The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0960-0035.htm
Author affiliation in supply chain
management and logistics
journals: 2008-2010
Michael Maloni
Author
affiliation
in SCML
83
Department of Management & Entrepreneurship, Kennesaw State University,
Kennesaw, Georgia, USA
Craig R. Carter
Arizona State University, Phoenix, Arizona, USA, and
Lutz Kaufmann
WHU – Otto Beisheim School of Management, Vallendar, Germany
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this study is to extend a series of studies dating back to 1967 that evaluates
faculty publication productivity in refereed supply chain management and logistics journals.
Design/methodology/approach – Publication output and rankings of academic institutions are
based on publication data from six supply chain management and logistics journals from 2008 through
2010. The results are compared to prior studies to identify trends and changes in the rankings. The
authors also assess author collaboration influences as well as authorship diversity. Finally, the authors
examine further changes to the core set of journals considered for future iterations of this study.
Findings – The results indicate that supply chain management and logistics authorship continues to
be dynamic. Several schools entered the top 25 ranking for the first time and others substantially
improved their rankings. While higher-ranked schools engage in more collaboration within their own
institutions, they practice less external and international collaboration. Additionally, the diversity of
both individual authors and schools continues to expand, though evidence also suggests some level of
emerging stability in sources of authorship.
Research limitations/implications – As limitations, the selected journal set may present bias
against some authors and institutions, particularly those from outside North America and those
choosing to publish in other journals in the field or in related fields.
Originality/value – This research stream enables authors and universities to judge their relative
productivity of academic scholarship in the supply chain management and logistics field. Moreover,
the longitudinal analysis provides insight into the evolving maturity of the field itself.
Keywords Citation analysis, Supply chain management, Logistics, Publication productivity, Journals
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Despite the importance of research outlets such as books, proceedings, and
presentations, publications in prominent, refereed journals continue to be the primary
criterion for assessing the research productivity of academic institutions. Given this, the
authors update and extend a research stream dating back to 1967 that investigates the
affiliation of authors publishing in supply chain management and logistics (SCML)
journals (Allen and Vellenga, 1987; Carter et al., 2009, 2001, 2005; Gentry et al., 1995;
Vellenga et al., 1981). Similar to the earlier studies, the current analysis examines two
related research questions:
International Journal of Physical
Distribution & Logistics Management
Vol. 42 No. 1, 2012
pp. 83-100
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0960-0035
DOI 10.1108/09600031211202481
IJPDLM
42,1
RQ1. What are the relative contributions of various academic institutions’ authors
to SCML journals?
RQ2. Which universities’ faculties are most productive based on published articles
in these journals?
84
Furthermore, the current study incorporates two additional research questions:
RQ3. To what extent does author collaboration influence research productivity?
RQ4. What changes have occurred in author concentration since the 1992-2007 time
period investigated by Maloni et al. (2009)?
These research questions are investigated via an analysis and integration of data from
the 2008 through 2010 time period. After describing the methodology in Section 2, we
present the relative output of university faculties in Sections 3 and 4, including
consideration of the effects of collaboration (Section 5). In Section 6, we extend the work
of Maloni et al. (2009) to assess the maturation of the SCML discipline by evaluating
author concentration. We then examine the relevance of the current list of journals in
Section 7. We conclude with implications in Section 8, focusing on challenges and
opportunities for international scholarship.
2. Methodology
The scholarly journals encompassed in this investigation focus on the business-oriented
managerial and marketing perspectives of SCML rather than engineering, operations
research, and urban planning facets. The current examination covers the same
six journals from the most recent study (Carter et al., 2009): International Journal of
Logistics Management (IJLM), International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
Management (IJPDLM), Journal of Business Logistics ( JBL), Journal of Supply Chain
Management ( JSCM), Transportation Journal (TJ), and Transportation Research Part E
(TRE). It is encouraging to note that all of these journals are now indexed in the Thomson
Reuters Web of Knowledge with strong current two-year impact factors: IJPDLM at 2.617,
JBL at 3.905, TJ at 2.348, TRE at 1.954, and JSCM at 5.853. The first impact factor for IJLM
is expected to be published in 2012. Given that impact factors “will be heavily influenced
by which other journals are in the database” (Chapman and Ellinger, 2009, p. 206), the
inclusion of these journals is certainly beneficial to the discipline as a whole.
Rationale for the omission of other journals (e.g. Transportation Research Record,
Journal of the Transportation Research Forum ( JTRF)) is discussed in the original
(Vellenga et al., 1981) and subsequent (Carter et al., 2009, 2001) studies. Like the prior
study (Carter et al., 2009), a three-year time period (2008-2010) was assessed to allow for
more timely research productivity feedback to faculty while still smoothing short-term
fluctuations in publication patterns (Phillips et al., 1999). The three-year period has
frequently been used in other business disciplines such as accounting (Brown and
Gardner, 1985), economics (Pieters and Baumgartner, 2002), marketing (Zinkhan et al.,
1992), and operations management (OM) (Vokurka, 1996).
Authorship information for each article published in the six journals over the
three-year period was amassed in a database. Keeping with the prior study (Carter et al.,
2009), publication output was based on authorship share for each paper. Specifically,
one point was assigned to an institution in the case of a sole-authored paper; 0.5 points
were given to each author’s university for an article with two authors; 0.33 points were
credited to each author’s university for an article with three authors, and so forth.
Discrete institutional affiliations were assigned for distinct campuses of a university
(e.g. Pennsylvania State University vs Penn State Erie).
As discussed in prior iterations of this study, the primary limitation of this
methodology concerns exclusion of SCML research published in economics, marketing,
general management, and OM journals. This could potentially present bias against
faculty publishing in prominent outlets in those fields. A similar argument could be
made for faculty targeting SCML journals excluded from this study. Still, the established
journal set allows a reasonable level of focus to effectively support the main objective of
investigating research output in journals generally considered to be core to a large body
of SCML scholars. The journal set also allows for a direct comparison to the earlier
2005-2007 time period.
3. Productivity of academic institutions
The rankings of the top 25 academic institutions for 2008-2010 (Table I) relative to the
six journals generally show significant movement of schools since the previous
ranking. The University of Tennessee moved from the fourth to the top ranked position
during the 2008-2010 time period. Other ranked schools also increased their positions
from the prior period with the University of Maryland moving from tenth to second
place, Arizona State University advancing from fifth to third, and the University of
North Texas advancing from 19th to fifth. The University of Arkansas, not among the
previous study’s top 25, achieved the fourth ranked position.
While no non-US universities occupied the top five positions, 11 non-US schools did
place in the top 25, including five not ranked in the previous study and three doing so for
the first time ever. Overall, ten of the universities in Table I were not ranked among the
top 25 schools from the earlier 2005-2007 time period. However, seven of the top ten
ranked universities from the current time frame were included among the 2005-2007 top
25. Consistent with the prior study, these findings imply a degree of stability within the
top ten positions with greater variability beyond (e.g. the 11th through 25th ranked
positions) (Carter et al., 2009). One explanation is that schools with larger, established
SCML programs likely retain sizeable faculty bases that are less impacted by the arrival
or departure of one or two faculty members. In contrast, faculty turnover at smaller
programs will expectedly affect research productivity to a greater extent. As illustration,
schools ranking in the top five for 2008-2010 averaged about 16 different authors
publishing in the journal set while schools ranked 21-25 averaged half this number.
As with the prior study, we examined those schools that have consistently ranked
in the top 25 for all eight time periods. Only three universities (the University of
Maryland, Arizona State University, and Pennsylvania State University) have
repeatedly placed in the top 25 across the 45-year span. This list remains unchanged
from the earlier study (Carter et al., 2009).
4. Consistency of rankings across journals
Table II provides a deeper analysis of how universities placed among specific journals.
The top ranked universities by journal are: IJLM (Cranfield University), IJPDLM
(University of Southern Denmark), JBL (The Ohio State University), JSCM (Arizona State
University), TJ (University of North Texas), and TRE (National University of Singapore).
Author
affiliation
in SCML
85
Table I.
School ranks by sum
of author article share
for 2008-2010
40
36
30
28
22
26
24
27
26
23
15
17
14
18
16
14
18
12
12
15
10
11
10
16
9
10
8
15.58
12.33
11.93
11.00
10.25
9.42
8.67
8.58
8.37
8.27
6.87
6.73
6.17
6.00
5.68
5.67
5.42
5.33
5.33
5.33
5.08
5.08
5.00
4.83
4.67
4.67
4.67
Author
count
25
25
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
18
18
21
21
23
24
16
6
11
4
10
5
NR
19
1
NR
NR
12
3
NR
8
22
NR
2
17
21
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
22
13
NR
NR
NR
9
3
2
9
NR
6
22
NR
4
1
22
NR
NR
NR
8
5
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
20
NR
9
NR
NR
NR
11
5
2
15
NR
13
NR
NR
10
1
NR
NR
NR
NR
6
4
25
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
3
NR
NR
NR
NR
1
8
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
13
2
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
5
16
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
2
NR
NR
NR
12
1
13
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
8
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
3
7
NR
NR
NR
NR
11
NR
2
NR
NR
NR
6
5
13
7
NR
NR
NR
NR
23
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
10
NR
3
NR
NR
NR
19
14
4
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
20
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
10
NR
4
Rank
Rank
Rank
Rank
Rank
Rank
Rank
Rank
2008-2010 2005-2007a 1999-2004b 1992-1998c 1986-1991d 1980-1985e 1974-1979f 1967-1973f
Notes: aCarter et al. (2009), bCarter et al. (2005), cCarter et al. (2001), dGentry et al. (1995), eAllen and Vellenga (1987), fVellenga et al. (1981); NR – not
ranked in the top 25 during the period of study
University of Tennessee
University of Maryland
Arizona St University
University of Arkansas
University of North Texas
Cranfield University
National University of Singapore
Auburn University
The Ohio St University
Michigan St University
University of Sydney
University of Alabama
National Cheng Kung University
University of Kentucky
Cardiff University
Iowa St University
University of North Florida
University of Southern Denmark
University of St Thomas
Heriot-Watt University
WHU – Otto Beisheim
University of California, Berkeley
Texas Christian University
Pennsylvania State University
Chalmers University of
Technology
Lund University
National Chiao Tung University
Sum of
share
86
School
IJPDLM
42,1
40
36
30
28
22
26
24
27
26
23
15
17
14
18
16
14
18
12
12
15
10
11
10
16
9
10
8
5.08
5.00
4.83
4.67
4.67
4.67
Author count
(Table I)
15.58
12.33
11.93
11.00
10.25
9.42
8.67
8.58
8.37
8.27
6.87
6.73
6.17
6.00
5.68
5.67
5.42
5.33
5.33
5.33
5.08
Sum of share
(Table I)
25
25
25
21
23
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
18
18
21
Overall rank
(Table I)
Note: NR – not ranked (i.e. no publications in the journal during the 2008-2010 time period)
University of Tennessee
University of Maryland
Arizona St University
University of Arkansas
University of North Texas
Cranfield University
National University of Singapore
Auburn University
The Ohio St University
Michigan St University
University of Sydney
University of Alabama
National Cheng Kung University
University of Kentucky
Cardiff University
Iowa St University
University of North Florida
University of Southern Denmark
University of St Thomas
Heriot-Watt University
WHU – Otto Beisheim
University of California,
Berkeley
Texas Christian University
Pennsylvania State University
Chalmers University of
Technology
Lund University
National Chiao Tung University
School
NR
33
NR
NR
6
17
7
NR
8
3
4
1
NR
9
10
10
NR
30
NR
2
10
NR
17
NR
NR
33
NR
IJLM
rank
3
10
NR
NR
NR
22
2
18
28
7
12
5
NR
8
65
14
14
9
NR
26
6
12
NR
1
29
4
56
IJPDLM
rank
NR
56
NR
NR
9
15
2
19
16
7
25
35
35
9
1
3
NR
9
NR
35
NR
33
4
NR
35
77
13
JBL
rank
NR
NR
14
NR
NR
5
6
9
1
NR
NR
NR
NR
45
44
29
NR
NR
NR
15
NR
36
NR
NR
NR
NR
3
15
15
NR
NR
NR
NR
87
NR
39
10
4
NR
207
NR
2
166
17
NR
NR
1
166
NR
NR
3
50
12
NR
49
111
166
NR
NR
166
NR
10
4
NR
NR
1
NR
NR
10
NR
14
NR
NR
3
NR
NR
10
14
NR
2
NR
25
JSCM
rank
TRE
rank
TJ
rank
Author
affiliation
in SCML
Table II.
School ranks by sum
of author article share
for 2008-2010 by journal
IJPDLM
42,1
88
Per Table III, only the University of Tennessee holds a top ten ranking in five journals,
and only Auburn University placed in the top ten in four journals. Similarly, just two
schools, the University of Arkansas and the University of Maryland, achieved top ten
rankings in three journals. These findings are quite comparable to the 2005-2007 study
wherein only a handful of schools placed among the top ten in multiple journals
(one school in four journals and three schools in three journals). In contrast, a greater
number of schools tended to rank in the top ten in multiple journals in earlier editions of
the study. As proposed by Carter et al. (2009), this decreasing concentration may result
from more universities introducing formalized SCML programs. We explore this idea
empirically using the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) later in the paper.
5. Author collaboration
Autry and Griffis (2005) as well as Cantor et al. (2010) highlight the importance of author
collaboration. They establish that collaboration in the field of SCML has been increasing,
especially in recent years (Autry and Griffis, 2005), and that collaboration is important to
both researcher productivity (Autry and Griffis, 2005) and research impact (Cantor et al.,
2010). Specifically, Autry and Griffis (2005) identify a “moderate” level of collaboration
in the field. Subsequently, Cantor et al. (2010) find that co-author diversity with respect to
different schools, countries, and continents generally leads to higher citations levels
received by papers.
Seeking further insight into the influence of collaboration on author productivity for
the above institutional rankings, we calculated the average number of co-authors
working with a particular author within the 2008-2010 time frame at five different levels:
(1) Total co-authors. All additional authors collaborating on a paper with the
author of study.
(2) Internal co-authors. All additional authors from the school of the author of
study.
(3) External co-authors. All additional authors not from the school of the author of
study.
(4) International co-authors. All additional authors not from country of the author
of study.
Top ten ranks
School
Journals (rank of school in journal)
5
4
3
University of Tennessee
Auburn University
University of Arkansas
University of Maryland
Arizona State University
Cardiff University
Cranfield University
Michigan State University
National Chiao Tung University
The Ohio State University
Texas Christian University
University of Alabama
University of North Texas
IJLM (7), IJPDLM (2), JBL (2), JSCM (6), TJ (10)
IJLM (9), IJPDLM (8), JBL (9), TJ (10)
IJLM (3), IJPDLM (7), JBL (7)
JSCM (9), TJ (4), TRE (2)
IJLM (8), JSCM (1)
IJLM (10), IJPDLM (6)
IJLM (1), IJPDLM (5)
IJLM (10), JBL (3)
TJ (5), TRE (10)
IJLM (10), JBL (1)
IJLM (6), JBL (9)
IJPDLM (9), JBL (9)
IJLM (4), TJ (1)
2
Table III.
Consistency of school
rankings across journals
(2008-2010)
(5) Trans-continental co-authors. All additional authors not from the continent of
the author of study.
These levels are not mutually exclusive, and a co-author may qualify for multiple levels.
Table IV presents the results for the top 25 schools. To gauge the impact of such
collaboration, we calculated correlations between the number of additional co-authors
and the sum of author share (i.e. productivity) used to derive the original rankings
in Table I. Table V displays the results. For top 25 ranked schools, productivity is
significantly positively correlated with total and internal collaboration though
the correlations with external and trans-continental collaboration are not significant.
Interestingly, international collaboration is significantly negatively correlated with
productivity for top 25 schools.
These results differ somewhat when considering all schools publishing at least once
in the journal set during 2008-2010. Total collaboration retains no significant correlation
with productivity for all schools. Internal collaboration is again significantly positively
correlated with productivity. However, external, international, and trans-continental
collaboration are all significantly negatively correlated with productivity, which
is concerning given historical issues with geographically fragmented scholars in the field
(Arlbjørn et al., 2006; Gammelgaard, 2001). The signs of these correlation results are
consistent when grouping schools by continent, though some differences in significance
levels exist. For example, the productivity of North American schools is consistently less
negatively correlated with external, international, and trans-continental collaboration
than for schools from other continents, suggesting that North American schools are
generally more likely to pursue research projects beyond their own institutions.
Overall, the idea that higher ranking schools practice more internal collaboration
yet less external, international, and trans-continental collaboration than less-productive
schools seems counterintuitive. For example, Cantor et al. (2010) demonstrate
that cross-school, cross-country, and cross-continental collaboration are increasing and
also lead to greater levels of citations received by the papers produced from these
collaborations. The timing of the Cantor et al. (2010) data (1987-2007) complements our
2008-2010 data, so the Table V results may signify a recent change in collaboration
behavior. Still, intuition would suggest that schools with larger supply chain programs
would likely have better research support and contacts to pursue external and
international collaboration. On the other hand, such faculty may sense less urgency to
collaborate externally given access to multiple internal colleagues with supporting
and/or complementary expertise. Moreover, faculty with greater available resources
might conduct larger scale research projects that necessitate local (i.e. internal) assistance.
Also, such faculty may have better access to well-developed networks of localized
companies for research partnerships and data collection. In general, the Table V findings
compel a more thorough investigation via future research to validate these conjectures.
6. Author concentration
In the previous study, Carter et al. (2009, p. 50) purport that SCML “knowledge is being
generated by a more diffuse subset of universities”. With the current top 25 ranking and
other evidence (Cantor et al., 2010) indicating dynamic changes since the prior study, we
extend the work of Maloni et al. (2009) to further evaluate the maturation of the SCML field
by assessing author concentration. Specifically, one would expect that as an academic
Author
affiliation
in SCML
89
Table IV.
Author collaboration
by school (2008-2010)
University of Tennessee
University of Maryland
Arizona St University
University of Arkansas
University of North Texas
Cranfield University
National University of Singapore
Auburn University
The Ohio St University
Michigan St University
University of Sydney
University of Alabama
National Cheng Kung University
University of Kentucky
Cardiff University
Iowa St University
University of North Florida
University of Southern Denmark
University of St Thomas
Heriot-Watt University
WHU – Otto Beisheim
University of California, Berkeley
Texas Christian University
Pennsylvania State University
Chalmers University of Technology
Lund University
National Chiao Tung University
15.58
12.33
11.93
11.00
10.25
9.42
8.67
8.58
8.37
8.27
6.87
6.73
6.17
6.00
5.68
5.67
5.42
5.33
5.33
5.33
5.08
5.08
5.00
4.83
4.67
4.67
4.67
Sum of share
(Table I)
40
36
30
28
22
26
24
27
26
23
15
17
14
18
16
14
18
12
12
15
10
11
10
16
9
10
8
Author count
(Table I)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
18
18
21
21
23
24
25
25
25
Overall rank
(Table I)
1.85
2.08
2.13
1.64
1.45
2.19
2.00
2.33
2.31
2.17
1.60
1.94
1.36
2.22
2.13
1.79
2.83
1.50
1.50
2.27
1.40
1.64
1.40
2.44
1.11
1.20
1.00
Total
1.05
1.33
1.27
0.86
0.82
1.69
1.42
1.19
0.62
1.13
1.20
0.47
0.86
1.33
1.25
0.57
2.44
1.33
1.17
1.07
0.40
0.73
0.40
1.50
0.67
0.60
0.25
0.80
0.75
0.87
0.79
0.64
0.50
0.58
1.15
1.69
1.04
0.40
1.47
0.50
0.89
0.88
1.21
0.39
0.17
0.33
1.20
1.00
0.91
1.00
0.94
0.44
0.60
0.75
0.08
0.08
0.20
0.00
0.05
0.12
0.50
0.15
0.38
0.04
0.40
0.29
0.21
0.28
0.38
0.29
0.00
0.08
0.00
0.47
0.80
0.27
0.00
0.06
0.44
0.50
0.00
0.08
0.08
0.20
0.00
0.05
0.08
0.13
0.15
0.38
0.04
0.40
0.29
0.21
0.28
0.19
0.21
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.13
0.60
0.18
0.00
0.06
0.00
0.10
0.00
Average number of additional co-authors
Internal External International Trans-continental
90
School
IJPDLM
42,1
field matures, thought leadership would expand from a core set of pioneering scholars to
include additional researchers, causing concentration of authors to decrease.
Consequently, author concentration can serve as one measure of the expansion and
research diversity of an academic field. Concentration can be quantified by the HHI, which
sums the square of the individual market share of each player across the entire market
(Maloni et al., 2009). Squaring market share emphasizes large players, so a higher HHI
value signifies a more concentrated (i.e. monopolistic or oligopolistic tending) market.
Maloni et al. (2009) measured HHIs for five SCML journals (IJLM, IJPDLM, JBL, JSCM,
and TJ) from 1992 to 2007, finding higher levels of author concentration (larger HHIs) than
traditional business fields such as accounting, finance, marketing, and management.
They relate this to the comparatively young age of the SCML field. However, assessing
concentration longitudinally across the era via regression analysis, they demonstrate
clear trends of decreasing concentration in the field, concluding that author diversity and
the field of SCML as a whole have been consistently expanding since 1992.
We augment the analysis of Maloni et al. (2009) with author concentration HHIs for
the same journal set from the most recent three-year period (2008-2010). We computed
four different HHIs with the first being author school affiliation. Maloni et al. (2009)
found that author school affiliation concentration was decreasing at a linear rate for the
1992-2007 era (Table VI). We added the 2008-2010 HHI data to their original data set and
fit a regression line to the full 1992-2010 data set, again finding a decreasing linear trend
with strong significance (measured by R 2) (Figure 1). The same analysis by individual
author (Table VI) also reinforces the prior results from Maloni et al. (2009), again finding
a significant linear trend when including the 2008-2010 period (Figure 2).
With sum of author share
Top 25
All schools
Asia
Australia
Europe
North America
South America
Total
27
412
95
8
119
180
10
0.245 * *
20.032
20.061
20.053
20.130
0.000
20.584 * *
0.187 * *
0.302 * *
0.310 *
0.838 * *
0.257
0.362 * *
0.413 * *
Trend (1992-2007)
Maloni et al. (2009)
Author school
Author
Decreasing – linear
Decreasing – linear
Author country
Author degree
school
Decreasing – linear
Decreasing –
non-linear
Note: *R 2 significance ( p-value) , 0.001
91
Correlation with number of additional co-authors
Internal External International Trans-continental
n
0.065
2 0.255 * *
20.268 * *
20.414 * *
20.341 * *
20.263 *
20.658 * *
20.287 * *
20.163 * *
20.144
20.414 * *
20.191
20.108
20.521 * *
2 0.082
2 0.143 *
2 0.155
2 0.414 * *
2 0.165
2 0.087
2 0.521 * *
Note: Significant at: *p , 0.01 and * *p , 0.001
Analysis level
Author
affiliation
in SCML
Table V.
Author collaboration
correlations with sum of
author share (2008-2010)
Trend (1992-2010)
Current analysis
R 2 ¼ 0.563 * Decreasing –
R 2 ¼ 0.622 * Decreasing –
Decreasing –
R 2 ¼ 0.850 * linear
Decreasing –
R 2 ¼ 0.848 * linear
linear
linear
nonnon-
R 2 ¼ 0.618 *
R 2 ¼ 0.738 *
R 2 ¼ 0.674 *
R 2 ¼ 0.676 *
Table VI.
Summary of previous and
current author
concentration analyses
IJPDLM
42,1
Figure 1.
Concentration of
logistics journals by
author school – 1992-2010
0.0300
HHI - Author School
92
0.0350
0.0250
R2 = 0.618
0.0200
0.0150
0.0100
0.0050
0.0000
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
0.0120
0.0100
HHI - Author
R2 = 0.738
Figure 2.
Concentration of logistics
journals by author –
1992-2010
0.0080
0.0060
0.0040
0.0020
0.0000
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Such authorship expansion could partially be a function of the general increasing
number of authors per paper (Carter and Ellram, 2003; Miyazaki et al., 1999).
Nevertheless, the results still suggest that authors from a greater number of academic
programs are contributing to SCML thought leadership and also imply that this growth
will not soon subside. This points to sustained expansion of the field to more schools as
well as continued changes to future top 25 rankings.
To assess global expansion in the current top 25 ranking, we evaluate concentration
by author country (based on the school location). The previous study demonstrated a
highly significant, linear decreasing trend (Table VI), but the best fit trend line for the
1993-2010 data is now non-linear based on a log transformation (Figure 3), inferring that
the international expansion is slowing. So, despite the continued spread of author and
school affiliations, the international diffusion of the SCML field may be converging on a
core set of countries, at least from the standpoint of the journals of study. This may result
from a relative degree of publishing domination by North American and European
scholars (Sachan and Datta, 2005; Svensson et al., 2008) as well as the tendency of highly
productive schools to collaborate internally as discussed in Section 5.
Finally, we examine concentration of author degree school (based on the school
granting their highest degree) to assess the rate of expansion or contraction of
0.8000
HHI - Author Country
0.7000
R2 = 0.674
0.6000
Author
affiliation
in SCML
0.5000
93
0.4000
0.3000
0.2000
Figure 3.
Concentration of logistics
journals by author
country – 1992-2010
0.1000
0.0000
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
institutions generating new scholars. To do so, we split the Maloni et al. (2009) 1992-2007
data into distinct three-year periods (1993-1995, 1996-1998, 1999-2001, 2002-2004, and
2005-2007), omitting 1992. We then collected data from published author biographies for
the degree-granting schools of all authors meeting a two-article minimum benchmark
(a degree of publishing consistency) within each period, including 2008-2010. Next, we
calculated HHIs across these authors for each time period. The results (Figure 4)
synchronize with the previous study, again revealing a non-linear (log transformation)
pattern. Thus, despite researchers entering SCML from other fields and some growth of
doctoral programs, the number of programs generating new researchers seems to be
maturing. This is presumably inevitable to an extent given a relatively limited number
of schools with sufficient resources to maintain doctoral-level programs.
7. Sensitivity analyses
We conclude our analysis by examining the relevance of the six journals used in the
present study. We first assess the fit of TRE with the other journals. This was motivated
by several factors. First, Table II reveals that many of the highly ranked schools do not
publish much or at all in TRE. Second, a highly disproportional number of authors
appearing in TRE have faculty appointments in departments that generally reside
outside of business schools. Similarly, the primary topics of the TRE articles appear
HHI - Author Degree School
0.1200
0.1000
R2 = 0.676
0.0800
0.0600
0.0400
Figure 4.
Concentration of logistics
journals by author degree
school – 1993-2010
0.0200
0.0000
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
IJPDLM
42,1
94
Table VII.
Percentage of authors
publishing in pairs of
journals (2008-2010)
to be much less business oriented than the other journals. This is congruent with the prior
study (Carter et al., 2009) in which two journals, Journal of Transport Economics and
Policy and JTRF, were dropped from the analysis based on similar criteria and findings.
To further investigate the fit of TRE with the core journal set, we followed
the previous study and analyzed the percentage of authors from departments typically
found in business schools (e.g. supply chain management, economics, marketing,
information systems, general management, etc.) as opposed to those that generally
reside outside of business schools (e.g. engineering and agriculture). About 63.0 percent
of TRE authors came from departments typically found in business schools, which does
not compare favorably to the range of 92.9 percent (for TJ) to 98.1 percent ( JBL) for the
remaining five journals. This suggests exclusion of TRE from the core journal set.
As further inquiry into the fit of TRE, we also explored the extent to which scholars
are publishing in multiple journals within the set. Conceptually, scholars in a field will
tend to target a core set of journals, and highly productive scholars will likely publish in
several of these journals. So we would expect overlap of authors across the journals of
study if scholars consider these journals to be among a common set of research outlets.
Therefore, we evaluated individual pairs of journals (e.g. IJLM and IJPDLM, IJLM and
JBL, etc.), counting authors publishing in both of the journals over the 2008-2010 era.
Table VII presents these counts as a percentage of all authors publishing in each journal
to adjust for significantly different paper counts for each journal. For example,
36.0 percent of authors with at least one paper in IJLM also published in IJPDLM, and
conversely, 19.1 percent of authors publishing in IJPDLM also published IJLM. The
pairwise overlaps vary from 0.6 to 36.0 percent with IJLM and JBL tending to have the
strongest connections with other journals. TRE retains limited overlap, however,
providing additional evidence of a lack of fit with the core journal set.
We thus performed an updated analysis of the top 25 universities appearing in
Table I, without TRE (Table VIII, middle columns). With TRE excluded, five schools
exit the top 25 (National University of Singapore, University of Sydney, University of
California Berkeley, Lund University, and National Chiao Tung University) and are
replaced by four entering schools (University of Oklahoma, East Carolina University,
Northeastern University, and University of Nevada). Of these five exiting schools,
three (National University of Singapore, University of California Berkeley, and National
Chiao Tung University) are largely represented (i.e. . 90 percent) by faculty from
outside of the business school, further suggesting a different authorship base for TRE.
The above combined findings provide reasonable justification for eliminating TRE in
future investigations of the author affiliation studies.
Authors publishing in
IJLM
(%)
IJLM
IJPDLM
JBL
JSCM
TJ
TRE
19.1
24.1
7.5
12.7
1.0
Also publishing in
IJPDLM
JBL
JSCM
(%)
(%)
(%)
36.0
25.9
7.5
19.1
2.0
29.4
16.7
6.7
19.1
1.6
6.6
3.5
4.8
5.5
0.6
TJ
(%)
TRE
(%)
Average overlap
(%)
10.3
8.2
12.7
5.0
3.7
3.9
4.8
2.5
9.1
16.1
9.7
14.7
8.5
11.8
1.4
2.0
40
36
30
28
22
26
24
27
26
23
15
17
14
18
16
14
18
12
12
15
10
11
10
16
9
10
8
15.58
12.33
11.93
11.00
10.25
9.42
8.67
8.58
8.37
8.27
6.87
6.73
6.17
6.00
5.68
5.67
5.42
5.33
5.33
5.33
5.08
5.08
5.00
4.83
4.67
4.67
4.67
Author
count
(Table I)
25
25
25
21
23
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
18
18
21
Overall
rank
(Table I)
4.67
3.33
1.67
1.00
5.00
4.58
15.58
6.00
11.60
8.50
10.25
9.42
0.50
8.25
8.37
8.27
2.00
5.73
3.50
6.00
4.60
4.75
5.08
5.33
5.33
5.00
5.08
Sum of
share
(no TRE)
9
7
4
1
10
15
40
16
29
22
22
26
1
26
26
23
2
15
7
18
13
11
17
12
12
14
10
Author
count
(no TRE)
19
28
54
79
16
21
1
10
2
5
3
4
145
8
6
7
41
11
24
9
20
18
15
12
13
17
14
Rank
(no
TRE)
4.67
3.33
0.00
1.00
5.00
3.58
14.25
4.00
11.60
8.50
6.17
9.42
0.50
6.92
8.37
7.27
2.00
5.73
0.00
6.00
4.60
3.42
4.08
5.33
1.50
5.00
4.58
Sum of share
(SCML
journals)
Rank
(SCML
journals)
1
20
2
4
8
3
131
7
5
6
37
10
224
9
15
22
19
11
52
13
16
70
12
21
14
24
NR
Author count
(SCML
journals)
36
10
29
22
13
26
1
22
26
20
2
15
0
18
13
9
13
12
4
14
9
1
10
12
9
7
0
Notes: SCML journals include IJLM, IJPDLM, JBL, and JSCM; NR – not ranked (i.e. no publications in the journals during the 2008-2010 time period)
University of Tennessee
University of Maryland
Arizona St University
University of Arkansas
University of North Texas
Cranfield University
National University of Singapore
Auburn University
The Ohio St University
Michigan St
University of Sydney
University of Alabama
National Cheng Kung University
University of Kentucky
Cardiff University
Iowa St
University of North Florida
University of Southern Denmark
University of St Thomas
Heriot-Watt University
WHU – Otto Beisheim
University of California,
Berkeley
Texas Christian University
Pennsylvania State University
Chalmers University of
Technology
Lund University
National Chiao Tung University
School
Sum of
share
(Table I)
Author
affiliation
in SCML
95
Table VIII.
2008-2010 rankings
without TRE and TJ
IJPDLM
42,1
96
The TRE results prompted examination of TJ, the other transportation-centered journal
in the set. Both TRE and TJ are indexed in the transportation category of the Web of
Knowledge vs the remaining journals indexed in the management category. The
evidence does not necessarily suggest removal of TJ, as the journal does have strong
average overlap with the other journals (Table VII) as well as a relatively high
percentage of authors from traditional business departments (92.9 percent). However,
Table II reveals that about half of the top-ranking institutions do not publish in TJ. As
such, the last three columns of Table VIII portray re-evaluated rankings without both
TRE and TJ. This journal grouping is identified as SCML. Although rankings of several
schools do change significantly (e.g. the University of Maryland moving from 2 to 20), the
overall results do not differ much from the above analysis when only TRE is excluded.
Without TRE and TJ, four of the prior five exiting schools leave the top 25 (National
University of Singapore, University of Sydney, University of California Berkeley, and
National Chiao Tung University), though National Cheng Kung University and the
University of St Thomas also exit. Three of the same four entering schools again reach
the top 25 ranking (University of Oklahoma, East Carolina University, and University of
Nevada) as do three new entrants (Central Michigan University, the Hanken School of
Economics, and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology).
8. Conclusions
The purpose of this paper is to update the historical analysis of the relative contributions
of university faculties publishing in a core set of SCML journals. Additionally, we sought
to provide insight into the expansion of authorship diversity in the field. The recent
(2008-2010) evidence signals that the sources of SCML scholarship are quite dynamic.
Specifically, author affiliation rankings (Table I) demonstrate notable changes from the
previous study (2005-2007), with several schools achieving significant advances within
the top 25 ranking and other schools realizing inaugural entrance to the list. Moreover,
diversity of both author school affiliation (Figure 1) and authors (Figure 2), as measured
by market concentration, continue to expand at a steady pace. These results imply that
the presence of SCML in academic business programs is increasing and that the growth of
researchers will not soon subside. This trend supports constructive progress of the field
by generating greater breadth of theory and research methods as well as by increasing
the quality and reach of educational programs. This expansion also suggests greater
competition for publishing in the journals of study, which presumably encourages higher
quality scholarship. Such competition may also drive researchers to consider publication
outlets in related fields, which will further extend the footprint of SCML.
With the journals of study primarily originating in North America, continued global
diffusion of authorship remains important given the critical role of SCML to international
trade (Hameri and Hintsa, 2009; Hausman et al., 2010). Despite most of the studied journals
now maintaining some level of international co- or regional editorship, the review boards
still tend to be heavily North American based, certainly not aligning with proportions of
world gross domestic product shares. We should note, however, that review boards are
becoming more internationally diverse. For example, an examination of the first issues of
2011 of IJLM, IJPDLM, and JSCM reveals that the proportions of non-North American
members in the respective review boards are 39.2, 26.5, and 28.3 percent, respectively.
Nonetheless, non-North American scholars do face particular hurdles in publishing in the
journal set. For example, scholars in many non-North American countries do not have
access to such a large, relatively localized set of SCML colleagues as do their
North American counterparts. This creates challenges for both finding compatible
co-authors and maintaining productive working relationships. Likewise, participation in
primary conferences for international scholars often entails trans-continental travel, thus
requiring greater time and monetary investment. Additionally, most non-North American
authors must overcome language barriers associated with working with authors from
other countries and also preparing manuscripts for submission in English.
Extant literature suggests that author collaboration in SCML has been expanding
from both general (Carter and Ellram, 2003; Miyazaki et al., 1999) and global (Cantor et al.,
2010) perspectives. E-mail and emerging low-cost telephone and video conferencing are
enhancing supply chain relationships (Golicic et al., 2002) as well as global research. In
addition, the education of scholars is converging worldwide. In parts of Europe for
example, assistant professors have historically had to independently write an extensive,
deeply researched thesis, called habilitation, after successful completion of their
doctoral dissertation. During this time, it was largely uncommon to simultaneously
publish in journals. Habilitation has since changed in some countries, particularly
Germany. Consequently, the respective generation of researchers has gained publication
experience much earlier in their careers, hence adding to the productivity of their
institutions. As an example, WHU – Otto Beisheim, a German school, entered the latest
top 25 ranking for the first time.
In general, a large number of non-North American universities (11) place
among the top 25 institutions for the 2008-2010 period, which parallels the findings
from the prior two studies. As further signs of globalization, 112 of the 618 (18.1 percent)
papers (including TRE) involve authors from multiple countries, and authorship of a
majority (80 of 112, 71.4 percent) of these papers span multiple continents. Nevertheless,
the collaboration results discussed in Section 5 depict research productivity
rankings that are negatively correlated with international and trans-continental
co-authorship. This presents an opportunity for research-active SCML schools to
develop programs that facilitate research projects with international partners, which
will enhance the research productivity and globalization of the field.
Considering future iterations of this study, the recent and upcoming inclusions
of several SCML journals to the Web of Knowledge offer interesting potential
enhancements to the analysis. Specifically, we could study the effects on the institutional
rankings from weighting journals by impact factors. This could perhaps influence the
composition of the core journal set. A similar future research opportunity might include
evaluating recent publication quality studies (Ellinger and Chapman, 2011; Gibson and
Hanna, 2003; Kumar and Kwon, 2004; Menachof et al., 2009; Zsidisin et al., 2007) in
further assessment of the journal set. Additional consideration might also include
adding more international-based journals to better globalize the study and minimize
North American bias. Candidates might include additional SCML journals currently or
soon to be indexed in the Web of Knowledge, such as Supply Chain Management:
An International Journal, International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications,
and Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management. It may also be worthwhile to
evaluate select OM journals (e.g. Journal of Operations Management) to investigate the
seemingly diminishing divide between the fields of OM and SCML.
In closing, the field of SCML remains relatively new despite advances
over recent decades. The analyses described in this paper generally depict an
Author
affiliation
in SCML
97
IJPDLM
42,1
98
evolving discipline. We conjecture that the rankings highlighted throughout the 45 years
of this research series will remain highly dynamic based on at least four overlapping
drivers currently shaping the field. First, increasing demands from practice are urging
schools of business to grow their SCML expertise. Second, as the field expands, further
research outlets emerge in the form of new journals as well as greater acceptance of
SCML topics in established journals in related disciplines (Hitt, 2011). Third, scholars
from other disciplines such as marketing, operations, quantitative methods, and
even sociology are recognizing the overlap of SCML to their fields and also appreciating
opportunities to reach a greater variety of research outlets for their work (Galaskiewicz,
2011; Lusch, 2011). The previous two points likely combine in terms of integrating new
theories into the field of SCML (Sachan and Datta, 2005). Finally, once relatively discrete
SCML topics (e.g. transportation, purchasing, warehousing, etc.) are becoming less
distinct (Autry and Griffis, 2005; Phillips and Phillips, 1998) as the importance and
benefits of integration are recognized (Rutner and Fawcett, 2005). As a whole, all of the
above trends depict an evolving and exciting environment for SCML scholars.
References
Allen, B.J. and Vellenga, D.B. (1987), “Author affiliation for publications in transportation and
logistics academic journals: an update”, Transportation Journal, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 39-47.
Arlbjørn, J.S., Jonsson, P. and Johansen, J. (2006), “Nordic research in logistics & supply chain
management: an empirical analysis”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
Management, Vol. 38 No. 6, pp. 452-74.
Autry, C.W. and Griffis, S.E. (2005), “A social anthropology of logistics research: exploring
productivity and collaboration in an emerging science”, Transportation Journal, Vol. 44
No. 4, pp. 27-43.
Brown, L.D. and Gardner, J.C. (1985), “Using citation analysis to assess the impact of journals
and articles on contemporary accounting research (CAR)”, Journal of Accounting Research,
Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 84-109.
Cantor, D.E., Bolumole, Y., Coleman, B.J. and Franke, R. (2010), “An examination of trends and
impact of authorship collaboration in logistics research”, Journal of Business Logistics,
Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 197-215.
Carter, C.R. and Ellram, L.M. (2003), “Thirty-five years of the Journal of Supply Chain
Management: where have we been and where are we going?”, Journal of Supply Chain
Management, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 27-39.
Carter, C.R., Easton, P.L., Vellenga, D.B. and Allen, B.J. (2009), “Affiliation of authors in
transportation and logistics academic journals: a reevaluation”, Transportation Journal,
Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 42-52.
Carter, C.R., Vellenga, D.B., Allen, B.J. and Gentry, J.J. (2001), “Affiliation of authors in
transportation and logistics academic journals – another look”, Transportation Journal,
Vol. 41 Nos 2/3, pp. 83-93.
Carter, C.R., Vellenga, D.B., Gentry, J.J. and Allen, B.J. (2005), “Affiliation of authors in
transportation and logistics academic journals: a reassessment”, Transportation Journal,
Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 54-64.
Chapman, K. and Ellinger, A.E. (2009), “Constructing impact factors to measure the influence of
logistics journals”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 197-212.
Ellinger, A.E. and Chapman, K. (2011), “Benchmarking leading supply chain management and
logistics strategy journals”, International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 22 No. 3
(forthcoming).
Galaskiewicz, J. (2011), “Studying supply chains from a social network perspective”, Journal of
Supply Chain Management, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 4-8.
Gammelgaard, B. (2001), “The joint-Nordic PhD program in logistics”, International Journal of
Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 31 Nos 7/8, pp. 585-605.
Gentry, J.J., Allen, B.J. and Vellenga, D.B. (1995), “Affiliation of authors in transportation and
logistics academic journals – revisited”, Transportation Journal, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 54-62.
Gibson, B.J. and Hanna, J.B. (2003), “Periodical usefulness: the US logistics educator perspective”,
Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 221-40.
Golicic, S.L., Davis, D.F., McCarthy, T.M. and Mentzer, J.T. (2002), “The impact of e-commerce on
supply chain relationships”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
Management, Vol. 32 No. 10, pp. 851-71.
Hameri, A.-P. and Hintsa, J. (2009), “Assessing the drivers of change for cross-border supply
chains”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 39
No. 9, pp. 741-76.
Hausman, W.H., Lee, H.L., Napier, G.R.F., Thompson, A. and Zheng, Y. (2010), “A process
analysis of global trade management: an inductive approach”, Journal of Supply Chain
Management, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 5-29.
Hitt, M.A. (2011), “Relevance of strategic management theory and research for supply chain
management”, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 9-13.
Kumar, V. and Kwon, I.-W.G. (2004), “A pilot study on normalized weighted approach to citation
study: a case of logistics and transportation journals”, International Journal of Physical
Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 34 No. 10, pp. 811-26.
Lusch, R.F. (2011), “Reframing supply chain management: a service-dominant logic perspective”,
Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 14-18.
Maloni, M.J., Carter, C.R. and Carr, A.S. (2009), “Assessing logistics maturation through author
concentration”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management,
Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 250-68.
Menachof, D.A., Gibson, B.J., Hanna, J.B. and Whiteing, A.E. (2009), “An analysis of the value of
supply chain management periodicals”, International Journal of Physical Distribution
& Logistics Management, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 145-65.
Miyazaki, A.D., Phillips, J.K. and Phillips, D.M. (1999), “Twenty years of JBL: an analysis of
published research”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 1-19.
Phillips, D.M. and Phillips, J.K. (1998), “A social network analysis of business logistics and
transportation”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management,
Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 328-48.
Phillips, D.M., Baumgartner, H. and Pieters, R. (1999), “Influence in the evolving citation network
of the Journal of Consumer Research”, in Arnould, E. and Scott, L. (Eds), Advances in
Consumer Research, Association for Consumer Research, Provo, UT, pp. 203-10.
Pieters, R. and Baumgartner, H. (2002), “Who talks to whom? Intra – and interdisciplinary
communication of economics journals”, Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 40 No. 2,
pp. 483-509.
Rutner, S.M. and Fawcett, S.E. (2005), “The state of supply chain education”, Supply Chain
Management Review, Vol. 9 No. 6, pp. 55-60.
Author
affiliation
in SCML
99
IJPDLM
42,1
100
Sachan, A. and Datta, S. (2005), “Review of supply chain management and logistics research”,
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 35 No. 9,
pp. 664-705.
Svensson, G., Slåtten, T. and Tronvoll, B. (2008), “‘Scientific identity’ and ‘ethnocentricity’ in top
journals of logistics management”, International Journal of Physical Distribution
& Logistics Management, Vol. 38 No. 8, pp. 588-600.
Vellenga, D.B., Allen, B.J. and Riley, C.D. (1981), “An analysis of author affiliation for
publications in transportation and logistics journals, 1967-1979”, Transportation Journal,
Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 44-53.
Vokurka, R.J. (1996), “The relative importance of journals used in operations management
research – a citation analysis”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 14 No. 4,
pp. 345-55.
Zinkhan, G.M., Roth, M.S. and Saxton, M.J. (1992), “Knowledge development and scientific status
in consumer-behavior research: a social exchange perspective”, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 282-91.
Zsidisin, G.A., Smith, M.K., McNally, R.C. and Kull, T.J. (2007), “Evaluation criteria development
and assessment of purchasing & supply management journals”, Journal of Operations
Management, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 165-83.
About the authors
Michael Maloni (PhD, The Ohio State University) is an Associate Professor at Kennesaw State
University. His current research interests include sustainability in the supply chain and
international trade. He research has appeared in journals such as International Journal of
Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Journal of Business Logistics, Journal of
Operations Management, Journal of Supply Chain Management, and Transportation Journal.
Craig R. Carter, PhD, is a Professor of Supply Chain Management at Arizona State University’s
W.P. Carey School of Business. Dr Carter’s primary research stream focuses on sustainable supply
chain management. This research stream encompasses ethical issues in buyer-supplier
relationships, environmental supply management, diversity sourcing, perceptions of
opportunism surrounding electronic reverse auctions, and the broader, integrative concepts of
social responsibility and sustainability. An additional, emerging stream of research considers and
analyzes the status and evolution of research in the field of supply chain management, and
provides guidance and thought leadership regarding future research directions in the field. His
research has been published in the leading supply chain management journals, including Journal
Business Logistics, Journal of Supply Chain Management, and Journal of Operations Management.
Craig R. Carter is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: crcarter@asu.edu
Lutz Kaufmann is a Professor of International Business & Supply Management at WHU –
Otto Beisheim School of Management in Vallendar, Germany. He is also an Associate Fellow of
Said Business School of Oxford University, UK. His research focuses on supply management and
international strategy. He is the European Editor of the Journal of Supply Chain Management.
His work has appeared in the Journal of Operations Management, International Journal of
Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Journal of Business Ethics, Journal of
International Management, Journal of International Marketing, Management International
Review, Journal of Business Logistics, Journal of Supply Chain Management, and The Journal of
Purchasing & Supply Management.
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints