What is your university going for, subjective rankings or “objective” citation analysis? Here comes citation analysis quick and dirty – an advanced search in google scholar. Type in a name and you get the most cited article of a person, type in a journal and you get the most cited articles of the journal. Contrary to ISI ratings, this is not confined to the journals that have been rated already but does also not give you a “fixed” rate (NB! even ISI ratings change every year).
Let’s run it for some random journals. The most cited articles of all times (all times google, that is) are
- for IJOPM: Neely et al. (1995): “Performance measurement systems design” (cited 776 times to date)
- for IJPE: Beamon (1998): “Supply chain design and analysis: models and methods (cited 712 times to date)
- for JOM: Flynn et al. (1994): “A framework for quality management research and associated measurement instrument (cited 648 times to date)
- for JBL: Mentzer et al. (2001): “Defining supply chain management” (cited 556 times)
- for IJPDLM: Spekman et al. (1998)’s “An empirical investigation into supply chain management” (cited 399 times, though notably a reprint from SCM:IJ)
- for IJLM: Lambert et al. (1996): “Developing and implementing supply chain partnerships” (252 times)
- for SCM:IJ: Cox (1999): “Power, value and supply chain management” (223)
- for JSCM: Zsidisin (2003): “Managerial perceptions of supply risk” (188)
Yes, this is a convenience sample but it is fun 
– and the technique may be helpful in identifying the articles one should definitely not miss on a particular topic.
Gyöngyi
I have written about this (in Swedish). I think that the research community has much to learn from Google and other information organsisation specialists. My idea was not only to list the citations but also to visualise them graphically since they are certain to contain cross-references as well. In short: treat an article as a web page and references as hyperlinks. Then the display of the “gravity center” in a certain research area can be visualised quite easily.
Here is my article (in Swedish): http://thirdopinion.nu/2010/03/spindelforskning/
I have also written about how the scientific publication should be more like a wiki and less like a sequiential book: http://thirdopinion.nu/2010/03/wiki-science/
/P.O.
Hyperlinks have finally been implemented by journals (at least in the html versions of articles to those that they have in the same journal database) but it would be great to extend them with your idea of visualising them as centres of gravity. Looking forward to see the bubbles
The 2009 Nordlog conference hosted by JIBS (Jönköping, Sweden) was dedicated to academic publishing. A couple of guys from their library gave a presentation on “The base for your publishing strategy: A bibliometric analysis”. Benedikte Borgström has perhaps more information (handouts?).
The ‘wiki’ form is interesting; what is certainly missing is a mechanism for an on-going dialogue. Much research refers to ‘gaps that must be filled’, which is a rather passive justification of a contribution.
Pingback: The 2010 ABS list out now. « Interorganisational — supply chain management