The graph shows the changes in the impact factor of ^ and its corresponding percentile for the sake of comparison with the entire literature. Impact Factor is the most common scientometric index, which is defined by the number of citations of papers in two preceding years divided by the number of papers published in those years.

Journal of Business Ethics Acceptance Rate - ResearchHelpDesk - The Journal of Business Ethics publishes only original articles from a wide variety of methodological and disciplinary perspectives concerning ethical issues related to business that bring something new or unique to the discourse in their field. Since its initiation in 1980, the editors have encouraged the broadest possible scope. The term business' is understood in a wide sense to include all systems involved in the exchange of goods and services, whileethics' is circumscribed as all human action aimed at securing a good life. Systems of production, consumption, marketing, advertising, social and economic accounting, labor relations, public relations, and organizational behavior are analyzed from a moral viewpoint. The style and level of dialogue involve all who are interested in business ethics - the business community, universities, government agencies, and consumer groups. Speculative philosophy as well as reports of empirical research are welcomed. In order to promote a dialogue between the various interested groups as much as possible, papers are presented in a style relatively free of specialist jargon. FT 50 - This journal is one of the 50 journals used by the Financial Times in compiling the prestigious Business School research rank Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Reports® Ranking by Category Ethics 2/54 Business 33/147 Abstracted and indexed in ABS Academic Journal Quality Guide Australian Business Deans Council (ABDC) Journal Quality List CNKI Current Contents / Social & Behavioral Sciences EBSCO Book Review Digest Plus EBSCO Business Abstracts with Full Text EBSCO Business Source EBSCO Discovery Service EBSCO Education EBSCO Education Source EBSCO Health Business EBSCO Management Collection EBSCO Nonprofit Organization Reference Center EBSCO OmniFile ECONIS ERIH PLUS Gale Gale Academic OneFile Gale InfoTrac Google Scholar Institute of Scientific and Technical Information of China JSTOR Journal Citation Reports/Social Sciences Edition Naver OCLC WorldCat Discovery Service PhilPapers ProQuest ABI/INFORM ProQuest Art, Design and Architecture Collection ProQuest Arts & Humanities Database ProQuest Arts Premium Collection ProQuest Business Premium Collection ProQuest Central ProQuest Health Research Premium Collection ProQuest Politics Collection ProQuest Psychology Database ProQuest Social Science Collection ProQuest-ExLibris Primo ProQuest-ExLibris Summon PsycINFO Psyndex Research Papers in Economics (RePEc) SCImago SCOPUS Social Science Citation Index Journal of Business Ethics - RG Journal Impact: 1.54 * *This value is calculated using ResearchGate data and is based on average citation counts from work published in this journal. The data used in the calculation may not be exhaustive. RG Journal impact history 2020 Available summer 2021 2018 / 2019 1.54 2017 1.51 2016 1.49 2015 2.63 2014 2.72 2013 2.98 2012 2.79 2011 2.22 2010 2.18 2009 1.76 2008 2.32 2007 1.46 2006 1.23 2005 1.35 2004 1.08 2003 1.11 2002 1.04 2001 0.83 2000 1.12 Additional details of Journal of Business Ethics Cited half-life 7.30 Immediacy index 0.17 Eigenfactor 0.01 Article influence 0.31 Website description Journal of Business Ethics website Other titles Journal of business ethics, JBE, J.B.E., JoBE Publication type Journals ISSN 0167-4544 OCLC 8398838 Coverage 1982-ongoing Material type Periodical, Internet resource Document type Journal / Magazine / Newspaper, Internet Resource Journal of Business Ethics - Scimago Details

ABSTRACT This article presents the results of a study on the perception of quality of Latin American business journals based on the judgment of relevant experts - senior professors with knowledge of Latin American research and journals. Forty-five journals were included in the study. The highest perceived quality scores were given to Academia (CLADEA - Uniandes), RAE (Fundação Getulio Vargas), and Innovar (Universidad Nacional de Colombia). When perceived quality was weighted by awareness, Academia, LABR-Latin American Business Review (University of San Diego - Coppead), and Innovar had the highest scores. Results complement a recent study by Ruiz-Torres, Penkova, and Villafane (2012) that focused on management journals published in Spanish. Analysis of results suggests that language and branding have an effect on the perception of journal quality. Implications for editors/publishers, tenure, promotion, research grant committees, and authors are provided.

Journal of Business Ethics Abbreviation ISO4 - ResearchHelpDesk - The Journal of Business Ethics publishes only original articles from a wide variety of methodological and disciplinary perspectives concerning ethical issues related to business that bring something new or unique to the discourse in their field. Since its initiation in 1980, the editors have encouraged the broadest possible scope. The term business' is understood in a wide sense to include all systems involved in the exchange of goods and services, whileethics' is circumscribed as all human action aimed at securing a good life. Systems of production, consumption, marketing, advertising, social and economic accounting, labor relations, public relations, and organizational behavior are analyzed from a moral viewpoint. The style and level of dialogue involve all who are interested in business ethics - the business community, universities, government agencies, and consumer groups. Speculative philosophy as well as reports of empirical research are welcomed. In order to promote a dialogue between the various interested groups as much as possible, papers are presented in a style relatively free of specialist jargon. FT 50 - This journal is one of the 50 journals used by the Financial Times in compiling the prestigious Business School research rank Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Reports® Ranking by Category Ethics 2/54 Business 33/147 Abstracted and indexed in ABS Academic Journal Quality Guide Australian Business Deans Council (ABDC) Journal Quality List CNKI Current Contents / Social & Behavioral Sciences EBSCO Book Review Digest Plus EBSCO Business Abstracts with Full Text EBSCO Business Source EBSCO Discovery Service EBSCO Education EBSCO Education Source EBSCO Health Business EBSCO Management Collection EBSCO Nonprofit Organization Reference Center EBSCO OmniFile ECONIS ERIH PLUS Gale Gale Academic OneFile Gale InfoTrac Google Scholar Institute of Scientific and Technical Information of China JSTOR Journal Citation Reports/Social Sciences Edition Naver OCLC WorldCat Discovery Service PhilPapers ProQuest ABI/INFORM ProQuest Art, Design and Architecture Collection ProQuest Arts & Humanities Database ProQuest Arts Premium Collection ProQuest Business Premium Collection ProQuest Central ProQuest Health Research Premium Collection ProQuest Politics Collection ProQuest Psychology Database ProQuest Social Science Collection ProQuest-ExLibris Primo ProQuest-ExLibris Summon PsycINFO Psyndex Research Papers in Economics (RePEc) SCImago SCOPUS Social Science Citation Index Journal of Business Ethics - RG Journal Impact: 1.54 * *This value is calculated using ResearchGate data and is based on average citation counts from work published in this journal. The data used in the calculation may not be exhaustive. RG Journal impact history 2020 Available summer 2021 2018 / 2019 1.54 2017 1.51 2016 1.49 2015 2.63 2014 2.72 2013 2.98 2012 2.79 2011 2.22 2010 2.18 2009 1.76 2008 2.32 2007 1.46 2006 1.23 2005 1.35 2004 1.08 2003 1.11 2002 1.04 2001 0.83 2000 1.12 Additional details of Journal of Business Ethics Cited half-life 7.30 Immediacy index 0.17 Eigenfactor 0.01 Article influence 0.31 Website description Journal of Business Ethics website Other titles Journal of business ethics, JBE, J.B.E., JoBE Publication type Journals ISSN 0167-4544 OCLC 8398838 Coverage 1982-ongoing Material type Periodical, Internet resource Document type Journal / Magazine / Newspaper, Internet Resource Journal of Business Ethics - Scimago Details

This graph shows how the impact factor of ^ is computed. The left axis depicts the number of papers published in years X-1 and X-2, and the right axis displays their citations in year X.

Journal of Business Ethics Impact Factor 2024-2025 - ResearchHelpDesk - The Journal of Business Ethics publishes only original articles from a wide variety of methodological and disciplinary perspectives concerning ethical issues related to business that bring something new or unique to the discourse in their field. Since its initiation in 1980, the editors have encouraged the broadest possible scope. The term business' is understood in a wide sense to include all systems involved in the exchange of goods and services, whileethics' is circumscribed as all human action aimed at securing a good life. Systems of production, consumption, marketing, advertising, social and economic accounting, labor relations, public relations, and organizational behavior are analyzed from a moral viewpoint. The style and level of dialogue involve all who are interested in business ethics - the business community, universities, government agencies, and consumer groups. Speculative philosophy as well as reports of empirical research are welcomed. In order to promote a dialogue between the various interested groups as much as possible, papers are presented in a style relatively free of specialist jargon. FT 50 - This journal is one of the 50 journals used by the Financial Times in compiling the prestigious Business School research rank Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Reports® Ranking by Category Ethics 2/54 Business 33/147 Abstracted and indexed in ABS Academic Journal Quality Guide Australian Business Deans Council (ABDC) Journal Quality List CNKI Current Contents / Social & Behavioral Sciences EBSCO Book Review Digest Plus EBSCO Business Abstracts with Full Text EBSCO Business Source EBSCO Discovery Service EBSCO Education EBSCO Education Source EBSCO Health Business EBSCO Management Collection EBSCO Nonprofit Organization Reference Center EBSCO OmniFile ECONIS ERIH PLUS Gale Gale Academic OneFile Gale InfoTrac Google Scholar Institute of Scientific and Technical Information of China JSTOR Journal Citation Reports/Social Sciences Edition Naver OCLC WorldCat Discovery Service PhilPapers ProQuest ABI/INFORM ProQuest Art, Design and Architecture Collection ProQuest Arts & Humanities Database ProQuest Arts Premium Collection ProQuest Business Premium Collection ProQuest Central ProQuest Health Research Premium Collection ProQuest Politics Collection ProQuest Psychology Database ProQuest Social Science Collection ProQuest-ExLibris Primo ProQuest-ExLibris Summon PsycINFO Psyndex Research Papers in Economics (RePEc) SCImago SCOPUS Social Science Citation Index Journal of Business Ethics - RG Journal Impact: 1.54 * *This value is calculated using ResearchGate data and is based on average citation counts from work published in this journal. The data used in the calculation may not be exhaustive. RG Journal impact history 2020 Available summer 2021 2018 / 2019 1.54 2017 1.51 2016 1.49 2015 2.63 2014 2.72 2013 2.98 2012 2.79 2011 2.22 2010 2.18 2009 1.76 2008 2.32 2007 1.46 2006 1.23 2005 1.35 2004 1.08 2003 1.11 2002 1.04 2001 0.83 2000 1.12 Additional details of Journal of Business Ethics Cited half-life 7.30 Immediacy index 0.17 Eigenfactor 0.01 Article influence 0.31 Website description Journal of Business Ethics website Other titles Journal of business ethics, JBE, J.B.E., JoBE Publication type Journals ISSN 0167-4544 OCLC 8398838 Coverage 1982-ongoing Material type Periodical, Internet resource Document type Journal / Magazine / Newspaper, Internet Resource Journal of Business Ethics - Scimago Details

The graph shows the changes in the impact factor of ^ and its corresponding percentile for the sake of comparison with the entire literature. Impact Factor is the most common scientometric index, which is defined by the number of citations of papers in two preceding years divided by the number of papers published in those years.

Explore the World Competitiveness Ranking dataset for 2016, including key indicators such as GDP per capita, fixed telephone tariffs, and pension funding. Discover insights on social cohesion, scientific research, and digital transformation in various countries.

Social cohesion, The image abroad of your country encourages business development, Scientific articles published by origin of author, International Telecommunication Union, World Telecommunication/ICT Indicators database, Data reproduced with the kind permission of ITU, National sources, Fixed telephone tariffs, GDP (PPP) per capita, Overall, Exports of goods - growth, Pension funding is adequately addressed for the future, Companies are very good at using big data and analytics to support decision-making, Gross fixed capital formation - real growth, Economic Performance, Scientific research legislation, Percentage of GDP, Health infrastructure meets the needs of society, Estimates based on preliminary data for the most recent year., Singapore: including re-exports., Value, Laws relating to scientific research do encourage innovation, % of GDP, Gross Domestic Product (GDP), Health Infrastructure, Digital transformation in companies is generally well understood, Industrial disputes, EE, Female / male ratio, State ownership of enterprises, Total expenditure on R&D (%), Score, Colombia, Estimates for the most recent year., Percentage change, based on US$ values, Number of listed domestic companies, Tax evasion is not a threat to your economy, Scientific articles, Tax evasion, % change, Use of big data and analytics, National sources, Disposable Income, Equal opportunity, Listed domestic companies, Government budget surplus/deficit (%), Pension funding, US$ per capita at purchasing power parity, Estimates; US$ per capita at purchasing power parity, Image abroad or branding, Equal opportunity legislation in your economy encourages economic development, Number, Article counts are from a selection of journals, books, and conference proceedings in S&E from Scopus. Articles are classified by their year of publication and are assigned to a region/country/economy on the basis of the institutional address(es) listed in the article. Articles are credited on a fractional-count basis. The sum of the countries/economies may not add to the world total because of rounding. Some publications have incomplete address information for coauthored publications in the Scopus database. The unassigned category count is the sum of fractional counts for publications that cannot be assigned to a country or economy. Hong Kong: research output items by the higher education institutions funded by the University Grants Committee only., State ownership of enterprises is not a threat to business activities, Protectionism does not impair the conduct of your business, Digital transformation in companies, Total final energy consumption per capita, Social cohesion is high, Rank, MTOE per capita, Percentage change, based on constant prices, US$ billions, National sources, World Trade Organization Statistics database, Rank, Score, Value, World Rankings

Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Mexico, Mongolia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Oman, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Venezuela

Follow data.kapsarc.org for timely data to advance energy economics research.

This study examines the impact of methodological variations in publication-based rankings on the evaluation of individual research performance in business administration. Drawing on a unique dataset comprising complete personal publication lists of 233 professors from Austrian public universities (2009–2018), we apply ten distinct ranking variants that differ in their treatment of data sources, co-authorship, publication languages, article lengths, and journal qualities. These variants are categorized into purely quantity-focused and predominantly quality-focused rankings. Our results demonstrate that researcher rankings are susceptible to specification choices. While quantity-focused rankings produce relatively small performance differentials and high variability, quality-focused variants consistently identify a stable group of leading researchers. These scholars publish more frequently in English, in journals indexed by Web of Science (WoS), and in top-tier outlets according to the JOURQUAL ranking. Notably, leading researchers publish over twice as many articles in high-ranking journals as their peers. The findings underscore the significant implications of ranking design for career advancement and research strategy. For early-career researchers, aligning publication efforts with the logic of quality-focused rankings—favoring English-language publications in highly ranked, peer-reviewed journals—is crucial for enhancing academic visibility and competitiveness. Moreover, our study offers a methodological stress test for ranking systems, revealing the extent to which technical design influences outcomes. By leveraging comprehensive and multilingual publication data and systematically comparing multiple ranking methodologies, this study contributes to both the academic evaluation literature and practical guidance for researchers navigating the demands of a metric-driven academic environment.

Leading researchers: aggregate ranking 1 (Categories 1 and 2).

Ranking studies retrieved from a WoS search (n = 46)).

This study examines the impact of methodological variations in publication-based rankings on the evaluation of individual research performance in business administration. Drawing on a unique dataset comprising complete personal publication lists of 233 professors from Austrian public universities (2009–2018), we apply ten distinct ranking variants that differ in their treatment of data sources, co-authorship, publication languages, article lengths, and journal qualities. These variants are categorized into purely quantity-focused and predominantly quality-focused rankings. Our results demonstrate that researcher rankings are susceptible to specification choices. While quantity-focused rankings produce relatively small performance differentials and high variability, quality-focused variants consistently identify a stable group of leading researchers. These scholars publish more frequently in English, in journals indexed by Web of Science (WoS), and in top-tier outlets according to the JOURQUAL ranking. Notably, leading researchers publish over twice as many articles in high-ranking journals as their peers. The findings underscore the significant implications of ranking design for career advancement and research strategy. For early-career researchers, aligning publication efforts with the logic of quality-focused rankings—favoring English-language publications in highly ranked, peer-reviewed journals—is crucial for enhancing academic visibility and competitiveness. Moreover, our study offers a methodological stress test for ranking systems, revealing the extent to which technical design influences outcomes. By leveraging comprehensive and multilingual publication data and systematically comparing multiple ranking methodologies, this study contributes to both the academic evaluation literature and practical guidance for researchers navigating the demands of a metric-driven academic environment.

This study examines the impact of methodological variations in publication-based rankings on the evaluation of individual research performance in business administration. Drawing on a unique dataset comprising complete personal publication lists of 233 professors from Austrian public universities (2009–2018), we apply ten distinct ranking variants that differ in their treatment of data sources, co-authorship, publication languages, article lengths, and journal qualities. These variants are categorized into purely quantity-focused and predominantly quality-focused rankings. Our results demonstrate that researcher rankings are susceptible to specification choices. While quantity-focused rankings produce relatively small performance differentials and high variability, quality-focused variants consistently identify a stable group of leading researchers. These scholars publish more frequently in English, in journals indexed by Web of Science (WoS), and in top-tier outlets according to the JOURQUAL ranking. Notably, leading researchers publish over twice as many articles in high-ranking journals as their peers. The findings underscore the significant implications of ranking design for career advancement and research strategy. For early-career researchers, aligning publication efforts with the logic of quality-focused rankings—favoring English-language publications in highly ranked, peer-reviewed journals—is crucial for enhancing academic visibility and competitiveness. Moreover, our study offers a methodological stress test for ranking systems, revealing the extent to which technical design influences outcomes. By leveraging comprehensive and multilingual publication data and systematically comparing multiple ranking methodologies, this study contributes to both the academic evaluation literature and practical guidance for researchers navigating the demands of a metric-driven academic environment.

This study examines the impact of methodological variations in publication-based rankings on the evaluation of individual research performance in business administration. Drawing on a unique dataset comprising complete personal publication lists of 233 professors from Austrian public universities (2009–2018), we apply ten distinct ranking variants that differ in their treatment of data sources, co-authorship, publication languages, article lengths, and journal qualities. These variants are categorized into purely quantity-focused and predominantly quality-focused rankings. Our results demonstrate that researcher rankings are susceptible to specification choices. While quantity-focused rankings produce relatively small performance differentials and high variability, quality-focused variants consistently identify a stable group of leading researchers. These scholars publish more frequently in English, in journals indexed by Web of Science (WoS), and in top-tier outlets according to the JOURQUAL ranking. Notably, leading researchers publish over twice as many articles in high-ranking journals as their peers. The findings underscore the significant implications of ranking design for career advancement and research strategy. For early-career researchers, aligning publication efforts with the logic of quality-focused rankings—favoring English-language publications in highly ranked, peer-reviewed journals—is crucial for enhancing academic visibility and competitiveness. Moreover, our study offers a methodological stress test for ranking systems, revealing the extent to which technical design influences outcomes. By leveraging comprehensive and multilingual publication data and systematically comparing multiple ranking methodologies, this study contributes to both the academic evaluation literature and practical guidance for researchers navigating the demands of a metric-driven academic environment.

This study examines the impact of methodological variations in publication-based rankings on the evaluation of individual research performance in business administration. Drawing on a unique dataset comprising complete personal publication lists of 233 professors from Austrian public universities (2009–2018), we apply ten distinct ranking variants that differ in their treatment of data sources, co-authorship, publication languages, article lengths, and journal qualities. These variants are categorized into purely quantity-focused and predominantly quality-focused rankings. Our results demonstrate that researcher rankings are susceptible to specification choices. While quantity-focused rankings produce relatively small performance differentials and high variability, quality-focused variants consistently identify a stable group of leading researchers. These scholars publish more frequently in English, in journals indexed by Web of Science (WoS), and in top-tier outlets according to the JOURQUAL ranking. Notably, leading researchers publish over twice as many articles in high-ranking journals as their peers. The findings underscore the significant implications of ranking design for career advancement and research strategy. For early-career researchers, aligning publication efforts with the logic of quality-focused rankings—favoring English-language publications in highly ranked, peer-reviewed journals—is crucial for enhancing academic visibility and competitiveness. Moreover, our study offers a methodological stress test for ranking systems, revealing the extent to which technical design influences outcomes. By leveraging comprehensive and multilingual publication data and systematically comparing multiple ranking methodologies, this study contributes to both the academic evaluation literature and practical guidance for researchers navigating the demands of a metric-driven academic environment.