miswiki

 

GFS2008

Page history last edited by Murali Shanker 1 yr ago

Adhoc Committee - Graduate Faculty Status - Spring 2008

 

  1. Adhoc Committee - Graduate Faculty Status - Spring 2008
    1. Group members
    2. Meetings
    3. 22 February 2008
      1. Questions
      2. Next Step
  2. Proposals
  3. Validation Measures
  4. Next Meeting (April 8: 3:30-4:30, A404 BSA)
  5. Current Applications
    1.   To be Resolved
    2. Additional Validation
  6. External Validation
  7. Graduate Faculty Status
    1. Table 1
    2. Resolved

 

 

Group members

 

  • Eileen Bridges
  • Eric Johnson
  • John Thornton
  • Ran Barniv
  • Murali Shanker

Meetings

 

When should we meet?

Who Date Available Time Available
Eileen  MRF  10:30-4:30  These are days/times I am usually available.  However, I will be out of town April 3rd and 4th.
Eric    Fri. 2/29  11:00-4:00, Wed 2/5 all day, Fri 2/7 all day.  (In general MWF: I'm available all day.  TTh: 2:00-3:30.)
John  TWRF  In a typical week - Tuesdays 9-1 or 3-5; Wedneday 9-12; Thursdays any time; Fridays 9-1 or 3:30-5.  I will not be availablel Friday 3/14.
Ran    
Murali    Looks like the next two Fridays will be difficult, unless it is for short ,30-40 minutes, meetings

 

22 February 2008

 

  1. Rick has assured me that the guidelines adopted here will ONLY be applied to GFS. He has promised a letter to that effect.
  2. What does it mean to be a Graduate Faculty? I will check with Rick on this.
  3. Are the guidelines consistent with the definition for Academically Qualified to teach at the graduate level? Eileen, is this statement what you intended?  Yes, I think the teaching rights associated with GFS should match those for AQ.  Research direction does not appear to be affected.
  4. The University Guidelines indicates the following criteria for graduate faculty determination:
    1. Scholarly or creative activity resulting in publications or other recognition of distinction
    2. Significant good teaching at the graduate level
    3. Publication requirements can be waived for senior faculty who have a distinguished record of thesis direction

 

Questions

  • While the guidelines put emphasis on publications, they do not limit it to them. Do we want to consider other types of scholarly activity like Business Process Patents, Editorial Board appointments, Research Grants, etc. My thoughts are while it is fine to consider these, the greater emphasis will still be on publications. What are your thoughts?
  • John brought up the issue that a journal list should remain fixed during its  5-year tenure. I don't necessarily have any issue with that, assuming we agree on what the list is supposed to represent
    • First, any journal list is only a proxy for quality. Unless each department is going to read every paper in their area and assign a quality measure, journal rankings will probably remain as a measure of quality.
    • One objective should be to ensure that faculty doing "sufficient" scholarly work get graduate faculty status (GFS). From that perspective, having a fixed list only suggests that the journals on that list REPRESENT the type of journals we would like our faculty to publish in, rather than THE list of journals that will be considered for GFS. This assumption seems critical, as that would dictate several things:
      • The procedure for determing GFS. For example, faculty could submit scholarly work in journals not on the list, but provide validation of their quality of work.
      • The journal list itself. If we view the list only as a representation, and not exhaustive, then it is possible to have a shorter, and more focused list. This might address some of Ran's concerns on the indication of quality that we present to the outside world.
      • I think we need to use some sort of indicator(s) of quality to create an exhaustive list, probably by department.  It does not indicate high quality or improve our image if we allow publications not on the list to be added without a process for doing so.  Marketing has now created and will soon approve an exhaustive list of journals to be used in the next GFS process. (Eileen)
  • Please add to this discussion

 

 

 

Next Step

 

As a next step, I think we should define our framework more clearly. Some issues that we should resolve are:

 

  1. What scholarly work do we want to consider?
  2. What approach do we want to use for validation of our initial guidelines, and subsequent application for GFS?
  3. What are the assumptions in our framework. For example, if we adopt John's suggestion about a fixed list, then do we view the list as representative, rather than exhaustive? Then applications should stress their scholarly contribution rather than just see if their work appears on the list.
  4. A fixed list that is only representative, not exhaustive, is by definition not a fixed list, because it can be changed at any time and in any way as there is no process in place for doing so.  I think we need to choose a fixed list with an update process or a fixed list without one.  A "representative" list does  not allow for any consistency whatsoever, and as a person who has suffered quite a bit from lack of consistent application of whatever processes do exist, I prefer to have a clear process in writing that at least we can hope will be consistently applied. (Eileen)

 

Any other thoughts?

 

Proposals

 

This section contains different proposals/framework that are being proposed

 

  1. Proposal 1
  2. My proposal, instead of starting from a list of journals, starts with validation. While external validation is clearly mentioned in our guidelines, our current list, and any addition to this list, are glaring in their omission of validation measures. But, validation is a multi-dimensional issue. As such, I am proposing the following:
    1. For each journal that we consider, we submit appropriate external validation. The Department of Marketing (Dept of Marketing Journal List) has started the process, and I am attaching a link to their work.
    2. It is not enough that each department create separate measures of external validation. Some commonality of measure would bring consistency too. From that perspective, thankfully, there are several studies that do meta analysis of journal quality. Each of these papers use multiple measure of validation / sources. I suggest we peruse these papers, and use some of their analysis as part of our documentation. You can find the links to this under Validation Measures on our wiki, especially the last three links.
    3. I would expect that the higher the quality of the journal, the greater the support among these multiple measures. What is important is that we are providing external validation that should remove the ambiguity within and across departments to the quality of a journal.
    4. While the above will create a good pool of validated journals, it does not necessarily solve the problem of papers that are not published in these journals. The tool at http://www.harzing.com/index.htm should provide some support for such work.

Thus, I am suggesting Validation as a starting point. If we agree, then we can use this to define other parameters.

Validation Measures

 

What type of validation is considered for a journal in your department? For example, Society rankings, editorial board, etc.

  • Surveys - particularly of senior faculty and department chairs (Eileen)
  • Citations and Impact Factors - John, Eileen 
  • Author Affiliation Index (this is a new one in my field) - John 
  • Cabell's guide, in particular the item measuring % of submissions accepted (Eileen)

 

Some measures that were used to establish the quality of journals in IS were:

 

  • Scholar's list - AIS
  • IS Journal Quality Assessment Using the Author Affliation Index, CAIS, 19, 710-724, 2007
  • Gorman, M. F., and J. J. Kanet. (2005). “Evaluating Operations Management-Related Journals

       Via The Author Affiliation Index,” Manufacturing and Service Operations Management, 7(1),

       pp. 3-19.

  • Saunders, C. & Benbasat, I. (2007) Editor's Comments, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 31 (3), pp. iii-xviii
  • Eigenfactor
  • I just found out about a free software program that uses Google Scholar to evaluate citations of authors, articles and journals.  I played with it briefly; and, it appears to be interesting.  You can read about it and/or download it at: http://www.harzing.com/index.htm  (John)
  • Very interesting article in Plos One, an open access journal on ranking Effectiveness of Journal Ranking Schemes as a Tool for Locating Information

 

Next Meeting (April 8: 3:30-4:30, A404 BSA)

 

I wanted to send this mail before I started looking at the files to remove any bias I might have in my message.

 

There are several things we need to wrap up, and rather quickly. We are supposed to turn in our report by 4/14, so here goes.

 

 

There are two major task ahead. First, we need to review the files for graduate faculty status, and secondly, come up with a proposal for the next five years.

 

1. Please take a look at the files

2. This is for Graduate Faculty Status, which is essentially an evaluation to see if the faculty is capable of directing thesis, etc. Please keep that in mind when doing your evaluation.

3. I certainly don't want to spend hours arguing about each file. To minimize that, I am requesting that each member go over the files, and document any objections (for a specific faculty) that they have on the Wiki before our next meeting.

4. I want to ensure that we make our decisions on actual data, rather than "I think, he thinks, etc." As such, if we require clarifications, I would like to go back to the department to require that. One more reason for us to document our objections.

5. I will soon add some writeup on models for the next cycle of graduate faculty status (our task 2). When evaluation our current files, you can run through the proposed model to see how the results stack up against our current one.

6. Transparency is important. I would like to support any recommendations with a rational well-supported argument.

7. The journal list for our current list is just that, a list. It is neither complete, not exhaustive, nor can it ever be. When in doubt, please look at the actual research of the faculty in deciding if they merit grad faculty status.

8. I am sure that while you go through the current files, you will have ideas to improve the process. Please document/share them.

9. Finally, once we have more information on our wiki, I would like to circulate it among all faculty to get more comments/thoughts. Given all that, I would like to have a meeting at the earliest, but Ran is out of town until the end of the month. I am calling for a meeting either on the 4th (Friday), or the 7th (Monday). Monday, for John, is probably difficult. But, please, for both dates, could you put suitable times on our Wiki page. I will add all this to the wiki.

When should we meet?

Who Date: April 8; Time Available Date: April 11; Time Available
Eileen  10:30 - 4  10:30-5
Eric  before 9:00, 2:15 - 3:30 or after 5:00  Available all day.
John  8-10 or 11-5:30  Not Available - Attending a Conference
Ran  10:30 and 1:00 or 2:30 and 5:30  
Murali  Anytime between 3:30 - 5:30, or 1-2 10:30 - Noon, or 1:30 - 3:30

 

Current Applications

 

Please document below any objections that go contrary to department recommendations:

 

 

  To be Resolved

Name Objection Comment Resolution
Kevin Dow The department recommendation is Full-Limited, but his research record seems to support Full-Full If I remember correctly, Kevin got Full-full status last year. How has his record changed from that? Ran, could you please comment?
 Don Williams

Department's recommendation is Full-Full based on one B journal, and argument of the impact factor of "Entrepreneurship, theory and Practice." But, impact in the business world, which is not a citation analysis,  is not the same as rigor (research). The attached documentation supports impact in Entrepreneurship, but we are now talking about increasingly smaller areas of specialization.

 

I don't see any dissertation committee service during this cycle.  Most recent listed is 2001 - John

 One thing to consider is that the College has determined that entreneurship is an area of emphasis.  Should that influence our evaluation of EP&T?  With that said, I would be more comforable with a Full-Limited designation. - John

I guess it might. What I am troubled is that with increasingly narrow specifications, the top 10, in many case, if there are 10, would automatically become the "best" journals. Eric, can you provide some sense of this here. How does this fit into Economics?

 

While Entrepreneurship, Theory and Practice is not an Economics journal per se, it is ranked as an A in both the ABS and Wien rankings (cross disciplinary business rankings).  The Financial Times entrepreneurship rankings put it at number 8 of 35, putting it ahead of journals that are current A or A+ classifications in the college's current rankings.  I'll include the rankings in Don's file.  Don has not seved on a Ph.D. committee in the current evaluation period although he has directed 16 Masters theses in the K.U. Leuven program. (Don has served on 16 Ph.D committees (2 as Chair) prior to the current evaluation period).  -Eric

 

 

  Validation of journals, on and off the list, remains a problem, as there is none. But, your explanation certainly helps to the quality for this case. I have requested Rick Schroath to clarify the position on PhD committees.  I am fine supporting him on his original recommendation. - MS
David Mckee

He is being supported at the Full-full level. Yet, he has no publications in Economics (which is ok). But, many of his publications appear to be either book chapters, or  reprints of earlier work. From my readings on Business Research Yearbook, it is a publication of proceedings papers. Could you please clarify

 

I share this concern - John

 

 

    
Felix Offodile Lists 5 articles but only one is actually available from library sources.  I checked the journal websites for others and they are not there, even in press.  Associate-Limited makes more sense.

The following are publication dates. Most of the 2009 publication dates have acceptances in 2007.

 

Smith, A.D. and Offodile, O.F. (2009). “Operational aspects associated with strategic layout designs and their effectiveness: a multiple case study. International Journal of Logistics and Supply Management, 5 (3):00-00.

Smith, A.D. and Offodile, O.F. (2009). “Strategic Importance of Team Integration Issues in the product Development Process to Improve Manufacturability.” Team Performance Management. (In press).

Smith, A.D. and Offodile, O.F. (2009). “Perceived importance of major RFID-related technology initiatives among retail store managers.” International Journal of Services and Operations Management. (In press).

Smith, A.D. and Offodile, O.F. (2008). “Data collection automation and total quality management: case studies of healthcare providers.” Health Services Quarterly. (In press).

Smith, A.D. and Offodile, O.F. (2008). “Leveraging concepts of knowledge management with total  quality management: case studies in the service sector.” International Journal of Logistics and Supply Management. (In press). 

Smith, A.D. and Offodile, O.F. (2008). “Automatic identification and voice-recognition technologies for quality improvement: case studies of Pittsburgh-area service firms.”  International Journal of Services and Standards. (In press).

 

By way of validation, my paper of 2005 is in an A journal (Quality Management Journal) with a 6-10% acceptance rate, according to Cabell’s. That is better than some of the journals on the list that are passing as A journals. Some of the rest of the journals are relatively new, but are in a new field—Supply Chain Management.
 
In conclusion, I had Full-Full status before my current position as Chair. Taking my current position into consideration I expect to retain my Full-Full status.

  
Jennifer Johnson Only graduate teaching appears to be a team taught PhD seminar.  Is this sufficient evidence of providing "high quality graduate instruction" for a Full-Full designation?  It may not be mentioned in Rick's letter, but Jen is teaching a 1-credit teaching workshop for doctoral students currently, and she is the only instructor.    
Adam Rapp Only graduate teaching appears to be a team taught PhD seminar.  Is this sufficient evidence of providing "high quality graduate instruction" for a Full-Full designation?  Adam has also taught at the graduate level in Europe, Belgium I believe  If Eileen can confirm that Adam has fairly recent graduate teaching experience in Europe I am wiling to withdraw my reservation - John.  
Tuo Wang Resume provides no information about graduate teaching.  The only evidence is the assertion in Rick Kolbe's memo: "Each has demonstrated the capibility to provide excellent graduate teaching.  Is this assertion sufficient for Full-Full?  His background and training suggests, yes. - MS  
Lois Beier Requests Associate-Limited status but the dept. recommends only Associate-Teaching.  But, three updates (new editions) of a textbook qualify as scholarship of teaching, so I believe she should have the requested status.

 The information we were given in the committee indicated that this "textbook" is a spiral bound book that is only used for her classes.  We felt that was not sufficient.  However, I do not fell strongly about it. If desired, I can request more information from Lois - John

  
 William Acar

 Lists 8 publications in peer reviewed journals.  However, I can find only two on the list in the College handbook.  Both are B level journals, which means only 4 points.  Is Full-Full status justified? - John 

 

 

 Not sure which papers you counted, but Will has an Omega, Journal of Management Studies, Future, and an EJOR paper. The EJOR, JMS are both A journals. The Omega at worst is a B, and the Future is relatively new, but some of the measures rank it as a B. All these validation measures are in the same link as my explanation below. Feel free to look at the files. Does this satisfy you?

 

This from Will:

 

" He's assuming that, as in the Finance Dep't that is a narrowly focused dep't, our journal list has only undergone minor modifications, and hence should be implemented literally and strictly.  Unfortunately this wasn't the situation with our journal list.  It had all sorts of oddities, and that's why it got abandoned altogether rather than be repeatedly altered piecemeal and never satisfactorily.  Your correspondence with him is implying this, but his arguments do not reflect an understanding of the history of the M&IS journal list.

        Now, starting alphabetically I presume, he's taking me as an example.  You say that you recently found a journal ranking that does recognize the Journal of Management Studies as a "A" journal (it's the top management journal in the British Commonwealth).  But I am puzzled that, as a faculty member in a business school, he cannot visualize the A-level of the European Journal of Operational Research.  It is the major common European journal in OR, and people who teach in a business school usually know that seldom does light material find its way in OR/MS journals.  Similarly, OMEGA, the philo-methodological journal of OR/MS is one in which many top researchers publish, and one under-rated in our old journal list.

        Going down to the more focused and lesser-known journals, FUTURES is a journal focused on futurology, scenario planning and causal or cognitive mapping.  I understand that this particular one be unknown to the GradFac Committee.  However, I started publishing in it as I realized its impact on the "invisible college" of the researchers working on scenario planning and futures studies, at one time a specialized area, but currently one of the leading edges of strategic theory.  (It is in Futures that the current leading researcher in cognitive mapping, Colin Eden, published one of his trail-blazing articles in 1979.)  In fact, as a result of publishing in Futures, I received an invitation to submit to another planning-oriented I.S. outlet.

        Three of my remaining four journals in that 5-year window (the IJTIP, IJMand Vikalpa) are fairly new, but the kinds of publication to which they belong indicates that they are ascending journals.  As to the IJCM, it has been around for a couple of decades, has undergone an overhaul recently, and publishes mostly full-length empirical investigations; it is doubtful that too many evaluators would now disregard it altogether. "

  
David Booth

Similar comment as above - John

 1. Handbook of Chemoinformatics-I was invited to do this by Prof. J. Gasteiger-holder of an endowed chair at Univ. of Erlangen-Germany-the senior position in the field in Europe. This handbook is the premier reference in the field.
2. International J. of Operational Research-3 articles- I (and Fred Glover-you'll recognize the name) am on the Editorial Board. All 3 of these papers are solid w/ our PhD students. This is new but solid.
3. Current Analytical Chemistry-3 papers- one on differential diagnosis of leukemia with gene expression data (the ALL variant I studied is the leading cancer killer of children) and 2 on prevention of theft of nuclear material. Anyone say timely. Again this is a new journal. Get an expert opinion-Dr. Thomas L. Isenhour, Provost and Professor of Chemistry, Old Dominion Univ. (isenhour@odu.edu)p.s. ask for his cv if you really want to be impressed. Want another-Dr. Lee Pedersen- M.A.Smith Professor of Chemistry-University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill-lee_pedersen@unc.edu- Get his CV- it's even better than Isenhour(who's been in admin for a while)-Mention my name to these guys, I haven't seen them in several years.
4. J. of Data Science-1 paper-The other journal this group puts out is Statistica Sinica-I expect you recognize this one. JDS is the applied partner. John B. Little of Harvard is on the JDS Board.
5. Expert System with Applications-1 paper-you must know this one-a leader in business apps of ANNs -  This is a top rated journal (www.harzing.com for validation).
6. Analytical Biochemistry-1 paper on drug-DNA interactions- The leading J in this subfield-ask Isenhour if you want.
7. I am chairing my 11th dissert. and have served on 40 other PhD committees, both GSM and outside.
P.S. All of the above articles, including the Handbook, are refereed.  Notice I have other stuff as well.  If my record  is not sufficient, please convey my
congratulations to the committee. I'm sure they are all well qualified to handle my former seminal courses. - DB		  
Brandyberry, Alan Similar comment as above - John I have several other articles published during this period but will
focus on the following three as they should total 12 points by
themselves:

(1) Maximally Productive Input-Output Units. European Journal of
Operational Research, 178(2), 359-373. (2007)
(2) Linear Programming System Identification. European Journal of
Operational Research, 161(3), 663-672. (2005)

Justification for EJOR: Murali has already made the case (on the wiki)
that EJOR is an 'A' journal. There is no reason to read further as this would be my eight
points.

But, just in case:

(3) The E-Tailer's Dilemma.. The DATABASE for Advancement of Information
Systems, 34(2). (2003)

Justification for "The DATABASE for Advancement of Information Systems"
being an A journal:

1. The IS faculty has reviewed the journal list and revised it into its
current version (not the version being used by the committee).  The IS
faculty affirm that this should be an 'A' journal and is listed as such
on our working list.

2. External evidence: The journal ranking cited below ranks this journal
as #8 overall for all IS Research Journals (see table 3 in article).
Given that three of those ranked above it would be in our A+ category
then it follows this journal should be ranked as our 5th highest ranked
journal after that.  This would clearly fall in the A category.

http://www.comp.dit.ie/rfitzpatrick/DT209%20DT217%20MSc%20(KM)/Ranking_o
f_Journals%20.pdf
Ken Peffers, and Ya Tang ("Identifying and evaluating the universe of
outlets for information systems research: Ranking the journals," The
Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application (JITTA), 2003,
5:1, 63-84) conducted an online survey and collected ratings from 1,129
validated and non-duplicate respondents. The 326 rated journals are
presented in three ranked-ordered lists for IS journals, allied
discipline journals, and professional and managerial publications,
respectively.		  
Knapp, Debbie,

 

 

 

All  of them have several papers that should easily qualify for F-F status. Which journals do you need clarification?

Debbie has two papers in Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, which is ranked as an A journal in her field. Another paper, the  International Journal of Intercultural Relations, is ranked as a B.She has 4 other papers, and should qualify for F-F at this point.

  
DuBois, Cathy

Similar comment as above - John

Cathy will be providing hard-copy documentation about her journals, but here is her response

April 7, 2008

Felix,
Attached is further documentation to support review of my grad faculty application. 

Most of the journals I’ve published in during the review time period are rather new journals, so impact factor information is not available for them.  Three of the main qualifying publications are in training / e-learning journals, which is a field that has rapidly grown in recent years.  I have provided what relevant information I could find to indicate journal quality.

Because I cannot provide impact factor information, I draw attention to the additional items that reflect my significant contributions in supporting graduate level education during the evaluation time period, which reflect success in disseminating research and teaching at the graduate level.  These items include C level publications, papers under review, presentations at major conferences, dissertation work, and teaching awards.  I have taught 2-3 graduate level courses every year.  Please note that during the review period I have co-chaired three dissertations in my area, and served as grad rep for dissertations in Marketing, Finance, Criminal Justice, and Education.  This reflects that I am capable of working with not only dissertations in my area, but that I am comfortable and capable working outside my area.

Please let me know if the committee requires further information.

Thanks.
Cathy


A Journal  (see attached documentation)

Long, L. K., DuBois, C. L. Z., Faley, R. H. (2006).  The Usefulness of Trainee Reactions in Online Training.  International Journal of Learning, 13 (1), 1-12.


B Journals  (see attached documentation)

Long, L. K., DuBois, C. L. Z., Faley, R. H.  (forthcoming).  A Case Study Analysis of Factors that Influence Attrition Rates in Voluntary Online Training Programs.  International Journal on E-Learning.

Long, L. K., DuBois, C. L. Z., Faley, R. H. (2008).  Online training: The Value of Capturing Trainee Reactions.  Journal of Workplace Learning, 20 (1).

Knapp, D. E., Long, L. K. Faley, R. H., & DuBois, C. L. Z. (2005).  Sexual harassment in male-dominated occupations: Examples from the securities industry. Journal of Applied Business and Economics, 5(2), 68-86. 


C Journals

Faley, R. H., Knapp, D. E., Kustis, G. A., DuBois, C. L. Z. & Young, J.  (2006).  Estimating the Organizational Costs of Same-Gender Sexual Harassment in the U. S. Army.  International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30(5), 557-577.

DuBois, C. L. Z. (2008).  Relief from Role Restrictions? E-Collaboration, Communication Styles, and Gender.  Encyclopedia of eCollaboration (N. Kock, editor), p. 259-264. Information Science Reference, Hershey, PA.   (note that this was peer reviewed, rather than invited)

Manuscripts Under Review

Bacha, R. & DuBois, C. L. Z.  A Fresh Perspective on Extraversion and Automobile Sales Success.  Under review at Journal of Managerial Inquiry.

Gatton, D. S., DuBois, C. L. Z., & Faley, R. H. (2007).  Revisiting gender stereotyping of occupations and the corporate culture: Has a decade made a difference?  Under review at Sex Roles.

Hogue, M., DuBois, C & Fox-Cardamone, L. Differential prediction of salary expectations for women and men.  Under review at Psychology of Women Quarterly.

Refereed Conference Presentations 

Meglich-Sespico, P., Faley R. H., & DuBois, C. L. Z. (2007).  How actions and actors influence target perceptions of the severity of interpersonal workplace harassment. Presented at the 2007 Midwest Academy of Management Meetings, Kansas City, KS, October.

Bacha, R. & DuBois, C. L. Z. (2007).  A fresh perspective on extraversion and automobile sales success.  Presented at the 2007 Academy of Management Meetings, Philadelphia, PA, August.

Hogue, M., DuBois, C. & Fox-Cardamone, L. (2007).  Differential prediction of salary expectations for women and men.  In M. Hogue (Chair), “Doing Well by Doing a Better Job of Recognizing Gender Effects”.  Presented at the Presented at the 2007 Academy of Management Meetings, Philadelphia, PA, August.

Gatton, D. S., DuBois, C. L. Z., & Faley, R. H. (2007).  Revisiting gender stereotyping of occupations and the corporate culture: Has a decade made a difference?  In D. Gatton (Chair) “Living Up to Expectations: Gender Stereotyping and Work”.  Presented at the Twenty-second Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, New York, NY, April.

Long, L. K., DuBois, C. L. Z., & Faley, R. H. (2006).  The role of trainee reactions in online training.  13th International Conference on Learning, Montego Bay, Jamaica, April.    

    Kustis, G.A., Faley, R.H., DuBois, C.L.Z., & Gatton, D.S. (2004).  The influences of groups in the multi-rater feedback process.  Presented at the Nineteenth Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Chicago, IL, May.

Dissertations Chaired and Co-chaired

Meglich-Sespico, P. (2006).  Perceived Severity of Interpersonal Workplace Harassment  
   Behaviors.
Long, L. K. (2005).  The role of trainee reactions in online training.
Savoy, P. (2004).  The ability of self-directed learning competency scores to predict job
   knowledge and job performance among skilled blue-collar factory workers.

Dissertation Committees

Kenan, Serder (2007).  Police Performance Appraisal: A Comparative Study.  (Graduate Faculty
   Representative).
Thomas, Michelle (2005). Teaching as professional artistry: Personal experience stories of six early childhood preservice teachers’ reflective inquiry capacity building. (Graduate Faculty
   Representative).
Mallin, Michael (2005).  A framework of control and trust in sales governance. (Graduate
   Faculty Representative).
Wajda, Theresa (2003).  Gender Differences in Information Processing: An Application of the
   Categorization Paradigm. (Graduate Faculty Representative).

Teaching Awards

Nominee, Outstanding Professor Award, KSU Full-Time MBA Program, April 2006
Tenured and Tenure-Track College of Business Administration Faculty Award, April 2005
Outstanding Professor Award, KSU Full-Time MBA Program, May 2004
Finalist, KSU Distinguished Teaching Award, September 2003

  
Guiffrida, Al  

Al has extensive experience, and is currently also working with two PhD students, Lihua Chen and Fengkun Liu. Further he is offering the Research in Supply chain seminar, which he designed and developed, and which you saw as part of our curriculum revision. His publications are several and of good quality. Please let me know which publications you did not count.

 

Al, has several good journals, including EJOR (A), International Transactions in OR (A), and International Journal of Production Economics (A) (All references at http://www.harzing.com/download/jql.zip). Further, he has 6 additional papers in areas outside my field of expertise. He is currently out of town, but just the ones I have listed should easily qualify for F-F.

  
Patuwo, Eddie

Similar comment as above - John 

 I have 3 pubs: One is IIE Transactions, One in Decision Support Systems
and one in European J. of Operations Research. All three of them are A journals. See the references under Murali for EJOR, and IIE Transactions. DSS should already be listed as an A. Eddy has chaired many committees, including a recent one, Marvin Lan.

 

  
Murali Shanker

 

Here is the link to my complete vita
(http://www.personal.kent.edu/~mshanker/personal/vita.html), which shows
that I have not only chaired two dissertations, but I also am on several
committees. As far as the points, both DSS, and EJOR are A journals. It
may be that EJOR is listed as B, but that is incorrect. As evidence,
here is the Journal Quality paper link
http://www.harzing.com/download/jql.zip, where you will see that EJOR is
listed high on several different measures. You can also view the Eigen
Factor at
http://www.eigenfactor.com/results.php?fulljournalname1=european+journal+of+operational+research&rosvcat=%&year=2006&resultsperpage=100&issnnumber=&ordering=perarticle&grping=%
&nam=names&Submit=Search

Also, note on Page 166 of the following pdf file from the PLOS ranking article that EJOR is ranked at #6.

http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchFirstRepresentation.action?uri=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0001683.s003


Even if you don't want to accept that, my other paper on Distance
Learning, I rated it as B. Unfortunately, there is not much objective
evidence as that is a new journal. In the interest of full disclosure, I
am an associate editor in this journal.

If this does not suffice, please recommend as you see fit.

  
       

 

Additional Validation

 

I am submitting this document as per your request for  validation in a more user-friendly format. This document has the following structure.

The next section provides the external validation measures we considered. We also list the journals validated. The is not a comprehensive list, but just the minimum list of journals required to establish F-F certification for the faculty you requested. Following that, is a list of faculty, and how their points add up considering these validated journals.

External Validation


We considered external validation from several sources. Table1 lists the following columns:
  1. Name of the Journal
  2. Acronym used
  3. Journal area
  4. Composite measure of ranking derived from (http://www.harzing.com). Harzing considers 18 measures derived from different sources. The composite measure listed in Table1 is our aggregation across these 18 measures.
  5. PLOS AUC Rank. In their article Effectiveness of Journal Ranking Schemes as a Tool for Locating Information, Stringer, et al., analyze more than 2 million articles to develop a model that enables them to  quantify both the typical impact and the range of impacts of papers published in a journal. They also propose a journal-ranking scheme that maximizes the efficiency of locating high impact research. The AUC Rank is such an index.
  6. Peer Review School Rank - The LSU list provides rankings of journals in various Business disciplines. You can also compare their ranking to your list to have some face validity of their ranking scheme
  7. Business School Survey - These are the results of a survey conducted by Josephine E. Olson, Associate Dean and Professor of Business Administration, The Joseph M. Katz Graduate School of Business, of the top 25 of 27 Business Schools in the country.
  8. AIS Meta Survey - The Association of Information Systems regularly updates its journal ranking based on several sources. The summary of the different sources, and the results from them can be found here.
  9. Internal Ranking - For several years, the department of M&IS has been revising our internal list. The ranking on this column indicates how we have been considering a particular journal in our department. Please notice the consistency of our rankings to that of external validation.

Graduate Faculty Status


The following table list the faculty for whom additional information was requested. For each faculty, we provide the following:
  1. Name
  2. List of additional journals now validated by Table1. These could include journals that were either not present in the college list, or the ranking in the college list were incorrect. An example of the latter would be EJOR.
  3. Total Points - The total points as a result of this validation.
  4. Additional Publications - Many of the faculty have additional publications. But, for simplicity, I have not counted points from them when the faculty have the requisite 8 points in the previous column. This provides additional support to the capability and accomplishments of our faculty.
  5. Comments
Name Journals validated by Table1 Total Points Additional Publications Comments
Will Acar JMS (A), EJOR (A), OMEGA (B), Futures (A) 14 IJTIP, IJM and Vikalpa  
David Booth IJOR - 3 articles (A)
ESA (A)		 16 Handbook of Chemoinformatics
Current Analytical Chemistry
J. of Data Science
Analytical Biochemistry		 Many of these additional publications are well regarded in Chemistry
Alan Brandyberry EJOR - 2 Articles (A)
DATABASE - (A)		 12
Has several more articles listed in his application
Cathy Dubois IJL (B), IJEL (B), JWL (B), JABE (B) 8
 
Al Guiffrida EJOR (A), ITOR (A), IJPE (A) 12
Has 6 additional papers
Debbie Knapp ERRJ - 2 papers (A), IJIR (A) 12   Has 4 additional papers
Felix Offodile QMJ (A) 4 International Journal of Logistics and Supply Management - 2 Papers

Product Development Process to Improve Manufacturability.” Team Performance Management.

International Journal of Services and Operations Management

Case studies of healthcare providers.” Health Services Quarterly.

International Journal of Services and Standards.
Many of the journals in the previous column are new.
Eddy Patuwo IIE Transactions (A), EJOR (A) , DSS (A) 12    
Murali Shanker EJOR (A), DSS (A), IJWLTT (B) 10    

Table 1

 

Journal Ranking Based on Meta Surveys/Rankings
Journal Abbreviation Subject area Composite Rank – Harzing PLOS AUC Rank LSU Business School Survey AIS Editorial Board Internal Ranking
European Journal of Operational Research EJOR OR,MS,POM A 6 A A

A
Journal of Management Studies JMS Gen & Strat A




A
OMEGA - International Journal of Management OMEGA OR,MS,POM; A/B 15 B A/B

A-
Futures FUTURES Innovation A/B





Data Base DATABASE MIS, KM A
B
A
A
Decision Support Systems DSS MIS, KM A
A
A
A
International Journal of Production Economics IJPE OR,MS,POM; A/B
A/B B

A-
Quality Management Journal QMJ OR,MS,POM B
A


A
Expert Systems with Applications ESA MIS, KM A
A
PS


A
International Transactions in Operational Research ITOR OR,MS,POM A
A-/B
(ESSEC)


A
International Journal of Operational Research IJOR OR,MS,POM




A A
International Journal of Learning IJL Education / HR




A B
International Journal on E-Learning IJEL Education / HR

B-/C
(Monash University)

B
Journal of Workplace Learning JWL HR




B
Journal of Applied Business and Economics JABE





B
Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal ERRJ





A A
International Journal of Intercultural Relations IJIR





B B
IIE Transactions IIET OR,MS,POM A
A A

A
International Journal of Web-Based Learning and Teaching Technologies IJWLTT MS, Education




B


Resolved

Name Objection Comment Resolution
       
       
       
       
Murali Shanker Lists 3 articles but one of these is not yet listed on the journal site as in press.  It will not appear until after 2008 according to the journal.  Full-limited makes more sense.

The DSS article was accepted Nov 2007, and I am choosing to count it in this cycle rather than the next. Also, the publication date is 44, 899-908, 2008. Does this satisfy your objection?

  Satisfied with the explanation. Support F-F :Eileen
       
       
       
       

 Emammanuel

Deshenaux

  I do not see any evidence in the file about his service on dissertation committees.  John

 The "serving on committees" was not part of the original requirements. I am a little hesitant to change the rules of the game just because grad council decided to do it. As such, I am viewing it from our original perspectives.

 

Emmanuel is currently serving on a Ph.D. dissertation committee for Aiwu Zhao in the Finance department. -Eric

  If Emmanuel served on Aiwu's committee, then I am satisfied with a Full-Full designation - John

Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.

Printable version
 
Anonymous Create an account or Log in