth

0.112

Harvard

University

USA

42Gallego,G

uillerm

o0.111

The

HongKongUniversity

ofScienceandTechnology

HongKong

43Chen,

Ying-Ju

0.10

9The

Hon

gKon

gUniversity

ofSc

ienceandTechno

logy

Hon

gKon

g44

Choo,

Adrian,

S.0.108


USA

Corbett,

Charles

J.0.108

University

ofCalifornia,Los

Angeles

USA

46Duenyas,Izak

0.107

University

ofMichigan

USA

47Rosenzw

eig,

Eve

D.

0.106

EmoryUniversity

USA

48Beil,Dam

ianR.

0.105

University

ofMichigan

USA

49Erhun,F

eryal

0.102

University

ofCam

bridge

UK

50Huh,W

oongheeT.

0.100

The

University

ofBritishColum

bia

Canada

a For

MS,

only

papersaccepted

bythe“O

MDepartm

ent”areincluded.

bThisistheauthor’scurrentaffiliatio

nor,iftheauthor

isretired,the


author

was

affiliatedwith

.c Thisisthecountryor

region

ofaffiliatio

nof

theinstitu

tiontheauthor

iscurrently

ator

oftheinstitu

tionwhere

theauthor

retired

from

.dAnauthor

who

isretired.

32 OM Research

It is no surprise that a significant number of the top 50 authors and univer-sities are in the United States, as it has a far greater number of academic researchinstitutions and OM researchers compared to any other country. The four journalsincluded in this study are also housed in the United States. However, we must notethat Luk Van Wassenhove of INSEAD (France), as the top author under any crite-ria, has been a dominant influencer for over four decades.

Promotion and tenure decisions are rather critical in academia. Table 6 fur-nishes valuable information for time intervals of 5 and 10 years post earning a PhDdegree in order to inform the reader about productivity levels of leading authorsthat coincide with promotion and tenure decisions. In contrast to all other tables,Table 6 is different as it focuses only on researchers that graduated between 2001and 2009 and who were ranked in the top 100 researchers based on the productivitymetrics used to generate Table 2a.We present the records for the top 25 researchersbut due to ties, the table includes the records of 27 individuals. In this fashion, thetable examines publication records of individuals who are relatively recent grad-uates and have completed a full 10-year period post earning their PhD degrees.Subsequently, the information provided here diverges from all other tables as it in-cludes data from 2001 to 2019. Furthermore, this table includes “all” publicationsin Management Science irrespective of the accepting department or topic becausefor tenure and/or promotion decisions the departmental affiliation of the paper maynot be as salient. What is apparent from Table 6 is that the productivity levels postthe first 5-year interval are substantively higher (p < .0001). For the first 5-yearpost-PhD period, on average each researcher in the list published around 3.74 pa-pers or an average of 0.75 papers per year. However, for the second 5-year interval,on average each researcher produced 6.11 papers or an average of 1.22 papers peryear. For the duration of the 10 years, on average each researcher published 9.85papers or 0.99 papers per year. We shaded the top five (with some ties) researchersacross the different columns. For the 10-year interval, Ying-ju Chen and GuomingLai stand out as emerging authors with 19 and 16 papers, respectively.

The Top Institutions in OM

In this section, we move to identify the most-published institutions by numberof OM papers published across the four journals and also those that rank amongthe top based on network measures of total degree centrality and Bonacich powercentrality.

The most-published OM institutions

Table 7 presents the top 50 institutions by total number of OM papers that carrythe institution’s affiliation in the authorship of papers published in the journal setover the 15-year period of 2001–2015. Also included for these top institutions inTable 7 is their weighted count of papers determined by crediting the institutionm(1/n) toward that institution’s weighted count, where m is the number of authorsfrom that same institution and n the number of authors on the paper.

As illustrated in Table 7, the top three institutions, respectively, based on themeasure of total papers are University of Minnesota (109 papers), University ofPennsylvania (104), and Columbia University (99). All three of these institutions

Koufteros et al. 33

Table6:

Publicationratesof

thosefrom

amongthetop100mostp

ublishedauthorswho

received

theirPh

Dduring

2001

orlater,at5and

10yearspost-PhD

andnorm

alizationagainsth

ighestpublicationrates.

Overall

Ranka

Author

Yearof

PhD

Num

berof

PapersDuring

theFirst5

Post-PhD

Years

b

Num

berof

PapersDuring

theFirst1

0Po

st-PhD

Years

b

Nom

inal

Differencein

Papers

Betweenthe

First1

0and5

Post-PhD

Years

Percentage

Differencein

Papers

Betweenthe

First1

0and5

Post-PhD

Years

Num

berof

Papersin

First

5Years

Post-PhD

Normalized

Against

Maxim

um(M

ax=

9)

Num

berof

Papersin

First

10Years

Post-PhD

Normalized

Against

Maxim

um(M

ax=

19)

8Netessine,S

ergu

ei20

014

128

200.00

%0.44

0.63

19Bendo

ly,E

lliot

2001

111

1010

00.00%

0.11

0.58

24Chen,

Ying-ju

2007

519

d14

280.00

%0.56

1.00

24Fe

rguson

,MarkE.

2001

49

512

5.00

%0.44

0.47

28Gaur,Vishal

2001

510

510

0.00

%0.56

0.53

39Atasu,A

talay

2007

612

610

0.00

%0.67

0.63

39Beil,Bam

ianR.

2003

08

8NA

0.00

0.42

39Rosenzw

eig,

Eve

D.

2002

611

583

.33%

0.67

0.58

39Su

,Xuanm

ing

2004

9c14

555

.55%

1.00

0.74

39Zhang

,Fuq

iang

2004

713

685

.71%

0.78

0.68

52Debo,

Laurens

G.

2002

211

945

0.00

%0.22

0.58

52Erhun

,Feryal

2002

06

6NA

0.00

0.32

52Fe

ng,Q

iA.

2006

414

1025

0.00

%0.44

0.74

52Huh

,Woo

ngheeT.

2003

27

525

0.00

%0.22

0.37

60Martín

ez-de-

Albéniz,V

íctor

2004

110

990

0.00

%0.11

0.53

Continued

34 OM Research

Table6:

Contin

ued.

Overall

Ranka

Author

Yearof

PhD

Num

berof

PapersDuring

theFirst5

Post-PhD

Years

b

Num

berof

PapersDuring

theFirst1

0Po

st-PhD

Years

b

Nom

inal

Differencein

Papers

Betweenthe

First1

0and5

Post-PhD

Years

Percentage

Differencein

Papers

Betweenthe

First1

0and5

Post-PhD

Years

Num

berof

Papersin

First

5Years

Post-PhD

Normalized

Against

Maxim

um(M

ax=

9)

Num

berof

Papersin

First

10Years

Post-PhD

Normalized

Against

Maxim

um(M

ax=

19)

60Rabinovich,

Elliot

2001

27

525

0.00

%0.22

0.37

72Allo

n,Gad

2005

310

723

3.33

%0.33

0.53

72Bernstein,F

ernand

o20

013

74

133.33

%0.33

0.37

72Geism

ar,N

eilH

.2003

57

240.00%

0.56

0.37

72Patel,Pank

ajC.

2009

810

225

.00%

0.89

0.53

72Ray,S

aibal

2001

45

125

.00%

0.44

0.26

72Vulcano

,Gustavo

2003

27

525

0.00

%0.22

0.37

90Cho

o,AdrianS.

2003

55

00.00

%0.56

0.26

90Gray,John

V.

2006

28

630

0.00

%0.22

0.42

90Kok

,GurhanA.

2003

39

620

0.00

%0.33

0.47

90Lai,G

uoming

2009

516

1122

0.00

%0.56

0.84

90Su

bram

anian,Ravi

2005

38

516

6.67

%0.33

0.42

a Thisrank

ingisbasedon

totaln

umberof

OM

paperstheauthor

publishedacross

thefour

journalsover

the15

-yearperiod

(200

1–20

15)of

thestud

y.bThese

arecountsof

allp

aperstheauthor

haspublishedacross

allfourjournalsover

theperiod.F

orconsistency,thesenumbersforthefirst5and10

post-

PhD

yearsare,respectiv

ely,all(“notjustOM”)

papers

theindividual

publishedacross

thefour

journalsover

thefirst5and10

calendaryearsfollowing

theyear

inwhich

PhDwas

received.

c Benchmarkfor5-year

period.T

oppublicationratesarelig

htly

shaded

ingray.

dBenchmarkfor10-yearperiod.T

oppublicationratesareheavily

shaded

ingray.

Koufteros et al. 35

Table 7: Top 50 OM institutions based on total number of OM papers carryingthe institution’s affiliation in authorship.

Rank InstitutionTotalPapers

WeightedNumber ofPapersa

Country/Region

1 University of Minnesota 109 56.08 USA2 University of Pennsylvania 104 56.16 USA3 Columbia University 99 57.92 USA4 University of North Carolina at Chapel

Hill94 53.66 USA

5 Stanford University 92 53.56 USA6 The University of Texas at Dallas 90 50.91 USA7 Georgia Institute of Technology 88 46.33 USA8 Michigan State University 87 46.21 USA9 INSEAD France 84 35.85 France10 University of Michigan 76 37.88 USA11 Northwestern University 75 43.58 USA12 Pennsylvania State University 72 34.92 USA13 Arizona State University 69 37.19 USA14 University of California, Los Angeles 65 38.17 USA

University of California, Berkeley 65 34.17 USA16 The Ohio State University 63 31.55 USA17 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 62 30.35 USA18 Washington University 57 31.50 USA19 Indiana University Bloomington 56 29.70 USA20 Cornell University 55 29.48 USA

New York University 55 26.32 USA22 The University of Texas at Austin 52 25.70 USA23 University of Maryland 50 24.73 USA24 The Hong Kong University of Science

and Technology49 25.33 Hong Kong

25 Harvard University 47 27.42 USA26 Duke University 46 25.87 USA27 University of Southern California 44 24.33 USA

Texas A&M University 44 21.87 USA29 Purdue University 43 22.26 USA30 Carnegie Mellon University 40 24.02 USA31 Western University 38 17.73 Canada32 The Hong Kong Polytechnic University 36 20.87 Hong Kong

Emory University 36 20.70 USAThe University of British Columbia 36 19.27 CanadaThe Chinese University of Hong Kong 36 16.35 Hong Kong

36 Clemson University 35 14.77 USA37 University of South Carolina 33 17.35 USA

University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign 33 14.75 USA39 McGill University 32 18.67 Canada40 London Business School 31 16.35 UK

University of Notre Dame 31 15.36 USA42 Erasmus University 27 14.58 The Netherlands

INSEAD Singapore 27 13.58 Singapore

Continued

36 OM Research

Table 7: Continued.

Rank InstitutionTotalPapers

WeightedNumber ofPapersa

Country/Region

44 National University of Singapore 26 10.02 Singapore45 University of Toronto 25 13.93 Canada

University of Florida 25 12.07 USA47 Singapore Management University 24 12.00 Singapore48 University of Washington 23 12.75 USA

University of Rochester 23 12.33 USAUniversity of Utah 23 11.58 USACity University of Hong Kong 23 10.87 Hong Kong

aThe count of weighted number of papers is determined by crediting the institution m(1/n)towards that institution’s weighted count, where m is the number of authors from that sameinstitution and n the number of authors on the paper. “We note that for MS, only thosepapers accepted by the “OM department” are included in the count.”

are based in the United States. From among the top 10 institutions, nine are based inthe United States and one in France. Of the top 50 institutions (51 in all, includingties), 37 are based in the United States, four in each of Canada and Hong Kong,three in Singapore, and one in each of France, the Netherlands, and the UnitedKingdom. When the weighted count is considered, the list of the top three institu-tions includes Columbia University, University of Pennsylvania, and University ofMinnesota. The list of the top five institutions adds University of North Carolinaat Chapel Hill and Stanford University.

As we did for authors, we also examined which institutions are the mostpublished institutions by journal. In Table 8, we present the top institutions byjournal based on the number of OM papers carrying the institution’s affiliationin authorship. The sets of top five institutions by journal are interesting in thatthere is no overlap among the top five institutions across JOM, POM, andMSOM–with these sets being mutually exclusive and thus encompassing 15 institutions. Incontrast, there is significant overlap between the top five institutions of MSOMand MS, with four institutions appearing among the top five of both MSOM andMS.

In the following subsections, we also deploy social network measures forinstitutions and present the top 50 institutions based on network measures of totaldegree centrality and Bonacich power centrality.

The top OM institutions by total degree centrality

Institutions high in total degree centrality are considered as being “in the know”(Wasserman & Faust, 1994) and have many connections with other institutions inthe same network. For the institution× institution network with shared papers (801institutions, network density 0.01026) the top 50 institutions with the highest totaldegree centrality are presented in Table 9. The top three institutions, respectively,on the measure of total degree centrality are University of Minnesota, Universityof Pennsylvania, and Michigan State University.

Koufteros et al. 37

Table8:

TopOM

institu

tions

byjournal.a

Journal

Rank

JOM

Rank

POM

Rank

MSO

MRank

MS

1MichiganStateUniversity

(65)

(USA

)1

The

University

ofTexasat

Dallas(57)

(USA

)1

Colum

biaUniversity

(38)

(USA

)1

University

ofPennsylvania

(58)

(USA

)2

University

ofMinnesota

(53)

(USA

)2

GeorgiaInstitu

teof

Techno

logy

(41)

(USA

)

2University

ofNorth

CarolinaatChapelH

ill(32)

(USA

)

2Stanford

University

(43)

(USA

)

3Arizona

StateUniversity

(45)

(USA

)3

INSE

ADFrance

(32)

(France)

3Northwestern

University

(31)

(USA

)3

Colum

biaUniversity

(38)

(USA

)4

The

OhioStateUniversity

(34)

(USA

)4

PennsylvaniaState

University

(30)

(USA

)

4University

ofPennsylvania

(29)

(USA

)4

INSE

ADFrance

(32)

(France)

5IndianaUniversity

Bloom

ington

(24)

(USA

)

5The

University

ofTexasat

Austin

(29)

(USA

)5

Stanford

University

(28)

(USA

)5

Northwestern

University

(29)

(USA

)

6University

ofSo

uth

Carolina(21)

(USA

)University

ofCalifornia,

Los

Ang

eles

(29)

(USA

)6

University

ofMichigan

(22)

(USA

)6

University

ofCalifornia,

Berkeley(25)

(USA

)Western

University

(21)

(Canada)

University

ofMinnesota

(29)

(USA

)7

DukeUniversity

(21)

(USA

)University

ofMichigan

(25)

(USA

)8

ClemsonUniversity

(17)

(USA

)University

ofNorth

CarolinaatChapelH

ill(29)

(USA

)

8University

ofCalifornia,

Los

Ang

eles

(20)

(USA

)

8MassachusettsInstitu

teof

Techno

logy

(24)

(USA

)EmoryUniversity

(17)

(USA

)9

TexasA&M

University

(24)

(USA

)9


(19)

(USA

)9

DukeUniversity

(23)

(USA

)10

GeorgiaInstitu

teof

Techno

logy

(15)

(USA

)

10IndianaUniversity

Bloom

ington

(23)

(USA

)

10GeorgiaInstitu

teof

Techno

logy

(18)

(USA

)

10New

YorkUniversity

(22)

(USA

)

Continued

38 OM Research

Table8:

Contin

ued.

Journal

Rank

JOM

Rank

POM

Rank

MSO

MRank

MS

11TexasA&M

University

(14)

(USA

)University

ofCalifornia,

Berkeley(23)

(USA

)11

New

YorkUniversity

(17)

(USA

)University

ofNorth

CarolinaatChapelH

ill(22)

(USA

)TexasChristianU

(14)

(USA

)University

ofMaryland

(23)

(USA

)12


teof

Techno

logy

(16)

(USA

)12


(20)

(USA

)University

ofArkansas

(14)

(USA

)13

CornellUniversity

(22)

(USA

)PennsylvaniaState

University

(16)

(USA

)

13The

HKUof

Scienceand

Techno

logy

(19)

(Hon

gKon

g)14

PennsylvaniaState

University

(13)

(USA

)14

Colum

biaUniversity

(21)

(USA

)14

CarnegieMellon

University

(15)

(USA

)14

The

University

ofTexasat

Dallas(17)

(USA

)University

ofNotre

Dam

e(13)

(USA

)The

OhioStateUniversity

(21)

(USA

)University

ofMinnesota

(15)

(USA

)15

Harvard

University

(16)

(USA

)University

ofTo

ledo

(13)

(USA

)University

ofMichigan

(21)

(USA

)16

INSE

ADFrance

(14)

(France)

University

ofCalifornia,

Los

Ang

eles

(16)

(USA

)17

Lon

donBusinessSc

hool

(12)

(UK)

17MichiganStateUniversity

(20)

(USA

)Pu

rdue

University

(14)

(USA

)University

ofSo

uthern

California(16)

(USA

)OregonStateUniversity

(12)

(USA

)18

The

Chinese

University

ofHon

gKon

g(19)

(USA

)The

University

ofTexasat

Dallas(14)

(USA

)18

The

University

ofTexasat

Austin

(15)

(USA

)RensselaerPo

lytechnic

Institu

te(12)

(USA

)

19MassachusettsInstitu

teof

Techno

logy

(18)

(USA

)

University

ofCalifornia,

Berkeley

(14)

(USA

)

19GeorgiaInstitu

teof

Techno

logy

(14)

(USA

)20

University

ofCam

bridge

(11)

(UK)


(18)

(USA

)20

The

HKUof

Scienceand

Techno

logy

(13)

(Hon

gKon

g)

YaleUniversity

(14)

(USA

)

Continued

Koufteros et al. 39

Table8:

Contin

ued.

Journal

Rank

JOM

Rank

POM

Rank

MSO

MRank

MS

University

ofNorth

CarolinaatChapelH

ill(11)

(USA

)

21Stanford

University

(17)

(USA

)University

ofIllin

ois

Urbana-Champaign

(13)

(USA

)

21PennsylvaniaState

University

(13)

(USA

)Xi’an

Jiaotong

University

(11)

(China)

22Erasm

usUniversity

(16)

(The

Netherlands)

22CornellUniversity

(12)

(USA

)The

University

ofBritish

Colum

bia(13)

(Canada)

23The

Hon

gKon

gPo

lytechnicUniversity

(10)

(Hon

gKon

g)

The

Hon

gKon

gPo

lytechnicUniversity

(16)

(Hon

gKon

g)

Harvard

University

(12)

(USA

)23

CarnegieMellon

University

(12)

(USA

)24

BallS

tateUniversity

(9)(U

SA)

The

HKUof

Scienceand

Techno

logy

(16)

(Hon

gKon

g)

The

University

ofBritish

Colum

bia

(12)

(Canada)

CornellUniversity

(12)

(USA

)

CornellUniversity

(9)(U

SA)

Purdue

University

(16)

(USA

)University

ofSo

uthern

California(12)

(USA

)IN

SEADSingapore

(12)

(Singapore)

University

ofMaryland

(9)(U

SA)

26City

University

ofHong

Kon

g(14)

(Hon

gKon

g)26

University

ofMaryland

(11)

(USA

)University

ofMinnesota

(12)

(USA

)University

ofTennessee

Knoxville(9)(U

SA)

Harvard

University

(14)

(USA

)27

University

ofChicago

(10)

(USA

)27

Purdue

University

(10)

(USA

)WakeFo

restUniversity

(9)(U

SA)

McG

illUniversity

(14)

(Canada)

University

ofTo

ronto

(10)

(Canada)

University

ofChicago

(10)

(USA

)YorkUniversity

(9)(Canada)

University

ofNotre

Dam

e(14)

(USA

)University

ofWashington

(10)

(USA

)29

Dartm

outh

College

(9)(U

SA)

30AuburnUniversity

(8)(U

SA)

University

ofPennsylvania

(14)

(USA

)30

McG

illUniversity

(9)(Canada)

30SingaporeManagem

ent

University

(7)(Singapore) Continued

40 OM Research

Table8:

Contin

ued.

Journal

Rank

JOM

Rank

POM

Rank

MSO

MRank

MS

DePaulU

niversity

(8)(U

SA)

31Arizona

StateUniversity

(13)

(USA

)The

Chinese

University

ofHon

gKon

g(9)(H

ong

Kon

g)

University

ofMaryland

(7)(U

SA)

GeorgiaStateUniversity

(8)(U

SA)

ClemsonUniversity

(13)

(USA

)University

ofRochester

(9)(U

SA)

32Lon

donBusinessSc

hool

(6)(U

K)

IEUniversity

(8)(Spain)

New

YorkUniversity

(13)

(USA

)33

SingaporeManagem

ent

University

(8)(Singapore)

University

ofCalifornia,

Irvine

(6)(U

SA)

North

CarolinaState

University

(8)(U

SA)

University

ofSo

uthern

California(13)

(USA

)The

University

ofTexasat

Austin

(8)(U

SA)

University

ofIllin

ois

Urbana-Champaign

(6)(U

SA)

University

ofMichigan

(8)(U

SA)

35Northwestern

University

(12)

(USA

)35

Eindhoven

University

ofTechno

logy

(7)(The

Netherlands)

University

ofRochester

(6)(U

SA)

36ColoradoStateUniversity

(7)(U

SA)

University

ofCincinnati

(12)

(USA

)Georgetow

nUniversity

(7)(U

SA)

University

ofTo

ronto

(6)(Canada)

GeorgeMason

University

(7)(U

SA)

University

ofVirginia

(12)

(USA

)IN

SEADSingapore

(7)(Singapore)

University

ofWashington

(6)(U

SA)

GeorgiaSo

uthern

University

(7)(U

SA)

Western

University

(12)

(Canada)

38Arizona

StateUniversity

(6)(U

SA)

38Arizona

StateUniversity

(5)(U

SA)

RutgersUniversity

(7)(U

SA)

39EmoryUniversity

(11)

(USA

)CaseWestern

Reserve

University

(6)(U

SA)

BostonUniversity

(5)(U

SA)

The

University

ofMelbo

urne

(7)(A

ustralia)

The

University

ofBritish

Colum

bia

(11)

(Canada)

Lon

donBusinessSc

hool

(6)(U

K)

CaseWestern

Reserve

University

(5)(U

SA)

Continued

Koufteros et al. 41

Table8:

Contin

ued.

Journal

Rank

JOM

Rank

POM

Rank

MSO

MRank

MS

41Erasm

usUniversity

(6)(The

Netherlands)

TsinghuaUniversity

(11)

(China)

Shangh

aiUniversity

ofFinanceandEcono

mics

(6)(China)

NationalU

niversity

ofSingapore

(5)(Singapore)

HelsinkiU

niversity

ofTechno

logy

(6)(Finland

)

University

ofFlorida

(11)

(USA

)University

ofCalifornia,

Irvine

(6)(U

SA)

The

Hon

gKon

gPo

lytechnicUniversity

(5)(H

ongKon

g)IN

SEADFrance

(6)(France)

University

ofMiami

(11)

(USA

)University

ofFlorida

(6)(U

SA)

The

OhioStateUniversity

(5)(U

SA)

IowaStateUniversity

(6)(U

SA)

44CarnegieMellon

University

(10)

(USA

)

44City

University

ofHong

Kon

g(5)(H

ongKon

g)

University

ofFlorida

(5)(U

SA)

NationalU

niversity

ofSingapore

(6)(Singapore)

FudanUniversity

(10)

(China)

IndianaUniversity

Bloom

ington

(5)(U

SA)

University

ofNotre

Dam

e(5)(U

SA)

The

Chinese

University

ofHon

gKon

g(6)(H

ongKon

g)

Koç

Üniversity

(10)

(Turkey)

NayangTechno

logical

University

(5)(Singapore)

University

ofWisconsin-M

adison

(5)(U

SA)

Thu

nderbird

(6)(U

SA)

NationalU

niversity

ofSingapore

(10)

(Singapore)

NationalU

niversity

ofSingapore

(5)(Singapore)

47EmoryUniversity

(4)(U

SA)

Continued

42 OM Research

Table8:

Contin

ued.

Journal

Rank

JOM

Rank

POM

Rank

MSO

MRank

MS

UniversidadeCatólica

Portug

uesa

(6)(Portugal)

University

ofCalifornia,

Riverside

(10)

(USA

)

The

Hon

gKon

gPo

lytechnicUniversity

(5)(H

ongKon

g)

IndianaUniversity

Bloom

ington

(4)(U

SA)

University

ofCalgary

(6)(Canada)

49Indian

Scho

olof

Business

(9)(India)

Universidad

deNavarra

(5)(Spain)

LundUniversity

(4)(Sweden)

University

ofIllin

ois

Urbana-Champaign

(6)(U

SA)

SantaClara

University

(9)(U

SA)

University

ofOregon

(5)(U

SA)

McG

illUniversity

(4)(Canada)

University

ofUtah

(6)(U

SA)

Southern

Methodist

University

(9)(U

SA)

University

ofWisconsin-M

adison

(5)(U

SA)

Southern

Methodist

University

(4)(U

SA)

Vanderbilt

University

(6)(U

SA)

University

ofTo

ronto

(9)(Canada)

VrijeUniversiteit

Amsterdam

(5)(The

Netherlands)

Universidad

deNavarra

(4)(Spain)

University

ofUtah

(9)(U

SA)

University

ofCalifornia,

Riverside

(4)(U

SA)

Vanderbilt

University

(9)(U

SA)

University

ofOregon

(4)(U

SA)

University

ofUtah

(4)(U

SA)

a The

topinstitu

tions

aresorted

basedon

thenu

mberof

papers

(conveyedin

parentheses)

appearingin

that

journalover

the15

-yearperiod

of20

01–

2015

onwhich

theinstitu

tion’saffiliatio

nappearsin

authorship.The

countsof

numberof

papers

reported

here

aredeterm

ined

such

that

theinstitu

tion

receives

acreditof

onetowardthecountirrespectiveof

whether

itappearsoneor

moretim

esas

theinstitu

tionof

affiliatio

nin

theauthorship

ofthepaper.

Alsoconveyed

inparenthesisisthecountryof

locatio

n(country/region)

oftheinstitu

tion.

Wenote

that

forMS,

only

thosepapers

accepted

bythe“O

Mdepartment”areincluded

inthecount.

Koufteros et al. 43

Table 9: Top 50 OM institutions based on Total Degree Centrality.a

Rank InstitutionTotal DegreeCentrality

Country/Region

1 University of Minnesota 0.291 USA2 University of Pennsylvania 0.247 USA3 Michigan State University 0.238 USA4 Georgia Institute of Technology 0.233 USA

INSEAD France 0.233 France6 The University of Texas at Dallas 0.231 USA7 Columbia University 0.230 USA8 University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 0.222 USA9 Stanford University 0.205 USA

University of Michigan 0.205 USA11 Pennsylvania State University 0.191 USA12 Arizona State University 0.187 USA13 Northwestern University 0.180 USA14 The Ohio State University 0.173 USA15 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 0.165 USA16 University of California, Berkeley 0.153 USA

University of California, Los Angeles 0.153 USA18 New York University 0.148 USA19 Indian University Bloomington 0.147 USA20 Cornell University 0.140 USA

University of Maryland 0.140 USA22 The University of Texas at Austin 0.134 USA

Washington University 0.134 USA24 The Hong Kong University of Science and

Technology0.133 Hong Kong

25 Texas A&M University 0.120 USA26 Duke University 0.116 USA27 Clemson University 0.112 USA28 Harvard University 0.111 USA29 Purdue University 0.106 USA30 Carnegie Mellon University 0.103 USA31 University of Southern California 0.102 USA

Western University 0.102 Canada33 The Chinese University of Hong Kong 0.100 Hong Kong34 The Hong Kong Polytechnic University 0.093 Hong Kong

The University of British Columbia 0.093 Canada36 Emory University 0.091 USA37 University of Illinois Urbana Champaign 0.089 USA38 University of South Carolina 0.085 USA39 National University of Singapore 0.083 Singapore40 McGill University 0.079 Canada

University of Florida 0.079 USA42 University of Notre Dame 0.078 USA43 London Business School 0.077 UK44 Erasmus University 0.070 The Netherlands45 INSEAD Singapore 0.069 Singapore

University of Toronto 0.069 Canada

Continued

44 OM Research

Table 9: Continued.

Rank InstitutionTotal DegreeCentrality

Country/Region

47 City University of Hong Kong 0.068 Hong Kong48 University of Cambridge 0.067 UK49 University of Miami 0.063 USA50 University of Utah 0.061 USA

North Carolina State University 0.061 USAUniversity of California, Riverside 0.061 USA

aFor MS, only papers accepted by the “OM Department” are included.

Of the top five institutions, four are located in the United States and one inFrance. Of the top 50 institutions (52 in all, including ties), 38 are in the UnitedStates, four in each of Canada and Hong Kong, two in each of Singapore and theUnited Kingdom, and one in each of France and the Netherlands.

The top OM institutions by Bonacich power centrality

An institution scores high on Bonacich power centrality by virtue of it being con-nected with institutions that in turn are highly connected with other institutions.This adds to the prominence of the institution via the weightiness of the centralityof those institutions it is connected to in the network. For the institution × in-stitution network with shared papers (801 institutions, network density 0.01026),the top 50 institutions with the highest Bonacich power centrality are presented inTable 10. The top three institutions, respectively, on this measure of power cen-trality are the University of Minnesota, University of Pennsylvania, and ColumbiaUniversity.

Of the top five institutions, four are located in the United States and onein France. Of the top 50 institutions, 37 are in the United States, four in each ofCanada and Hong Kong, two in Singapore, and one in each of France, the Nether-lands, and the United Kingdom.

Practitioner participation in authorship and networking with practitioners

Research and practice are complementary aspects of knowledge: while researchis knowledge innovation, practice is knowledge application (Chang, 2019). Re-search can be useful for solving real-world problems (Prasad, Babbar, &Motwani,2001; Kielhofner, 2005). Nevertheless, there remains a weak association betweenresearch and practice across disciplines (Short, Keefer, & Stone, 2009; Han&Sten-house, 2015), with the research–practice gap adversely affecting communities andhindering the advancement of disciplines (Chang, 2019). Accordingly, numerousscholars have suggested bridging this gap by strengthening academic–practitionercollaborations (Cascio, 2008; Kernaghan, 2009; Short & Shindell, 2009) and tap-ping benefits that can accrue from practice-driven research that such collaborationshelp promote (Singhal & Singhal, 2012b; Roth, Singhal, Singhal, & Tang, 2016).In their paper appearing in the Academy of Management Journal, Amabile et al.(2001) underscore the point that insights practitioners boast from the field provide

Koufteros et al. 45

Table 10: Top 50 OM institutions based on Bonacich power centrality.a

Rank Institution

BonacichPower

CentralityCountry/Region

1 University of Minnesota 0.177 USA2 University of Pennsylvania 0.155 USA3 Columbia University 0.135 USA4 University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 0.134 USA5 INSEAD France 0.133 France6 Georgia Institute of Technology 0.131 USA7 Michigan State University 0.120 USA8 The University of Texas at Dallas 0.119 USA9 Stanford University 0.117 USA10 University of Michigan 0.111 USA11 Pennsylvania State University 0.101 USA12 Northwestern University 0.094 USA13 Arizona State University 0.087 USA14 The Ohio State University 0.086 USA15 University of California, Berkeley 0.079 USA16 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 0.078 USA17 New York University 0.072 USA18 University of California, Los Angeles 0.070 USA19 Indiana University Bloomington 0.067 USA20 Cornell University 0.065 USA

University of Maryland 0.065 USA22 The Hong Kong University of Science and

Technology0.059 Hong Kong

The University of Texas at Austin 0.059 USA24 Washington University 0.056 USA25 Harvard University 0.054 USA

Texas A&M University 0.054 USA27 Duke University 0.052 USA28 Carnegie Mellon University 0.045 USA29 Clemson University 0.044 USA

Purdue University 0.044 USAUniversity of South Carolina 0.044 USA

32 The Chinese University of Hong Kong 0.042 Hong KongWestern University 0.042 Canada

34 Emory University 0.041 USAUniversity of Illinois Urbana Champaign 0.041 USA

36 The University of British Columbia 0.039 Canada37 National University of Singapore 0.036 Singapore38 The Hong Kong Polytechnic University 0.035 Hong Kong39 University of South Carolina 0.034 USA40 McGill University 0.032 Canada41 University of Florida 0.031 USA

University of Notre Dame 0.031 USA43 INSEAD Singapore 0.030 Singapore

London Business School 0.030 UK

Continued

46 OM Research

Table 10: Continued.

Rank Institution

BonacichPower

CentralityCountry/Region

45 Erasmus University 0.027 The NetherlandsUniversity of Miami 0.027 USAUniversity of Utah 0.027 USA

48 City University of Hong Kong 0.026 Hong KongUniversity of Toronto 0.026 Canada

50 University of Chicago 0.025 USA

aFor MS, only papers accepted by the “OM Department” are included.

Figure 2: Percentage of papers having a practitioner in authorship. The percent-ages here are from papers published across all four journals.

relevance to the research and management research will be substantially strength-ened by effective collaboration between researchers and practicing managers.

Not only is research beneficial to both academicians and practitioners, eachof these groups can make substantial contribution and, through synergies, enhancethe quality of research endeavors. As such, in this section, we examine the ex-tent of practitioner participation in the authorship of research published in the fourjournals. We also examine the levels of collaboration the top ranked authors andinstitutions have had with practitioners.

Figure 2 shows the annual percentage of papers from across all four jour-nals that included a practitioner in authorship. As one can see in Figure 2, thelevel of practitioner participation in authorship has stayed much the same over the

Koufteros et al. 47

years—at around 7% or so of all published papers. Over the 15-year period of ourstudy, we found the average percentage of papers that had a practitioner in author-ship to be 7.27%.

Do the journals differ in the levels of practitioner participation that they ex-hibit? As the findings we present in Table 11 show, there are differences betweenthe journals in this regard. We found the levels of practitioner participation to be3.67%, 6.94%, 8.75%, and 9.60%, respectively, for JOM, MS, POM, and MSOMover the 15-year period. With only 3.67% of its published papers including a prac-titioner in authorship, JOM has had the lowest level of practitioner participationamong the four journals. Further, as shown in Table 11, we found the differencebetween JOM’s level of practitioner participation and that of each of the other jour-nals to be statistically significant.

Having examined the levels of practitioner participation in the authorshipof papers the journals published, we also examined the extent to which the most-published authors in the world (Table 2a) network with practitioners in publishingjointly with them. Of great interest is whether these top ranked authors exhibit ahigher or else lower propensity to network with practitioners than do the overallauthors who have published in the same set of journals over the 15-year period ofour study. We present our findings in Table 12.

Interestingly, we found that each of the sets of top three, top five, top 10,top 25, and top 50 most-published OM authors displayed a lower propensity tocollaborate with practitioners in the authorship of research than that displayed bythe overall set of all authors who have published in these journals. The top threeauthors included a practitioner on only 1.72% of the papers they published, whilethe top five authors included a practitioner on only 2.14%, the top 10 authors on3.42%, the top 25 authors on 4.00%, the top 50 authors on 6.07% and all authors on7.27% of the papers they published. The consistent increase in the extent to whichthe top authors include practitioner(s) in the authorship of papers is quite visible(Table 12) as one moves from the set of top three authors to each subsequent largerset of top authors. Put another way, the higher the authors are ranked, the lesserseems to be their inclination to publish with practitioners. Further, as highlightedin Table 12, we found the differences in the extent of practitioner participationdisplayed by each of the top three, top five, top 10, and top 25 authors relative tothat displayed by all authors to be statistically significant.

Is it just top authors, or do top institutions also display a lower propensity tocollaborate with practitioners in the authorship of research than that displayed bythe overall set of all institutions who have published in these journals?We examinethe top institutions in this regard and present our findings in Table 13.

Table 13 reveals that practically there are no differences in participation ofpractitioners across institution sets. Although on the surface the participation ofpractitioners appears to be somewhat more prevalent for the top three and top fiveinstitutions, the differences across any tiers are not statistically significant by a longshot. The findings are in contrast to the results for top authors where the participa-tion levels of practitioners with the top three through top 25 authors was differentthan the participation of practitioners for the set of all authors. In this respect, dif-ferences in practitioner participation appear to be salient when sets of authors areconcerned but not institutions.

48 OM Research

Table11:The

participationof

practitionersover

differentjournals.a

Journal

Total

Num

berof

Papersthis

Journal

Published

TotalN

umber

ofPapers(of

thisJournal)

thatHavea

Practitionerin

Authorship

Percentage

ofPapers(ofthis

Journal)that

Havea

Practitionerin

Authorship

Com

parisons

ofPractitionerAuthorshipAcrossJournals

JOM

627

233.66

826%

JOM-POM

p-value.001

bJO

M-M

SOM

p-value.000

01JO

M-M

Sp-value.014

68PO

M88

077

8.75

000%

POM-M

SOM

p-value.603

06PO

M-M

Sp-value.250

14MSO

M47

946

9.60

334%

MSO

M-M

Sp-value.138

88MS

461

326.94

143%

a Thisisover

the15

-yearperiod

of20

01–2

015.Weno

tethatforMS,

only

thosepapersaccepted

bythe“O

MDepartm

ent”areinclud

edin

thecoun

t.bSign

ificantp-values

areshaded

ingray

color.

Koufteros et al. 49

Table12:The

participationof

practitionersover

differentauthorsets.

Set

Autho

rSe

t

TotalN

umber

ofUniqu

ea

PapersthisSet

ofAuthorsHas

Published

TotalN

umber

ofUniqu

ePapers(ofthis

Seto

fAutho

rsCom

bined)

that

Havea

Practitionerin

Authorship

Percentage

ofUnique

Papers(ofthis

Seto

fAutho

rsCom

bined)

that

Havea

Practitionerin

Authorship

Com

parisons

AcrossSets

1To

pthreeauthors

combined

116

21.72

413%

1–2

p-value

.810

34

1–3

p-value

.368

12

1–4

p-value

.238

00

1–5

p-value

.056

14

1–6

p-value

.022

022

Topfiv

eauthors

combined

140

32.14

285%

2–3

p-value

.477

70

2–4

p-value

.298

34

2–5

p-value

.060

10

2–6

p-value

.020

883

Top10

authors

combined

234

83.41

880%

3–4

p-value

.703

94

3–5

p-value

.118

76

3–6

p-value

.026

424

Top25

authors

combined

450

184.00

000%

4–5

p-value

.121

14

4–6

p-value

.011

085

Top50

authors

combined

741

456.07

287%

5–6

p-value

.262

726

Allauthors

2447

178

7.27

421%

a The

coun

tof“Uniqu

e”papersdo

esno

tdou

ble-coun

tany

paper(such

asapaperthatm

aybe

co-autho

redby

twoauthorsof

the“top

threeauthorscombined”

set).W

enotethatforMS,

only

thosepapersaccepted

bythe“O

Mdepartment”areincluded

inthecount.

50 OM Research

Table13:The

participationof

practitionersover

differentinstitutionsets.

Set

Institu

tionSe

t

TotalN

umber

ofUniqu

ea

PapersthisSet

ofInstitu

tions

Has

Published

TotalN

umber

ofUniqu

ePapers(ofthis

Seto

fInstitu

tions

Com

bined)

that

Havea

Practitionerin

Authorship

Percentage

ofUnique

Papers(ofthis

Seto

fInstitu

tions

Com

bined)

that

Havea

Practitionerin

Authorship

Com

parisons

AcrossSets

1To

pthree

institu

tions

combined

292

268.90

411%

1–2

p-value

.920

34

1–3

p-value

.865

02

1–4

p-value

.727

86

1–5

p-value

.638

36

1–6

p-value

.771

822

Topfiv

einstitu

tions

combined

457

449.62

801%

2–3

p-value

.741

40

2–4

p-value

.575

48

2–5

p-value

.477

70

2–6

p-value

.603

063

Top10

institu

tions

combined

807

637.80

669%

3–4

p-value

.833

66

3–5

p-value

.711

38

3–6

p-value

.888

664

Top25

institu

tions

combined

1414

986.93

069%

4–5

p-value

.865

02

4–6

p-value

.912

405

Top50

institu

tions

combined

1842

117

6.35

179%

5–6

p-value

.756

566

Allinstitu

tions

2446

178

7.27719%

a The

coun

tof“U

niqu

e”papersdo

esno

tdou

ble-coun

tany

paper(suchas

apaperthatmay

beco-autho

redby

twoinstitu

tions

ofthe“top

threeinstitu

tions

combined”

set).W

enotethatforMS,

only

thosepapersaccepted

bythe“O

MDepartm

ent”areincluded

inthecount.

Koufteros et al. 51

Table 14: Profile of what it takes to place among the top OM authors across allfour journals combined.

Author Seta

Average andthe Minb andMax Numberof Papers thisSet of AuthorsPublished Over

the 5-YearPeriod of2001–2005

Average andthe Min andMax Numberof Papers thisSet of AuthorsPublished Over





the Entire15-Year Periodof 2001–2015

Top 10 7.70 (6, 13) 9.90 (8, 13) 11.40 (9, 19) 24.00 (19, 37)Top 11–25 5.13 (5, 6) 6.67 (6, 8) 7.47 (7, 9) 15.93 (14, 19)Top 26–50 4.32 (4, 5) 4.92 (4, 6) 5.88 (5, 7) 12.52 (11, 14)Top 51–100 3.42 (3, 4) 3.84 (3, 4) 4.46 (4, 5) 9.34 (8, 11)Top 101–150 2.44 (2, 3) 3.00 (3, 3) 3.76 (3, 4) 7.26 (7, 8)Top 151–200 2.00 (2, 2) 2.60 (2, 3) 3.00 (3, 3) 6.18 (6, 7)Top 201–250 2.00 (2, 2) 2.00 (2, 2) 3.00 (3, 3) 5.46 (5, 6)Overallc 1.54 (1, 13) 1.62 (1, 13) 1.67 (1, 19) 2.15 (1, 37)

aThese are based on a simple count of papers published across all four journals and thereported sets determined by a sorting of these values such that each set includes only thatmany values as specified by the particular set (i.e., the first 10 values comprise the top 10;the next 15 values the top 11–25 set; the next 25 the top 26–50 set, etc.). We note that forMS, only those papers accepted by the “OM Department” are included in the count.bThe min and max number of papers are presented within the parentheses after the averagenumber of papers of each author set.cOverall signifies for all authors who have published in any of these four journals.

Productivity Levels and What It Takes for OM Authors and Institutionsto Rank in the Top Tiers

So that we, as a discipline, can have an understanding of what productivity levels ittook for faculty to place among any of the various top tiers of authors in the world,we present in Table 14 the average number of papers for each top-tier author set,along with the min and max number of papers that set of authors published acrossall four journals combined. To provide greater insight, we present this informationfor each of three 5-year periods (i.e., 2001–2005, 2006–2010, and 2011–2015) aswell as for the overall 15-year period of 2001–2015.

Some themes seem evident from the findings presented in Table 14. Whenone scans across the figures of the three consecutive 5-year periods, the level of5-year productivity within each tier shows a consistent rise from one 5-year periodto the next. For example, while it took on average 7.70 papers to place amongthe top 10 set of most-published OM authors from across the world during 2001–2005, it took on average 9.90 papers during 2006–2010, and on average 11.40papers during 2011–2015 to place in that set. During the most recent 5-year period(2011–2015) of this study, if a faculty member (say, over the 5-year period priorto going up for P&T) published between 5 and 7 papers across these journals, thatwould place that individual among the top 26–50 most-published authors in the

52 OM Research

world. We can reasonably extrapolate, from the fairly consistent upward trend inproductivity levels the data reveals, that as we go forward what it will take to placein the top tiers is likely going to be higher than what it took during the most recent5-year period.

Additional insights can also be gleaned for P&T purposes from the outputlevels of the various top-tier OM author sets presented in Table 14 for assessingwhere a prospective P&T applicant might stand relative to the top tiers. For exam-ple, the top 26–50 tier of most-published authors in the world had a yearly publica-tion rate of less than one paper (more specifically: a publication rate of 12.52/15 =0.84/year) in these journals over the 15-year period of this study. Those who placedamong the top 151–200 tier of authors had a yearly publication rate of less than 0.5papers (7.26/15) in these journals over the 15-year period. Looking at the outputlevels during the most recent 5-year period (2011–2015) of this study, someonewho published between three and four papers in these journals (an average yearlypublication rate of 3.76/5= 0.75) over this recent 5-year period would rank amongthe top 101–150 authors in the world.

With each of these journals being highly regarded, in Table 15 we profilethe productivity levels (average number of papers, along with the min and max) ofeach of the top-tier author sets of each individual journal.

Publishing in these journals is no easy feat. From Table 15, one can see, forexample, someone publishing between four and five papers (a yearly publicationrate of 4.36/15= 0.29 papers/year) in MS over the 15-year period would be amongthe top 26–50 most published authors in that journal. Looking at the most recent5-year period (2011–2015), someone publishing two papers in MS over that 5-year period would be ranked among the top 26–50 most published authors in thatjournal.

Having looked at authors, we now move to consider institutions. What doesit take for an institution to place among any of the different tiers of the most-published institutions from across the world? In a manner similar to that used forauthors above, in Tables 16 and 17, respectively, we profile the productivity levels(average number of papers, along with the min and max number of papers) it tookfor institutions to place among any of the various top tiers based on publicationsacross all four journals (Table 16) and each individual journal (Table 17).

As was the case for authors, the level of 5-year productivity across the fourjournals combined (Table 16) within each tier of top institutions shows a consistentrise from one 5-year period to the next. As mentioned earlier, publishing in thesejournals is no easy feat. For example, it took an institution just one paper acrossthe four journals combined to place among the top 151–200 tier of most-publishedinstitutions over the 5-year period of 2001–2005. That increased to 1.82 papers, onaverage, for the following 5-year period of 2006–2010, and to 2.46 papers duringthe most recent 5-year period of 2011–2015 of this study. Institutions that placedamong the top 51–100 most-published institutions over the entire 15-year periodhad a yearly publication rate of merely 1.05 (i.e., 15.68/15) papers.

As far as institutional productivity levels by journal (Table 17) is concerned,institutions that placed among the top 11–25 tier of most-published institutions ofJOM, for instance, had on average a yearly publication rate of about 0.79 papers(i.e., 11.87/15) in JOM over the 15-year period. Those among the top 26–50 tier of

Koufteros et al. 53

Table15:Profi

leof

whatittakes

toplaceam

ongthetopOM

authorsof

each

individualjournal.

Average

andtheMin

andMax

a

Num

berof

PapersthisSeto

fAuthorsPu

blishedin

the

Particular

JournalO

verthe

5-YearPe

riod

of20

01–2

005

Average

andtheMin

andMax

Num

berof

PapersthisSeto

fAuthorsPu

blishedin

the

Particular

JournalO

verthe

5-YearPe

riod

of20

06–2

010

Average

andtheMin

andMax

Num

berof

PapersthisSeto

fAuthorsPu

blishedin

the

Particular

JournalO

verthe

5-YearPe

riod

of20

11–2

015

Average

andtheMin

andMax

Num

berof

PapersthisSeto

fAuthorsPu

blishedin

theParticular

JournalO

vertheEntire15

-Year

Period

of20

01–2

015

Autho

rSe

tbJO

MPO

MMSO

MMS

JOM

POM

MSO

MMS

JOM

POM

MSO

MMS

JOM

POM

MSO

MMS

Top10

5.90

(5,10)

3.10

(3,4)

2.60

(2,4)

3.60

(3,4

)5.40

(4,7

)5.30

(3,9)

3.30

(3,6

)4.40

(3,6

)5.20

(4,7

)8.20

(6,14)

3.60

(3,6

)4.00

(3,6)

13.30

(10,20

)13

.10

(8,21)

6.70

(6,9

)8.40

(7,13)

Top11

–25

3.20

(3,4

)2.07

(2,3)

2.00

(2,2)

2.73

(2,3

)3.27

(3,4

)3.00

(3,3)

2.67

(2,3

)2.40

(2,3

)3.27

(3,4

)4.33

(4,5

)2.87

(2,3

)2.60

(2,3)

7.40

(6,10)

7.00

(6,8

)5.13

(5,6

)5.87

(5,6

)To

p26

–50

2.08

(2,3

)1.68

(1,2)

1.20

(1,2)

2.00

(2,2

)2.44

(2,3

)2.16

(2,3)

2.00

(2,2

)2.00

(2,2

)2.36

(2,3

)3.40

(3,4

)2.00

(2,2

)2.00

(2,2)

5.12

(4,6)

5.28

(5,6

)4.12

(3,5

)4.36

(4,5

)To

p51

–100

1.60

(1,2

)1.00

(1,1)

1.00

(1,1)

1.34

(1,2

)1.82

(1,2

)1.56

(1,2)

1.30

(1,2

)1.10

(1,2

)1.82

(1,2

)2.58

(2,3

)1.72

(1,2

)1.10

(1,2)

3.40

(3,4)

4.04

(3,5

)3.00

(3,3

)3.12

(3,4

)To

p10

1–15

01.00

(1,1

)1.00

(1,1)

1.00

(1,1)

1.00

(1,1

)1.00

(1,1

)1.00

(1,1)

1.00

(1,1

)1.00

(1,1

)1.00

(1,1

)2.00

(2,2

)1.00

(1,1

)1.00

(1,1)

2.82

(2,3)

3.00

(3,3

)2.16

(2,3

)2.16

(2,3

)To

p15

1–20

01.00

(1,1

)1.00

(1,1)

0.72

c

(0,1)

1.00

(1,1

)1.00

(1,1

)1.00

(1,1)

1.00

(1,1

)1.00

(1,1

)1.00

(1,1

)2.00

(2,2

)1.00

(1,1

)1.00

(1,1)

2.00

(2,2)

2.48

(2,3

)2.00

(2,2

)1.86

(1,2

)To

p20

1–25

01.00

(1,1

)1.00

(1,1)

0.00

(0,0)

1.00

(1,1

)1.00

(1,1

)1.00

(1,1)

1.00

(1,1

)1.00

(1,1

)1.00

(1,1

)1.44

(1,2

)1.00

(1,1

)1.00

(1,1)

2.00

(2,2)

2.00

(2,2

)1.74

(1,2

)1.00

(1,1

)Overalld

1.45

(1,10)

1.19

(1,4)

1.19

(0,4)

1.29

(1,4

)1.34

(1,7

)1.29

(1,9)

1.26

(1,6

)1.34

(1,6

)1.34

(1,7

)1.41

(1,14)

1.27

(1,6

)1.31

(1,6)

1.67

(1,20)

1.60

(1,21)

1.60

(1,9

)1.66

(1,13)

a The

min

andmax

numberof

papersare,respectiv

ely,presentedwith

intheparenthesesbelowtheaverageforeach

set.

bThisisbasedon

asimplecounto

fpapersandthereported

setsdeterm

ined

byasortingof

thosevalues

such

thateach

setiscomposedof

only

thatmany

values

asspecified

bytheparticular

set(i.e.,thefirst10

values

comprisethetop10;thenext

15values

thetop11–25set;thenext

25thetop26–50set,

etc.).WenotethatforMS,

only

thosepapersaccepted

bythe“O

MDepartm

ent”areincluded

inthecount.

c Onlyatotalo

f18

6authorspu

blishedin

MSO

Mdu

ring

the20

01–2

005period

.dOverallsignifies

forallauthorswho

have

publishedin

theparticular

journal.

54 OM Research

Table 16: Profile of what it takes to place among the top OM institutions acrossall four journals combined.

Institution Seta

Average andthe Minb andMax Numberof Papers this

Set ofInstitutions

Published Overthe 5-YearPeriod of2001–2005

Average andthe Min andMax Numberof Papers this

Set ofInstitutions



Set ofInstitutions



Set ofInstitutions

Published Overthe Entire

15-Year Periodof 2001–2015

Top 10 26.00 (19, 36) 31.50 (26, 40) 37.40 (32, 46) 90.40 (75, 107)Top 11–25 13.60 (11, 18) 19.67 (17, 25) 26.33 (19, 31) 59.00 (47, 74)Top 26–50 7.60 (6, 10) 10.24 (7, 17) 15.96 (13, 19) 32.24 (23, 46)Top 51–100 3.84 (3, 6) 4.50 (3, 7) 8.40 (6, 13) 15.68 (11, 23)Top 101–150 1.96 (1, 3) 2.54 (2, 3) 4.28 (3, 6) 8.26 (7, 11)Top 151–200 1.00 (1, 1) 1.82 (1, 2) 2.46 (2, 3) 5.24 (4, 7)Top 201–250 1.00 (1, 1) 1.00 (1, 1) 1.76 (1, 2) 3.42 (3, 4)Overallc 1.41 (0, 36) 1.91 (0, 40) 2.83 (0, 46) 6.15 (1, 107)

aThis is based on a simple count of papers published across all four journals and the reportedsets determined by a sorting of those values such that each set includes only thatmany valuesas specified by the particular set (i.e., the first 10 values comprise the top 10; the next 15values the top 11–25 set; the next 25 the top 26–50 set, etc.). We note that for MS, onlythose papers accepted by the “OM Department” are included in the count.bThe min and max number of papers are, respectively, presented within the parenthesesafter the average for each set.cOverall signifies for all institutions who have published in any of these four journals.

most-published institutions in JOMhad on average a yearly publication rate of 0.48papers in JOM. The output levels of the various top-tier institution sets presentedin Table 17 can serve as a useful guide for assessing where an institution mightstand relative to the top tiers for each journal.

CONCLUSION, LIMITATIONS, AND FUTURE RESEARCH

We reviewed the top most published authors and institutions based on data fromfour journals over a 15-year period while using a variety of metrics. We also ex-amined the degree to which the top most published OM authors and institutionswork with practitioners. We note, however, that many of these authors also placetheir best work with other premier journals, such as the Decision Sciences or Op-erations Research, and sometimes they cross traditional functional boundaries andpublish in journals such as Academy of Management Journal, Strategic Manage-ment Journal, orMIS Quarterly. Thus, in this manuscript we partially evaluate theoverall contributions of individuals and institutions. Future research may examinea wider spectrum of journals.

To assure accuracy of the data for this study, we painstakingly spent over1,000 hours to manually enter data points and construct the data set while also

Koufteros et al. 55

Table17:Profi

leof

whatittakes

toplaceam

ongthetopOM

institu

tions

ofeach

individualjournal.

Average

andtheMin

andMax

a

Num

berof

PapersthisSeto

fInstitu

tions

Publishedin

the

Particular

JournalO

verthe

5-YearPe

riod

of20

01–2

005

Average

andtheMin

andMax

Num

berof

PapersthisSeto

fInstitu

tions

Publishedin

the

Particular

JournalO

verthe

5-YearPe

riod

of20

06–2

010

Average

andtheMin

andMax

Num

berof

PapersthisSeto

fInstitu

tions

Publishedin

the

Particular

JournalO

verthe

5-YearPe

riod

of20

11–2

015

Average

andtheMin

andMax

Num

berof

PapersthisSeto

fInstitu

tions

Publishedin

the

Particular

JournalO

vertheEntire

15-YearPe

riod

of20

01–2

015

Institu

tion

Setb

JOM

POM

MSO

MMS

JOM

POM

MSO

MMS

JOM

POM

MSO

MMS

JOM

POM

MSO

MMS

Top10

10.80

(5,22)

6.40

(4,9)

6.30

(4,10)

11.70

(8,2

2)12

.20

(7,2

7)10

.10

(7,2

2)10

.60

(8,1

6)11

.60

(8,1

7)11

.10

(7,1

6)19

.70

(14,

32)

10.20

(8,1

4)9.30

(7,1

5)31

.20

(15,65

)32

.10

(23,56

)25

.70

(18,38

)30

.30

(22,

52)

Top11

–25

3.67

(3,5

)3.33

(3,4)

2.87

(2,4

)5.27

(4,7

)4.47

(4,6

)4.93

(4,6

)5.33

(4,8)

5.07

(3,7

)5.53

(4,7

)11

.80

(10,

14)

6.47

(5,8

)5.20

(4,7

)11

.87

(9,1

4)19

.00

(15,23

)14

.00

(12,17

)15

.00

(12,

21)

Top26

–50

2.36

(2,3

)2.00

(2,2)

1.56

(1,2

)2.52

(2,4

)2.72

(2,3

)3.32

(2,4

)2.32

(2,3)

1.68

(1,3

)3.36

(3,4

)7.16

(6,9

)3.72

(3,5

)2.48

(2,3

)7.16

(6,9

)11

.64

(9,14)

7.04

(5,1

1)5.88

(4,1

1)To

p51

–100

1.22

(1,2

)1.08

(1,2)

0.74

c

(0,1

)1.06

(1,2

)1.78

(1,2

)1.54

(1,2

)1.20

(1,2)

0.84

(0,1

)1.60

(1,2

)4.10

(3,6

)1.64

(1,3

)1.02

(1,2

)4.16

(3,6

)6.20

(4,9

)2.96

(2,5)

2.30

(1,4

)To

p10

1–15

01.00

(1,1

)1.00

(1,1)

0.00

(0,0

)0.54

(0,1

)1.00

(1,1

)1.00

(1,1

)0.70

(0,1)

0.00

(0,0

)1.00

(1,1

)2.30

(2,3

)1.00

(1,1

)0.02

(0,1

)2.66

(2,3

)3.52

(3,4

)1.46

(1,2)

1.00

(1,1

)To

p15

1–20

00.08

(0,1

)0.08

(0,1)

0.00

(0,0

)0.00

(0,0

)1.00

(1,1

)1.00

(1,1

)0.00

(0,0)

0.00

(0,0

)1.00

(1,1

)1.30

(1,2

)0.22

(0,1

)0.00

(0,0

)1.74

(1,2

)2.06

(2,3

)1.00

(1,1)

1.00

(1,1

)To

p20

1–25

00.00

(0,0

)0.00

(0,0)

0.00

(0,0

)0.00

(0,0

)0.38

(0,1

)0.36

(0,1

)0.00

(0,0)

0.00

(0,0

)0.30

(0,1

)1.00

(1,1

)0.00

(0,0

)0.00

(0,0

)1.00

(1,1

)1.52

(1,2

)0.84

(0,1)

0.20

(0,1

)Overalld

0.42

(0,22)

0.34

(0,9)

0.23

(0,10)

0.42

(0,2

2)0.58

(0,2

7)0.57

(0,2

2)0.42

(0,1

6)0.34

(0,1

7)0.59

(0,1

6)1.34

(0,3

2)0.54

(0,1

4)0.36

(0,1

5)1.59

(0,6

5)2.24

(0,56)

1.19

(0,3

8)1.12

(0,5

2)a The

min

andmax

numberof

papersare,respectiv

ely,presentedwith

intheparenthesesbelowtheaverageforeach

set.

bThisisbasedon

asimplecounto

fpapersandthereported

setsdeterm

ined

byasortingof

thosevalues

such

thateach

setiscomposedof

only

thatmany

values

asspecified

bytheparticular

set(i.e.,thefirst10

values

comprisethetop10;thenext

15values

thetop11–25set;thenext

25thetop26–50set,

etc.).WenotethatforMS,

only

thosepapersaccepted

bythe“O

MDepartm

ent”areincluded

inthecount.

c Onlyatotalo

f87

institu

tions

publishedin

MSO

Mduring

the2001–2005period.

dOverallsignifies

forallinstitutions

who

have

publishedin

theparticular

journal.

56 OM Research

preparing the various data files. Nevertheless, our data set is limited and we donot delve into qualitative issues or dynamics of networks in our study. Our dataset does not contain information on attributes, such as whether a particular authorhas served as an editor, associate editor, or department editor with these (or someother) journals; whether linkages between highly ranked researchers and their PhDstudents who may also exhibit high productivity levels exist; whether the individ-ual who an author has published with was earlier his/her PhD student or a studentin a PhD program of an institution which that author may have been affiliated with;and whether connections outside of joint publications that someone may have hadwith others existed; etc. While we made every effort to assure data accuracy, anomission, if any, that may have crept in is inadvertent. Our data (other than Ta-ble 6, which spans 2001–2019) set also spans only a 15-year period of 2001–2015.There remains an opportunity for future research to examine and offer insights intoqualitative aspects of networks. Using data sets that may either be more focused,contain more detailed information, or which span longer periods of time, future re-search offers opportunities to examine dynamics of networks and what role, if any,PhD programs, service in editorial capacity, institutional status, prior publicationrecord, etc., play in the context of research networks and collaborations.

When examining the most published institutions and their respective net-works, we did not adjust or normalize the data based on the number of research-active faculty they deploy or have employed over the years. Institutions that count alarge number of research-active faculty simply have the potential to generate morepapers. Accounting for the number of research-active faculty each institution re-tains over the years is not an easy feat as the faculty count changes over the years.Furthermore, faculty listed in a given department may hold administrate roles at thedepartmental, college or university levels, respectively. Thus, it is not easy to deci-pher on a year-by-year basis, and in a retroactive fashion, the number of research-active faculty across hundreds of institutions. We consider this a limitation of ourcurrent work. An additional limitation is that our analysis is based on number ofpapers published, not impact (citations or some other such measure) of the papers.

Are there any tangible benefits from networking? It appears based on corre-lation analysis that researchers that score high on centrality measures also demon-strate high productivity. We compiled a list of all 63 researchers that appeared inthe list of most productive researchers or had the highest centrality measures andcorrelated their respective measures. The correlations between the total number ofpapers with total degree centrality and Bonacich power centrality are 0.93 and 0.90,respectively. Similarly, the correlations between the twomeasures of centrality andthe yearly publication record corrected for the number of years holding a PhD are0.84 and 0.83, respectively. The correlations between the centrality measures withweighted number of papers and with weighted yearly publication rate correctedfor the number of years holding a PhD over the review period are somewhat lower(i.e., 0.61 and 0.57, and 0.49 and 0.47, respectively), but substantive. In essence,the number of direct connections in the network as well as being connected withthose that are highly connected may be fruitful as far as productivity is concerned.Simultaneously, highly productive researchers may be rather attractive to other po-tential network partners, eliciting interest to jointly produce manuscripts, furtherincreasing the productivity levels of focal agents.

Koufteros et al. 57

While networking renders benefits, it should not be inferred that only thosewho network with others that are influential are able to publish in these leadingjournals. Ten (i.e., Stephen C. Graves, Hau L. Lee, Erica L. Plumbeck, VinodR. Singhal, Xuanming Su, Terry A. Taylor, Brian Tomlin, Ward Whitt, FuqiangZhang, and Ӧzer Ӧzalp) of the top 50 authors (see Table 2a) are not listed in Ta-bles 4 and 5, which present the top 50 individuals that boast the highest levels ofcentrality. Furthermore, the number of unique authors whose work these journalspublished increased from 924 during the first 5-year period of 2001–2005 to 1,204during 2006–2010 and 1,684 during 2011–2015. Such increase in participation isencouraging and indicative of excellent research being welcome and published inthese journals irrespective of author networks.

We also present a profile of the productivity levels and show what it takes forauthors and institutions to rank among the top tiers. Such profiles furnish insightsinto yearly publication rates and underlying trends that can be useful in the contextof promotion and tenure and in assessing the standings of individuals and institu-tions relative to leadership benchmarks. Table 6 is rather informative for promo-tion/tenure decisions as it rests on publication records of those who ranked amongthe top 100 and graduated during 2001–2009. It includes data from 2001–2019to assure a full 10-year period for those that have graduated in 2009 and containsall Management Science papers irrespective of departmental affiliation. The tableproduced faculty productivity for the first five and 10 years post-graduation inter-vals and reveals that productivity levels, at least within the realm of the journal setexamined here, soared 63% for the second 5-year period vis-à-vis the first 5-yearperiod. This represents extraordinary growth.

Finally, as our findings show, top ranked authors have displayed a lowerpropensity to collaborate with practitioners in the authorship of research than thatdisplayed by the overall set of all authors who have published in these journals. Inview of the benefits that can accrue from greater practitioner participation in re-search, we encourage academic institutions, administrators, and editors to considerways by which greater participation by practitioners and higher levels of collabo-rations between academicians and practitioners can be achieved. Funding of suchcollaborations and promoting and rewarding joint academic–practitioner publica-tions can help in furthering this cause.

REFERENCES

Acedo, F. J., Barroso, C., Casanueva, C., & Galan, J. L. (2006). Co-authorship inmanagement and organizational studies: An empirical and network analysis.Journal of Management Studies, 43(5), 957–983.

Agarwal, V. K. (2002). Constituencies of journals in production and operationsmanagement: Implications on reach and quality. Production and OperationsManagement, 11(2), 101–108.

Allred, C. R., Fawcett, S. E., Wallin, C., & Magnan, G. M. (2011). A dynamiccollaboration capability as a source of competitive advantage. Decision Sci-ences, 42(1), 129–161.

58 OM Research

Amabile, T. M., Patterson, C., Mueller, J., Wojcik, T., Odomirok, P. W., Marsh, M.& Kramer, S. J. (2001). Academic-practitioner collaboration in managementresearch: A case of cross-profession collaboration. Academy of ManagementJournal, 44(2), 418–431.

Babbar S., Behara R. S., Koufteros X. A., Wong C. W. Y. (2018). Charting leader-ship in SCM research from Asia and Europe. International Journal of Pro-duction Economics, 203, 350–378.

Babbar S., Koufteros X., Behara R. S., Wong C. W. Y. (2019). SCM research lead-ership: The ranked agents and their networks. Supply Chain Management:An International Journal, 24(6), 821–854.

Babbar S., Koufteros X., Bendoly E., Behara R., Metters R., Boyer K. (2020).Looking at ourselves: Lessons about the operations management fieldlearned from our top journals. Journal of Operations Management, 66(3),349–364.

Barabási, A. L., Jeong, H., Néda, Z., Ravasz, E., Schubert, A., & Vicsek, T.(2002). Evolution of the social network of scientific collaborations. PhysicaA, 311(4), 590–614.

Benedek, G., Lublóy, Á., & Vastag, G. (2014). The importance of social embed-dedness: Churn models at mobile providers. Decision Sciences, 45(1), 175–201.

Bonacich, P. (1972). Factoring and weighing approaches to clique identification.Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 2(1), 113–120.

Borgatti, S. P., & Foster, P. C. (2003). The network paradigm in organizationalresearch: A review and typology. Journal of Management, 29(6), 991–1013.

Borgatti, S. P., & Li, X. (2009). On social network analysis in a supply chain con-text. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 45(2), 5–22.

Brass, D. J. (1984). Being in the right place: A structural analysis of individualinfluence in an organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29(4), 518–539.

Buhman, C., Kekre, S., & Singhal, J. (2005). Interdisciplinary and interorganiza-tional research: Establishing the science of enterprise networks. Productionand Operations Management, 14(4), 493–513.

Burt, R. S. (1997). The contingent value of social capital. Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 42(1), 157–171.

Carter, C. R., Ellram, L. M., & Tate, W. (2007). The use of social network analysisin logistics research. Journal of Business Logistics, 28(1), 137–168.

Carter, C. R., Leuschner, R., & Rogers, D. S. (2007). A social network analysis ofthe Journal of Supply Chain Management: Knowledge generation, knowl-edge diffusion and thought leadership. Journal of Supply Chain Manage-ment, 43(2), 15–28.

Koufteros et al. 59

Cascio, W. F. (2008). To prosper, organizational psychology should … bridge ap-plication and scholarship. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(4), 455–468.

Chang, Y. (2019). A comparison of researcher-practitioner collaborations in libraryand information science, education, and sociology. Journal of Librarianshipand Information Science, 51(1), 208–217.

Claver, E., González, R., & Llopis, J. (2000). An analysis of research in informa-tion systems (1981–1997). Information & Management, 37(4), 181–195.

Dong, M. C., Liu, Z., Yu, Y., & Zheng, J. H. (2015). Opportunism in distributionnetworks: The role of network embeddedness and dependence. Productionand Operations Management, 24(10), 1657–1670.

Faust, K. (1997). Centrality in affiliation networks. Social Networks, 19(2), 157–191.

Fischer, C. S., & Shavit, Y. (1995). National differences in network density: Israeland the United States. Social Networks, 17(2), 129–145.

Fombrun, C. J. (1982). Strategies for network research in organizations. Academyof Management Review, 7(2), 280–291.

Fombrun, C. J. (1983). Attributions of power across a social network. Human Re-lations, 36(6), 493–508.

Freeman, L. C. (1979). Centrality in social networks: Conceptual clarification. So-cial Networks, 1(3), 215–239.

Garvin, D. A. (1993). Building a learning organization. Harvard Business Review,74(4), 78–91.

Grover, V., Segars, A. H., & Simon, S. J. (1992). An assessment of institutionalresearch productivity in MIS. Database, 24(4), 5–9.

Gulati, R. (1998). Alliances and networks. Strategic Management Journal, 19(4),293–317.

Gulati, R. (1999). Network location and learning: The influence of network re-sources and firm capabilities on alliance formation. Strategic ManagementJournal, 20(5), 397–420.

Gulati, R., Nohria, N., & Zaheer, A. (2000). Strategic networks. Strategic Man-agement Journal, 21(3), 203–215.

Gunnec, D., & Raghavan, S. (2017). Integrating social network effects in the share-of-choice problem. Decision Sciences, 48(6), 1098–1131.

Guo, H., Pathak, P., & Cheng, H. K. (2015). Estimating social influences fromsocial networking sites—Articulated friendships versus communication in-teractions. Decision Sciences, 46(1), 135–163.

Han, H., & Stenhouse, N. (2015). Bridging the research-practice gap in climatecommunication: Lessons from one academic-practitioner collaboration. Sci-ence Communication, 37(3), 396–404.

Hayes, R. H. (2008). Operations management’s next source of galvanizing energy?Production and Operations Management, 17(6), 567–572.

60 OM Research

Hsieh, P., & Chang, P. (2009). An assessment of world-wide research productivityin production and operations management. International Journal of Produc-tion Economics, 120(2), 540–551.

Hult, G. T. M., Ketchen, D. J., & Nichols, E. L. (2003). Organizational learning asa strategic resource in supply management. Journal of Operations Manage-ment, 21(5), 541–556.

Kearns, G. S., & Lederer, A. L. (2003). A resource-based view of strategic it align-ment: How knowledge sharing creates competitive advantage. Decision Sci-ences, 34(1), 1–29.

Kernaghan, K. (2009). Speaking truth to academics: The wisdom of the practition-ers. Canadian Public Administration, 52(4), 503–523.

Kielhofner, G. (2005). Scholarship and practice: Bridging the divide. AmericanJournal of Occupational Therapy, 59(2), 231–239.

Kraatz, M. (1998). Learning by association? Interorganizational networks andadaption to environmental change. Academy of Management Journal, 41(6),621–643.

Laband, D. N., & Tollison, R. D. (2000). Intellectual collaborations. Journal ofPolitical Economy, 108(3), 632–662.

Levina, T., Levin, Y., McGill, J., & Nediak, M. (2015). Strategic consumer coop-eration in a name-your-own-price channel. Production and Operations Man-agement, 24(12), 1883–1900.

Lovejoy, W. S., & Sinha, A. (2010). Efficient structures for innovative social net-works. Management Science, 56(7), 1127–1145.

Malhotra, M. K., & Kher, H. V. (1996). Institutional research productivity in pro-duction and operations management. Journal of Operations Management,14(1), 55–77.

Martins, M. E., Martins, G. S., Csillag, J. M., & Pereira, S. C. F. (2012). Ser-vice’s scientific community: A social network analysis (1995–2010). Journalof Service Management, 23(3), 455–469.

Mazzola, E., Perrone, G., & Kamuriwo, D. S. (2015). Network embeddedness andnew product development in the biopharmaceutical industry: The moderat-ing role of open innovation flow. International Journal of Production Eco-nomics, 160, 106–119.

McGregor, J. (2006, February 27). The office chart that really counts. BusinessWeek, February 27, 48–49.

Meredith, J. R., Steward, M. D., & Lewis, B. R. (2011). Knowledge disseminationin operations management: Published perceptions versus academic reality.Omega, 39(4), 435–466.

Moody, J. (2004). The structure of a social science collaboration network: Disci-plinary cohesion from 1963 to 1999. American Sociological Review, 69(2),213–238.

Koufteros et al. 61

Morris, M., Bessant, J., & Barnes, J. (2006). Using learning networks to enable in-dustrial development: Case studies from South Africa. International Journalof Operations & Production Management, 26(5), 532–557.

Olson, J. E. (2005). Top-25-business-school professors rate journals in operationsmanagement and related fields. Interfaces, 35(4), 323–338.

Prasad, S., Babbar, S., & Motwani, J. (2001). International operations strategy:Current efforts and future directions. International Journal of Operations &Production Management, 21(5–6), 645–665.

Revilla, E., & Villena, V. H. (2012). Knowledge integration taxonomy in buyer-supplier relationships: Trade-offs between efficiency and innovation. Inter-national Journal of Production Economics, 140(2), 845–864.

Ronchetto, J. R., Hutt, M. D., & Reingen, P. H. (1989). Embedded influence pat-terns in organizational buying systems. Journal of Marketing, 53(4), 51–62.

Roth, A., Singhal, J., Singhal, K., & Tang, C. S. (2016). Knowledge creation anddissemination in operations and supply chain management. Production andOperations Management, 25(9), 473–1488.

Sarker, S., Sarker, S., Kirkeby, S., & Chakraborty, S. (2011). Path to “stardom” inglobally distributed hybrid teams: An examination of a knowledge-centeredperspective using social network analysis. Decision Sciences, 42(2), 339–370.

Scott, J. (2000). Social network analysis: A handbook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.

Shang, G., Saladin, B., Fry, T., & Donohue, J. (2015). Twenty-six years of oper-ations management research (1985-2010): Authorship patterns and researchconstituents in eleven top rated journals. International Journal of ProductionResearch, 53(20), 6161–6197.

Short, D. C., Keefer, J., & Stone, S. J. (2009). The link between research and prac-tice: Experiences of HRD and other professions. Advances in DevelopingHuman Resources, 11(4), 420–437.

Short, D. C., & Shindell, T. J. (2009). Defining HRD scholar-practitioners. Ad-vances in Developing Human Resources, 11(4), 472–485.

Singhal, K., & Singhal, J. (2012a). Imperatives of the science of operations andsupply-chain management. Journal of Operations Management, 30(3), 237–244.

Singhal, K., & Singhal, J. (2012b). Opportunities for developing the science of op-erations and supply-chain management. Journal of Operations Management,30(3), 245–252.

Sosa, M. E. (2014). Realizing the need for rework: From task interdependenceto social networks. Production and Operations Management, 23(8), 1312–1331.

Srinivasan, A., Guo, H., & Devaraj, S. (2017). Who cares about your big day?Impact of life events on dynamics of social networks. Decision Sciences,48(6), 1062–1097.

62 OM Research

Theoharakis, V., Voss, C., Hadjinicola, G. C., & Soteriou, A. C. (2007). Insightsinto factors affecting production and operations management (POM) journalevaluation. Journal of Operations Management, 25(4), 932–955.

Tomas, G., & Hult, M. (2003). An integration of thoughts on knowledge manage-ment. Decision Sciences, 34(2), 189–195.

Trieschmann, J. S., Dennis, A. R., Northcraft, G. B., & Nieme, A. W. Jr. (2000).Serving constituencies in business schools: MBA program versus researchperformance. Academy of Management Journal, 43(6), 1130–1141.

University of Texas-Dallas. (2020). UTD Top 100 Business School ResearchRankings. http://jindal.utdallas.edu/the-utd-top-100-business-school-research-rankings/journals

Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and appli-cations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Young, S. T., Baird, B. C., & Pullmam, M. E. (1996). POM research productivityin U.S. business schools. Journal of Operations Management, 14(1), 41–53.

XenophonKoufteros is a professor of supply chainmanagement at theMaysBusi-ness School, Texas A&M University, where he also holds the Jenna & Calvin R.Guest Professorship in Business and the Eppright University Professorship in Un-dergraduate Teaching Excellence. He also serves as Director of the Supply ChainConsortium at the Mays Business School. He has published more than 50 articlesin refereed journals, including Decision Sciences Journal, Journal of OperationsManagement, Production and Operations Management, Journal of Supply ChainManagement, Structural Equations Modeling, International Journal of Produc-tion Research, International Journal of Production Economics, and InternationalJournal of Production and Operations Management, among others. He is nowserving as co-Editor-in-Chief of the Decision Sciences. He received the best as-sociate editor award for Journal of Operations Management and for Journal ofSupply Chain Management multiple times and the Best Empirical Paper Awardfor Decision Sciences. Prof. Koufteros received numerous teaching awards, suchas the Association of Former Students (AFS) Distinguished Achievement Awardin Teaching at the university level and at the Mays Business School. In 2019, hereceived theWickham Skinner Teaching Award from the Production & OperationsManagement Society, while in 2018 he received the designation of Poets &Quants’top 50 Undergraduate Business Professors, a global recognition. He also receivedseveral awards for his service to the profession and students, such as the Distin-guished Achievement Award—Individual Student Relationships, at the universitylevel, Association of Former Students, Texas A&M University.

Sunil Babbar is a professor of operationsmanagement in the Information Technol-ogy and OperationsManagement Department of the College of Business at FloridaAtlantic University. He received his PhD in operations management from KentState University in Ohio. His primary research interests are in the areas of qualitymanagement, service quality, business ethics, and social networks. He has twicereceived the Researcher of the Year Award of the College of Business at Florida At-lantic University. He has also received numerous awards for excellence in teaching

http://jindal.utdallas.edu/the-utd-top-100-business-school-research-rankings/journals

http://jindal.utdallas.edu/the-utd-top-100-business-school-research-rankings/journals

Koufteros et al. 63

at both the college and university level, including the Stewart Distinguished Profes-sorship Award of FAU’s College of Business in 2007 and the Teaching ExcellenceAward in 2012 and 2016. He has published some 35 articles in refereed journals,with many of his articles appearing in leading journals such as Journal of Oper-ations Management, International Journal of Operations & Production Manage-ment, Decision Sciences, Academy of Management Executive, OMEGA, Interna-tional Journal of Production Economics, and Long Range Planning, among others.His research has received recognition from the American Federation of Labor andCongress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) for its public policy implications.He serves on the editorial boards of a number of journals and is the recipient of theBest Reviewer Award of the Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Educationfor 2010, 2011, and 2015.

Ravi S. Behara is a professor in the Department of Information Technology &Operations Management in the College of Business at Florida Atlantic University.He is also currently the SBA Communications Distinguished Professor. His cur-rent research interests are in healthcare and service operations analytics. He haspublished in the Journal of Operations Management, European Journal of Opera-tions Research, International Journal of Operations and Production Management,International Journal of Production Economics, Decision Support Systems, IEEEJournal of Biomedical and Health Informatics, Journal of Big Data, and Interna-tional Journal of Accounting Information Systems, and in research books, such asHandbooks in Information Systems and Advances in Patient Safety. His healthcareresearch has been NSF funded, and he is currently part of a research team thatis funded by HRSA. His business experience includes operations consulting andworking as an electrical engineer on global power plant construction projects. Heholds a PhD in service operations.

Milad Baghersad is an assistant professor in the Department of Information Tech-nology and Operations Management in the College of Business at Florida AtlanticUniversity. He received his PhD in business information technology from the Pam-plin College of Business at Virginia Tech. His primary research interests includesupply chain disruptions and disaster operations management. Milad has publishedpapers in peer-reviewed journals, including the Decision Sciences, InternationalJournal of Production Economics, Transportation Research Part E, and the Socio-Economic Planning Sciences.

64 OM Research

App

endixA:Mostp

ublishedOM

authorsby

journa

l(For

MS,

thistableinclud

espa

pers

accepted

bytheOM

depa

rtmenta

tMSas

wella

sthoseha

ving

linka

geto

OM

butaccepted

bydepa

rtmentsotherthan

OM)

With

allfour

journalsbeingam

ongthemostprestig

ious

outletsforOM

research

andyethaving

theirow

nidentity,edito

rial

philo

sophy,

guidelines,and

requisites,itwould

beinterestingto

seewho

themostp

ublishedauthorsareby

journal.The

Tablebelowpresentsthemost

publishedauthorsby

journal.Interestingly,thesetsof

top-threeauthorsby

journalare

mutually

exclusiveacross

thefour

journals.R

oger

G.

Schroeder(with

20papersinJO

M)and

Ram

Narasim

han(16)

arethetwomostpublishedauthorsinJO

M,followed

byKevinW.L

inderm

an(14)

andMorganL.S

wink(14)

inatie

forthird.Luk

N.V

anWassenhove(w

ith21

papersin

POM),Su

resh

P.Sethi(17),andChristopher

S.Tang

(15)

arethethreemostp

ublishedauthorsin

POM.P

anos

Kouvelis

(with

10papersin

MSO

M)isthemostp

ublishedauthor

inMSO

M,

follo

wed

byCharles

J.Corbett(8)andJing-Sheng

Song

(7).ChristianTerw

iesch(w

ith16

papers

inMS)

isthemostpublishedauthor

inMS,

follo

wed

bySergueiN

etessine

(15)

andGérardP.Cachon(14).

Journal

Rank

JOM

aRank

POM

Rank

MSO

Ma

Rank

MS

1Sc

hroeder,Rog

erG.

(20,

Uof

Minnesota)

1Wassenhove,Luk

N.V

an(21,IN

SEADFrance)

1Kou

velis,P

anos

(10,

WashingtonU)

1Terw

iesch,

Christian

(16,Uof

Penn

sylvania)

2Narasim

han,

Ram

(16,Mihigan

StateU)

2Se

thi,Su

resh

P.(17,The

Uof

Texasat

Dallas)

2Corbett,

Charles

J.(8,U

ofCalifornia,Los

Angeles)

2Netessine,S

erguei

(15,Uof

Penn

sylvania)

3Linderm

an,K

evin

W.

(14,

Uof

Minnesota)

3Tang,C

hristopher

S.(15,Uof

California,

Los

Ang

eles)

3So

ng,Jing-Sh

eng

(7,D

ukeU)

3Cachon,GérardP.

(14,Uof

Penn

sylvania)

Swink,

MorganL.

(14,

TexasChristianU)

4Daw

ande,M

ilind

(14,The

Uof

Texasat

Dallas)

4Cachon,

GérardP.

(6,U

ofPe

nnsylvania)

4Katok

,Elena

(11,The

Uof

Texasat

Dallas)

5Roth,

Aleda

V.

(13,

ClemsonU)

Sriskandarajah,C

helliah

(13,TexasA&M

U)

Daw

ande,M

illind

(6,T

heUof

Texasat

Dallas)

5Taylor,T

erry

A.

(10,Uof

California,

Berkeley)

Continued

Koufteros et al. 65

App

endixA:Contin

ued.

Journal

Rank

JOM

aRank

POM

Rank

MSO

Ma

Rank

MS

6Boyer,K

enneth

K.

(12,

The

OhioStateU)

6Chen,

Ying-Ju

(12,The

Hon

gKon

gU

ofSc

ienceand

Techno

logy

)

Graves,StephenC.

(6,M

assachusetts

Institu

teof

Techno

logy

)

6Loch,Christoph

H.

(9,U

ofCam

bridge)

Choi,Thomas

Y.

(12,

Arizona

StateU)

7Kou

velis,P

anos

(11,WashingtonU)

Hsu,V

ernonN.

(6,T

heChinese

Uof

Hon

gKon

g)

7Beil,Dam

ianR.

(8,U

ofMichigan)

8Malhotra,Manoj

K.

(11,

CaseWestern

Reserve

U)

8Roth,

Aleda

V.

(10,ClemsonU)

Mieghem

,Jan

A.V

.(6,N

orthwestern

U)

Gaur,Vishal

(8,C

ornellU)

Rungtusanatham,M

anus

J. (11,

YorkU)

Swam

inathan,

JayashankarM.

(10,Uof

North

CarolinaatChapel

Hill)

Netessine,S

erguei

(6,U

ofPe

nnsylvania)

Ho,

Teck-H

ua(8,N

ationalU

ofSingapore)

10Klassen,R

obertD

.(10,

Western

U)

10Atasu,A

talay

(8,G

eorgiaInstitu

teof

Techno

logy

)

Plam

beck,E

rica

L.

(6,S

tanfordU)

Mieghem

,Jan

A.V

.(8,N

orthwestern

U)

Pagell,

Mark

(10,

UCollege

Dublin

)Geism

ar,H

.Neil

(8,T

exas

A&M

U)

Secomandi,N

icola

(6,C

arnegieMellonU)

Oliv

ares,M

arcelo

(8,U

ofChile)

12Benton,

W.C

.Jr.

(9,T

heOhioStateU)

Guide,V

.DanielR

.Jr.

(8,P

ennsylvaniaState

U)

Whitt,

Ward

(6,C

olum

biaU)

Plam

beck,E

rica

L.

(8,S

tanfordU) Continued

66 OM Research

App

endixA:Contin

ued.

Journal

Rank

JOM

aRank

POM

Rank

MSO

Ma

Rank

MS

13Bendoly,E

lliot

(8,T

heOhioStateU)

Ketzenb

erg,MichaelE.

(8,T

exas

A&M

U)

13Babich,

Volod

ymyr

(5,G

eorgetow

nU)

Su,X

uanm

ing

(8,U

ofPe

nnsylvania)

Devaraj,S

arv

(8,U

ofNotre

Dam

e)Seshadri,S

ridhar

(8,U

ofIllin

ois

Urbana-Champaign)

Baron,O

pher

(5,U

ofTo

ronto)

Wassenhove,Luk

N.V

an(8,INSE

ADFrance)

Rabinovich,

Elliot

(8,A

rizona

StateU)

Souza,Gilv

anC.

(8,Ind

iana

UBloom

ington)

Ferguson

,MarkE.

(5,U

ofSo

uth

Carolina)

15Duenyas,Izak

(7,U

ofMichigan)

Vonderembse,MarkA.

(8,U

ofTo

ledo

)16

Bendoly,E

lliot

(7,T

heOhioStateU)

Gallego,G

uillerm

o(5,T

heHon

gKon

gU

ofSc

ienceand

Techno

logy

)

Iravani,SeyedM.R

.(7,N

orthwestern

U)

17Droge,C

ornelia

(7,M

ichiganStateU)

Feng,Q

iA.

(7,P

urdueU)

Gupta,D

iwakar

(5,T

heUof

Texasat

Austin

)

Kou

velis,P

anos

(7,W

ashingtonU)

Hult,To

mas

G.M

.(7,M

ichiganStateU)

Ferguson

,MarkE.

(7,U

ofSo

uth

Carolina)

Hopp,

Wallace

J.(5,U

ofMichigan)

Krishnan,

Viswanathan

(7,U

ofCalifornia,San

Diego)

Patel,PankajC.

(7,V

illanovaU)

Lee,H

auL.

(7,S

tanfordU)

Huh

,Woo

ngheeT.

(5,T

heUof

British

Colum

bia)

Rudi,Nils

(7,Y

aleU)

Rosenzw

eig,

Eve

D.

(7,E

moryU)

Shen,Z

uo-Jun

M.

(7,U

ofCalifornia,

Berkeley)

Koole,G

er(5,V

rijeUniversiteit

Amsterdam)

Toktay,L

.Beril

(7,G

eorgiaInstitu

teof

Techno

logy

)

Continued

Koufteros et al. 67

App

endixA:Contin

ued.

Journal

Rank

JOM

aRank

POM

Rank

MSO

Ma

Rank

MS

Ward,

PeterT.

(7,T

heOhioStateU)

Simchi-Levi,David

(7,M

assachusetts

Institu

teof

Techno

logy

)

Lariviere

Martin

A.

(5,N

orthwestern

U)

Whitt,

Ward

(7,C

olum

biaU)

Yeung

,And

yC.L

.(7,T

heHon

gKon

gPo

lytechnicU)

Toktay,L

.Beril

(7,G

eorgiaInstitu

teof

Techno

logy

)

Rob

inson,

Law

renceW.

(5,C

ornellU)

22Allo

n,Gad

(6,U

ofPe

nnsylvania)

23Choo,

Adrian,

S.(6,M

ichiganStateU)

23Anderson,Edw

ardG.Jr.

(6,T

heUof

Texasat

Austin

)

Sethi,Su

resh

P.(5,T

heUof

Texasat

Dallas)

Cohen,M

orrisA.

(6,U

ofPe

nnsylvania)

Das,A

jay

(6,B

aruchCollege)

Boyacı,Tamer

(6,T

heEurop

ean

Scho

olof

Managem

ent

andTechno

logy

)

Sriskandarajah,C

helliah

(5,T

exas

A&M

U)

Debo,

Laurens

G.

(6,D

artm

outh

College)

Flynn,

Barbara

B.

(6,Ind

iana

UBloom

ington)

Chen,

Jian

(6,T

singhuaU)

Swam

inathan,

JayashankarM.

(5,U

ofNorth

Carolina

atChapelH

ill)

Federgruen,A

wi

(6,C

olum

biaU)

Goldstein,S

usan

M.

(6,U

ofMinnesota)

Gaimon,C

heryl

(6,G

eorgiaInstitu

teof

Techno

logy

)

Wang,Yun

zeng

(5,U

ofCalifornia,

Riverside)

Girotra,K

aran

(6,INSE

ADFrance)

Handley,S

eanM.

(6,U

ofSo

uth

Carolina)

Iravani,SeyedM.R

.(6,N

orthwestern

U)

Wassenhove,Luk

N.V

an(5,INSE

ADFrance)

Kapuscinski,R

oman

(6,U

ofMichigan)

Nair,Anand

(6,M

ichiganStateU)

Koster,RenéB.M

.D.

(6,E

rasm

usU)

Zhang

,Fuq

iang

(5,W

ashingtonU)

Kavadias,Stylianos

(6,U

ofCam

bridge)

Continued

68 OM ResearchApp

endixA:Contin

ued.

Journal

Rank

JOM

aRank

POM

Rank

MSO

Ma

Rank

MS

Shah,R

achn

a(6,U

ofMinnesota)

Loch,Christoph

H.

(6,U

ofCam

bridge)

Ziya,Se

rhan

(5,U

ofNorth

Carolina

atChapelH

ill)

Kim

,Sang-Hyun

(6,Y

aleU)

Singhal,Vinod

R.

(6,G

eorgiaInstitu

teof

Techno

logy

)

Mookerjee,V

ijayS.

(6,T

heUof

Texasat

Dallas)

30Benjaafar,S

aif

(4,U

ofMinnesota)

Ӧzer,Ӧzalp

(6,T

heUof

Texasat

Dallas)

Voss,Christopher

A.

(6,L

ondonBusiness

Scho

ol)

Stecke,K

athryn

E.

(6,T

heUof

Texasat

Dallas)

Bernstein,F

ernando

(4,D

ukeU)

Tomlin

,Brian

(6,D

artm

outh

College)

Wu,

Zhaoh

ui(6,O

regonStateU)

Yan,H

oumin

(6,C

ityUof

Hong

Kon

g)

Dada,Maqbo

ol(4,Johns

Hopkins

U)

Zhang

,Fuq

iang

(6,W

ashingtonU)

33Calantone,R

oger

J.(5,M

ichiganStateU)

Zhang

,Jun

(6,F

udan

U)

Debo,

Laurens

G.

(4,D

artm

outh

College)

33Arya,Anil

(5,T

heOhioStateU)

Forza,Cipriano

(5,U

niversità

diPadova)

34Aksin

O.Z

.(5,K

oçÜ)

Erhun

,Feryal

(4,U

ofCam

bridge)

Aviv,Yossi

(5,T

elAvivU)

Ketchen,D

avid

J.Jr.

(5,A

uburnU)

Arya,Anil

(5,T

heOhioStateU)

Fisher,M

arshallL

.(4,U

ofPe

nnsylvania)

Bassambo,A

chal

(5,N

orthwestern

U)

Ketokivi,Mikko

A.

(5,IEU)

Boyer,K

enneth

K.

(5,T

heOhioStateU)

Gans,Noah

(4,U

ofPe

nnsylvania)

Benjaafar,S

aif

(5,U

ofMinnesota)

Koufteros,X

enophonA.

(5,T

exas

A&M

U)

Cai,G

angshu

(5,S

antaClara

U)

Gurvich,Itai

(4,C

ornellU)

Bernstein,F

ernando

(5,D

ukeU)

Krause,DanielR

.(5,C

oloradoStateU)

Cakanyildirim

,Metin

(5,T

heUof

Texasat

Dallas)

Kapuscinski,R

oman

(4,U

ofMichigan)

Corbett,

Charles

J.(5,U

ofCalifornia,Los

Angeles)

Continued

Koufteros et al. 69

App

endixA:Contin

ued.

Journal

Rank

JOM

aRank

POM

Rank

MSO

Ma

Rank

MS

Liu,Y

i(5,S

hang

haiJiaoTo

ngU)

Chao,

Xiuli

(5,U

ofMichigan)

Kok,G

urhanA.

(4,K

oçÜ)

DeC

roix,G

regory

A.

(5,U

ofWisconsin-M

adison)

Scho

enherr,T

obias

(5,M

ichiganStateU)

Hausm

an,W

arrenH.

(5,S

tanfordU)

Ray,S

aibal

(4,M

cGill

U)

Gallego,G

uillerm

o(5,T

heHon

gKon

gU

ofSc

ienceand

Techno

logy

)Singhal,Jaya

(5,U

ofBaltim

ore)

Heese,H

ansS.

(5,N

orth

Carolina

StateU)

Ryzin,G

arrettJ.V.

(4,C

ornellU)

Gans,Noah

(5,U

ofPe

nnsylvania)

Singhal,Kalyan

(5,U

ofBaltim

ore)

Krishnan,

Viswanathan

(5,U

ofCalifornia,San

Diego)

Shang,Kevin

H.

(4,D

ukeU)

Lee,H

auL.

(5,S

tanfordU)

Tatik

onda,M

ohan

V.

(5,Ind

iana

UBloom

ington)

Ovchinnikov,A

nton

(5,Q

ueensU)

Shen,Z

uo-Jun

M.

(4,U

ofCalifornia,

Berkeley)

Li,Lod

e(5,Y

aleU)

Treville,S

uzanne

D.

(5,U

ofLausann

e)Ӧzer,Ӧzalp

(5,T

heUof

Texasat

Dallas)

Tang,C

hristopher

S.(4,U

ofCalifornia,Los

Angeles)

Mendelson,H

aim

(5,S

tanfordU)

Verma,Rohit

(5,C

ornellU)

Parker,G

eoffreyG.

(5,D

artm

outh

College)

Tomlin

,Brian

(4,D

artm

outh

College)

Seshadri,S

ridhar

(5,U

ofIllin

ois,

Urbana-Champaign)

Zhao,Xiand

e(5,C

hina

Europ

eInternationalB

usiness

Scho

ol)

Pinedo

,Michael

(5,N

ewYorkU)

Vulcano,G

ustavo

(4,U

niversidad

Torcuato

diTella)

Siem

sen,

Enn

o(5,U

ofWisconsin-M

adison)

Continued

70 OM ResearchApp

endixA:Contin

ued.

Journal

Rank

JOM

aRank

POM

Rank

MSO

Ma

Rank

MS

Ram

an,A

nanth

(5,H

arvard

U)

Wu,

Owen

Q.

(4,Ind

iana

UBloom

ington)

Swam

inathan,

JayashankarM.

(5,U

ofNorth

Carolina

atChapelH

ill)

Ryan,

Jennifer

K.

(5,U

ofNebraska-

Lincoln)

Zeevi,A

ssaf

(4,C

olum

biaU)

Vulcano,G

ustavo

J.(5,U

niversidad

Torcuato

diTella)

Schroeder,Rog

erG.2

(5,U

ofMinnesota)

Zipkin,

Paul

H.

(4,D

ukeU)

Xiao,

Wenqiang

(5,N

ewYorkU)

Shanthikum

ar,G

eorgeJ.

(5,P

urdueU)

Xu,

SusanH.

(5,P

ennsylvaniaState

U)

Sodh

i,Manmoh

anS.

(5,C

ityULondon)

Zenios,Stefanos

A.

(5,S

tanfordU)

Subram

anian,Ravi

(5,G

eorgiaInstitu

teof

Techno

logy

)To

paloglu,Huseyin

(5,C

ornellU)

Whitt,

Ward

(5,C

olum

biaU)

Xia,Y

usen

(5,G

eorgiaStateU)

Zho

u,Se

anX.

(5,T

heChinese

Uof

Hon

gKon

g)a Includedin

thistableareonly

46authorsforJO

Mand49

forMSO

Mbecauseof

thevery

largenumberof

tiesatthenext

lower

papercount.

om research: leading authors and institutions...decision sciences volume 0 number 0 may 2020...

Documents