8/8
🎓 For institutional leaders: Advocate for field-adjusted criteria in accreditation, rankings, and funding. Internally, implement context-sensitive evaluation. The goal: bibliometrics as strategic planning tools, not mechanisms reinforcing bias.
9/9

7/8
📈 The solution: Discipline-specific, rank-adjusted benchmarks using comprehensive data (Google Scholar for business research). Combine quantitative metrics with qualitative peer review. Evidence-based fairness over arbitrary thresholds.
8/9

6/8
💡 Strategic imperative: Collaboration networks drive impact. Medical/Natural Sciences average 5.0 authors/paper vs 2.7 in business fields. Smaller teams aren't a weakness—they're a disciplinary norm requiring different evaluation standards.
7/9

5/8
👥 Gender dynamics: Female researchers achieve 82% of male output overall—BUT Economics/Business shows near-parity (92-103%). Business schools have real opportunity to lead on gender equity in academia.
6/9

4/8
🌍 Location inequality: Central universities show 25-42% higher publication rates than peripheral institutions. Performance-based funding without geographic adjustment creates a vicious cycle, widening institutional gaps over time.
5/9

3/8
🎯 For fair promotion to Associate Professor: Medical Sciences requires 6.1 papers/106 citations annually (75th percentile). Economics/Business needs just 2.5 papers/39 citations for same ranking. Context matters profoundly.
4/9

2/8
📊 Critical finding: Scopus captures only 43% of business research papers vs Google Scholar. Database choice fundamentally shapes perceived performance. Business schools: your evaluation framework may be working against you from the start.
3/9

1/8
🚨 New research reveals: "one-size-fits-all" bibliometric evaluation systematically disadvantages business schools. Economics/Business/SSH fields produce 62 papers vs 138 in medical sciences—not due to lower quality, but different publication cultures.
2/9

8/8
Bottom line for business school leaders: Engineering shows that rigor & relevance reinforce each other when supported by thoughtful institutional structures. Time to design the institutions our field needs.

9/9

7/8
The barrier isn't motivation—it's institutional design. Our cognitive (what counts as knowledge), normative (what confers prestige), and regulative (what gets published) pillars need reform to legitimize applied scholarship.
8/9

6/8
Doctoral programs play a crucial role: train students in prototyping, usability testing, stakeholder engagement—not just theory-building. Applied rigor is rigorous when paired with contribution-specific evaluation standards.
7/9

5/8
Who must act? Journals can pilot applied sections. Conferences can add performance-based tracks. Tenure committees can recognize reproducibility & practitioner collaboration. Funders can support field-tested interventions.
6/9

4/8
Lever 3: Enable responsiveness & inclusion. Engineering uses standardized formats, large interdisciplinary teams, and rapid conference publication. Business schools can adapt these mechanisms to accelerate societal impact.
5/9

3/8
Lever 2: Support diverse research products. Engineering uses contribution-specific rubrics: data sets judged by reuse, interventions by performance, methods by reliability. One size doesn't fit all. Match criteria to purpose.
4/9

2/8
Lever 1: Rebalance theory & evidence. Engineering legitimizes validated solutions without novel theory. Business schools should recognize performance-based contributions—implementation briefs, evaluation reports—as scholarly work.
3/9

1/8 New research in Org Science challenges business schools: applied impact requires institutional redesign, not just individual motivation. Drawing on engineering, Eesley & Gerber identify 3 structural levers for change. 🧵
2/9