Although applauding the application of bibliometric techniques to an analysis of the management literature, this author presents an alternative interpretation to A. Lockett and A. McWilliams’s (2005) conclusion that, in general, the citation patterns of selected management journals compare “unfavorably” with a set of “core” journals from economics, psychology, and sociology. In doing so, the author discusses methodological and theoretical issues related to assessing the management discipline’s influence on science as a whole.
Allen, M. P. (2003). The “core influence” of journals in sociology revisited. Footnotes, 31(9), pp. 7, 10. Retrieved July 20, 2004, from www.asanet.org/footnotes/dec03/fn11.html
2.
Amin, M., & Mabe, M. I. (2000). Impact factors: Use and abuse. Perspectives in Publishing (1). Retrieved July 31, 2004, from www1.elsevier.com/homepage/about/ita/editors/perspectives1.pdf
3.
Carpenter, M. P., & Narin, F. (1973). Clustering of scientific journals. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 24, 425-436.
4.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Making fast strategic decisions in high-velocity environments. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 543-576.
5.
Hyman, R. (1995). How to critique a published article. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 178-182.
6.
Lockett, A., & McWilliams, A. (2005). The balance of trade between disciplines: Do we effectively manage knowledge?Journal of Management Inquiry, 14, 139-150.
7.
Pieters, R., & Baumgartner, H. (2002). Who talks to whom? Intra- and interdisciplinary communication of economics journals. Journal of Economic Literature, 40, 483-509.
8.
Small, H. (1999). A passage through science: Crossing disciplinary boundaries. Library Trends, 48, 72-108.
9.
Urwick, L. F. (1971). Why the so-called “classicists” endure. Management International Review, 11, 3-15.
10.
Xhignesse, L. V., & Osgood, C. E. (1967). Bibliographical citation characteristics of the psychological journal network in 1950 and in 1960. Psychological Bulletin, 22, 778-791.
