Final Report by the Task Force on Research
  • No tags were found...

Final Report by the Task Force on Research - zicklin : school of ...

ong>Finalong> ong>Reportong> ong>byong> ong>theong> ong>Taskong> ong>Forceong> on Research

May 21, 2003

Research ong>Taskong> ong>Forceong> Members

Ted Joyce (Chair) Economics and Finance

Lauren Block, Marketing

Donal Byard, Accounting

Ajay Das, Management

Masako Darrough, Accounting

T. K. Das, Management

Robert Ducoffe, Deans Office

Armen Hovakimian, Economics and Finance

Karl Lang, Statistics and Computer Information Systems

Debbie Kaminer, Law

Advisors To Researchong>Taskong> ong>Forceong>

Prakash Sethi, International Center for Corporate Accountability, Inc. (on


Robert Schwartz, Economics and Finance

Table of Contents



Note from ong>theong> Chair

I. Develop recommendations for evaluation and recognition 1 - 13

of research excellence to include:

a) Enhancing ong>theong> research environment

b) Nominations for CUNY and external recognition

c) New programs

d) Table 1 and Table 2

II. Recommend a process to allocate summer research support 14 - 17

a) Current Baruch Policy

b) Recommendation

c) Benchmarking oong>theong>r schools

III. Formal ranking of journal quality ong>byong> field, sole versus joint 18 -25

authorship and ong>theong> importance of publication in top journals for

promotion and tenure decisions

IV. Consider mechanisms to encourage and reward ong>theong> seeking and 26 - 28

receipt of research grants

a) Table 3

V. Mentoring junior faculty 29 - 31

VI. Flagship programs and cluster hiring at CUNY: Can Zicklin qualify? 32 - 33

a) Background

b) What we might consider?



Corporate governance

Executive Summary

The Research ong>Taskong> ong>Forceong>s takes as its starting point Zicklin’s drive to be a top 25

Business school. The goal is ambitious and if we are to achieve it, ong>theong>n ong>theong> entire Baruch

community must commit to its attainment. The recommendations that follow represent

ong>theong> changes towards ong>theong> recognition and reward for scholarship that must be made in

order to achieve top 25 status.

The distinguishing characteristic of top Business Schools is ong>theong> commitment to

excellence in research. There is a culture at top schools, a set of shared values, that

underscores ong>theong> primacy of scholarship.

But cultures must be created and constantly

reinforced. Top schools use explicit incentives to stimulate and reward scholarship. More

productive faculty are compensated more and less productive faculty are expected to

teach more. There are no free riders on ong>theong> road to excellence.

Top schools are better funded than is Baruch.

We will not enter ong>theong> elite

rankings unless we have ong>theong> resources to support summer research, course reductions,

graduate research assistantships, merit pay, research accounts, and ong>theong> oong>theong>r services

characteristic of a top research environment. We appreciate that such funding will not be

available in ong>theong> very short-term. Neverong>theong>less ong>theong> committee believes that we should be

explicit as to ong>theong> resources that will be necessary to achieve top ranking.

At ong>theong> same time ong>theong> committee recognizes that ong>theong>re are critical choices that we

can take immediately that will communicate ong>theong> new priority towards research.


of ong>theong>se decisions do not require an infusion of new funds, but are neverong>theong>less essential

in changing ong>theong> culture at Baruch. We must communicate to faculty ong>theong> significance of

scholarship, not just for promotion and tenure, but as a continual process of individual

growth that will advance ong>theong> larger mission of ong>theong> school. Standards for promotion,

tenure, sabbaticals, summer support, release time, and merit pay must be clearly

articulated and evenly applied. Those who have stopped doing research must contribute

to ong>theong> school’s goals with more teaching and additional service. In sum, we must create

ong>theong> appropriate incentives for research and overall productivity, as do all great schools, in

order to advance.

Key Recommendations

There was broad consensus among members of ong>theong> task force that ong>theong> ZSB needs

to establish a systematic and periodic evaluation of productivity based on publications in

peer-reviewed journals with ong>theong> most prestigious journals given more weight than lesser

journals. Oong>theong>r forms of scholarship such as books (not textbooks), grants, articles in

edited volumes, editorial responsibilities, seminars at oong>theong>r schools, work on external task

forces or expert government panels, and external dissertation supervision should also be

recognized. These periodic evaluations should be ong>theong> basis upon which summer support,

merit pay, teaching loads, research accounts and oong>theong>r research supports are awarded. A

more objective and transparent form of evaluation would largely eliminate ong>theong>

demoralizing “cronyism” ong>byong> which entrenched faculty on powerful committees make

decisions that are based less on merit and more on seniority. In short, a more meritorious

system for ong>theong> distribution of scarce funds to reward scholarship would create ong>theong>

incentives necessary to greatly stimulate research.

Members of ong>theong> committee also felt that summer grants for research are essential

to support ong>theong> scholarship necessary for Baruch to rise in rank. Salaries among tenured

faculty are substantially below market. Some faculty feel compelled to supplement ong>theong>ir

incomes with summer teaching or consulting instead of research. Summer support for

proposed research or continued productivity would greatly lower ong>theong> opportunity costs of


The committee also agreed that research active faculty should have to teach less

than non-active faculty. There was less agreement as to how this should be “financed”

and implemented given contractual constraints. The committee felt strongly that inactive

faculty should lose immediately ong>theong>ir three-credit reduction for research. The surplus

from this extra teaching should be used to reduce ong>theong> teaching responsibilities of active


Additional recommendations included ong>theong> establishment of specific research

accounts for travel, journal submission, data acquisition and research assistance.

Members also felt that ZSB needed a more standardized approach to ong>theong> presentation of

faculty accomplishments. Several members proposed a single website organized above

ong>theong> Department level that would inform both ong>theong> internal and external communities as

publications, awards, and presentations among faculty. There was also ong>theong> desire to see

research inactive faculty removed from hiring committees and that ong>theong> power of

executives committees to overturn ong>theong> decision of search committees should be curtailed.

To summarize, ong>theong> committee’s four key recommendations are as follows:

1. Develop a standard instrument for assessing faculty productivity that would facilitate

comparisons across disciplines and departments. The evaluation should be based on

publications in peer-review journals, books, contributions to edited volumes, grants,

editorialships, seminars, etc. but with articles published in top-tier journals receiving

ong>theong> most weight.

2. Use ong>theong> new measure of faculty productivity to award summer research support. The

criteria for awards and ong>theong> work of ong>theong> awardees should be accessible to ong>theong> entire

Baruch community so as to underscore ong>theong> importance of research and ong>theong>

transparency of ong>theong> evaluation.

3. Eliminate ong>theong> three-credit release for research for faculty who are no longer research

active. Wherever possible, use ong>theong> additional teaching ong>byong> non-researchers to reduce

teaching among ong>theong> most productive faculty. In general, research active faculty

should have priority with respect to most ong>theong> favorable teaching schedules and classes

as an additional reward for research and as a furong>theong>r indication of ong>theong> importance of

research to Baruch’s mission.

4. Create a ZSB website that posts faculty productivity in a standardized format and that

is accessible to ong>theong> internal and external communities. The website should

communicate to both communities ong>theong> value Baruch places on research and our

commitment to its growth.

Note from ong>theong> Chair

This report was created ong>byong> some of ong>theong> most active researchers on campus. There

was no disagreement among committee members that increasing research productivity as

well as ong>theong> its visibility to ong>theong> external community was a necessary condition for Baruch

to rise in ong>theong> rankings. We fully appreciate ong>theong> importance of pedagogy, ong>theong> Ph.D.

Program, and Executive Education to ong>theong> success of Baruch’s mission, but we are

convinced that research excellence is ong>theong> basic building block of top-ranked schools and

that inspired teaching and successful academic programs follow from first-rate


I have been extremely impressed with ong>theong> quality and thoughtfulness of ong>theong> ideas

expressed ong>byong> members of ong>theong> committee. There is remarkable unanimity among ong>theong>

group as to ong>theong> changes in culture that must be made if Zicklin is to move ahead. We also

have faith that ong>theong> leadership at Baruch and Zicklin are ready to make ong>theong> difficult

choices necessary to alter ong>theong> incentives for research.

The structure of ong>theong> report is a series of responses to ong>theong> list of suggestions

provided ong>byong> Dean Elliott. We offer specific recommendations as to how to alter teaching

loads, initiate summer support, evaluate productivity, promote external funding, and seek

opportunities for cluster hiring and oong>theong>r CUNY-wide initiatives.

The committee had an initial meeting to discuss process and allocate

responsibility for ong>theong> various suggestions. We decided that sub-groups of task force

members would take ong>theong> lead on various topics. The initial responses were posted on our

Blackboard website and members commented on each oong>theong>r’s postings. The full

committee met again and furong>theong>r revisions were made.

What follows is ong>theong> result of this


Although ong>theong> committee was intentionally small, all departments in ong>theong> ZSB were

represented. Needless to say, we welcome and even encourage faculty feedback. We

realize that many faculty will question and even resist ong>theong> need to change. However, ong>theong>

committee believes that we, as faculty of this college, have a responsibility to achieve

excellence not just for ong>theong> present students, alumni and our own personal development,

but for ong>theong> larger New York City community. We feel strongly that ong>theong> qualified sons

and daughters of all New Yorkers should have access to a college degree in ong>theong> public

domain that is ong>theong> equal of its private counterparts.

I. Develop recommendations for evaluation and recognition of research

excellence to include: enhancing ong>theong> research environment, nominations for

CUNY and external recognition and new programs

This task is ong>theong> broadest and many of our recommendations will overlap with more specific

recommendations regarding summer support, ranking of journals, and mentoring. Thus, we

present this task first and use ong>theong> subsequent tasks to provide specific details and

recommendations. We organized our response to ong>Taskong> I around three domains:

• how to change ong>theong> culture at Baruch so that research is recognized and ong>theong> incentives to pursue

scholarly work are in place.

• how to support research so that we narrow ong>theong> deficit in resources received ong>byong> our faculty

relative to faculty at good research universities.

• how to structure a mechanism ong>byong> which faculty are designated researchers and ong>theong>reong>byong> allowed

to teach less than faculty who are no longer active.

1. Creating a culture where research is recognized and rewarded

Research is a fundamental measure of faculty productivity. Research not only enhances

our collective knowledge, but it enhances ong>theong> reputation of ong>theong> school. Active research is

fundamental to ong>theong> recruitment of new faculty, Ph.D. candidates, as well as talented MBA and

undergraduate students. If ong>theong> Zicklin School of Business hopes to achieve top 25 status, ong>theong>n it

must create an environment in which ong>theong> pursuit of research is recognized and rewarded

specifically and not generally.

Efforts to recognize research must grapple with how to evaluate research output across

departments and even within departments. The tenure and promotion process has procedures for

such evaluation, but ong>theong> more general issue is how to evaluate ong>theong> productivity of faculty routinely.

There is, for example, a substantial falloff in research after promotion to Full Professor. Not

coincidentally ong>theong>re is little formal review of senior faculty. For example, Table 1 shows

publications per year for faculty who rose through rank from Assistant to Full Professor at Baruch.


The last three columns show ong>theong> following: publications per year from ong>theong> year hired to ong>theong> year

tenured; publications per year between tenure and promotion to Full Professor; and finally

publications per year since promotion to Full Professor. Of ong>theong> 21 faculty listed, only 6 have

published at least one peer-review article per year since promotion to Full Professor. Moreover,

ong>theong> median number of publications per year falls from 1.4 to 0.7 to 0.5 as faculty progress from

tenure to Full Professor to post Full Professor. If we examine Full Professors who were awarded

tenure at oong>theong>r institutions before coming to Baruch (Table 2), ong>theong> median number of publications

per year after promotion to Full Professor, 0.5, is identical to that of faculty whose careers have

been at Baruch, 0.5. 1

The falloff in research productivity among tenured and senior faculty has significant

consequences for ong>theong> research atmosphere in Zicklin. One result is that ong>theong> school has relied on

ong>theong> energies of new and untenured faculty to maintain research activity. However, once tenured or

promoted, ong>theong> internal rewards to scholarly work disappear. This culture must change. If Baruch

is to attain a higher level, ong>theong>n tenure and promotion must not become plateaus but milestones in

long and productive careers.

For instance, once promoted to Full Professor, ong>theong>re are few if any disincentives to

inactivity. Summer support, teaching buyouts, annual awards, merit pay increases are standard

means of acknowledging ong>theong> accomplishments of productive faculty at top research universities.

Unfortunately, resource constraints often limit ong>theong> scope of such rewards at Baruch. Moreover,

ong>theong>se inducements do not change ong>theong> ethos regarding research. Faculty engaged in research have

ong>theong> same teaching loads, schedules, and administrative responsibilities as those who are

completely inactive. This must change and ong>theong> most direct and significant way to signal this

1 These data are crude and incomplete. There is no adjustment for ong>theong> quality of ong>theong> publications or ong>theong> number of coauthors.

Moreover, ong>theong>se data represent a selected sample of ong>theong> more productive faculty at Baruch as indicated ong>byong>

ong>theong>ir promotion to Full Professor. We are presently working on data of faculty who are tenured but who have

remained at ong>theong> Associate level.


change in a concrete manner is to reduce ong>theong> teaching loads of researchers relative to those who

are inactive. Indeed, teaching loads are an unexploited “currency” that should be used to signal

to faculty not only ong>theong> importance of research, but an acknowledgement that those who are

engaged in research are working much harder than those who are not, all else constant.

a) Teaching loads

The union contract indicates that faculty are responsible for 21 contact hours a year,

ostensibly a 4-3 teaching load, four courses one semester, three anoong>theong>r. Many Zicklin faculty

teach two courses a semester, generally one larger class (60 or more) and one smaller class. We

refer to this as a “2-2” teaching load, although we recognize that it represents nine credits per

semester. To ong>theong> best of our knowledge, Zicklin faculty are awarded 3 hours release for research

regardless of wheong>theong>r ong>theong>y are engaged in any research.

The “2-2” teaching load is viewed as essential to recruitment and retention. Anecdotal

evidence from recruitment committees suggest that few if any of ong>theong> top 25 business schools teach

more than a “2-2”, and most require less. Neverong>theong>less, a “2-2” teaching load is characteristic of a

research university. It is unclear, ong>theong>refore, why faculty who are no longer engaged in research

should continue to enjoy a “2-2”.

In a system with scarce resources, teaching loads are an unused incentive. One clear means

to subsidize ong>theong> research activity of productive faculty is to increase ong>theong> teaching loads of faculty

not engaged in research. This will send an immediate and unambiguous signal to all faculty as to

ong>theong> priority associated with research. To ong>theong> faculty not engaged in research this will seem

inequitable, but ong>theong>se faculty fail to appreciate ong>theong> amount of work that goes into maintaining an

active research agenda. Aside from ong>theong> tremendous effort involved in publishing in peer review

journals, faculty who are active in research are more likely to serve as referees for peer review

journals, more likely to serve on dissertation committees both internal and external to Baruch,

more likely to supervise independent studies, more likely to review grants, books monographs,


more likely to serve as an external reviewer of tenure decisions, and more likely to teach

demanding courses that require significantly more preparation than basic undergraduate courses.

Active faculty also furong>theong>r ong>theong> reputation of Baruch. They are more likely to present ong>theong>ir

work at academic seminars and professional meetings and to engage with faculty outside CUNY

regarding research and recruitment. Each encounter presents Baruch to ong>theong> outside academic

community, which furong>theong>r enhances ong>theong> stature of ong>theong> school. At present, ong>theong>se activities are

largely unrewarded ong>byong> ong>theong> college. The ultimate irony at Baruch is that ong>theong> harder ones works and

ong>theong> more productive one becomes, ong>theong> more work and responsibility one is asked to assume.

Similarly, ong>theong> less ones does ong>theong> less one is asked to do. In sum, ong>theong> surest way to recognize

research is to value it with lighter teaching loads. But to “finance” those rewards, inactive faculty

must be asked to teach more.

The notion that more productive faculty should be rewarded is unquestioned at top

schools. 2

These schools also have more resources, a non-unionized pay scale, and more

administrative control over workloads that provide ong>theong> flexibility to compensate more productive

faculty directly. The CUNY system is less endowed and less flexible in many aspects of faculty

compensation, but ong>theong>re is nothing that precludes Chairs and Dean from altering ong>theong> basic

incentive system regarding research productivity. It would seem that ong>theong> creative accounting that

has allowed a 21 hour contact load to become, in effect, a more competitive “2-2” can be used to

better “incentivize” ong>theong> system towards more research.

The committee would like to emphasize that rewarding research does not mean that

teaching excellence is ong>theong>refore undervalued. There is a separate task force charged with ong>theong>

evaluation and recognition of teaching excellence. We would point out, however, that active

researchers often are ong>theong> most accomplished teachers, especially at ong>theong> graduate level. The

2 Top business schools include many public institutions such as ong>theong> University of Maryland, ong>theong> University of Texas at

Austin, ong>theong> University of Arizona and ong>theong> University of Indiana.


underlying principal motivating this task force and many of ong>theong> oong>theong>rs is that faculty must

contribute to ong>theong> advancement of ong>theong> school, be it in research or teaching or administration.

Research , however, is unique in ong>theong> exposure that it confers upon ong>theong> school and as a fundamental

benchmark in most ranking systems.

b) How to vary teaching loads

The three-credit release for research should not be given without tangible proof that ong>theong>

faculty is engaged in scholarly work. What constitutes research activity is discussed in ong>theong>

evaluation of research below. However, a simple and easy recommendation to implement would

be to characterize faculty as active or inactive. Those with no recognized scholarship, for

example, in ong>theong> past four years would be characterized as inactive and not granted ong>theong> three-hour

release for research.

The impact of such a simple change would be dramatic. It would make an immediate

statement that ong>theong> old culture of a “2-2” (two courses, two days a week) was over. It would also

serve as ong>theong> beginning for a more calibrated reward system that tied teaching to research. Large

sections or jumbo sections could be limited to researchers. Advanced graduate courses and

especially Ph.D. classes should also be credited differently from undergraduate courses. Faculty

at ong>theong> Graduate Center, although part of ong>theong> collective bargaining agreement, teach 2 courses per

semester and are required to supervise dissertations. Thus, ong>theong> contract recognizes ong>theong> greater

demands associated with teaching a Ph.D. class. Faculty at Baruch should be credited with more

teaching hours for Ph.D. classes.

There is more flexibility with respect to teaching than may be generally perceived.

Departments decide on ong>theong> thresholds at which single sections become “maxis”. Once ong>theong>se

thresholds are made known, inactive faculty could be assigned to courses just below ong>theong> threshold

and active faculty to sections just above. As long as faculty teaching ong>theong> same number of students


are not treated differently, ong>theong> system should not run counter to union rules. 3 We appreciate that

such an allocation will radically alter ong>theong> present system and engender considerable acrimony.

But ong>theong> present system is grossly unfair to research-active faculty. Inactive faculty free-ride on ong>theong>

“2-2” teaching load, considered essential to ong>theong> recruitment and retention of productive faculty.

Oong>theong>r perks of seniority include office space and teaching schedules. Many junior faculty

have voiced complaints about inactive senior faculty with window offices that are used two days a

week for eight months. This is clearly a sensitive area. The image of a senior faculty cleaning out

his/her office to make way for a less senior faculty is not pleasant. But offices again carry clear

signals about accomplishment. One compromise would be a review of office space every five

years. Faculty who remained inactive or whose teaching remained poor would be moved. With a

five year warning period, ong>theong>re would be few surprises. More importantly, re-evaluation of office

space would be anoong>theong>r indication that ong>theong> culture was changing.

Teaching schedules are anoong>theong>r means of rewarding faculty who are research active. There

is no reason to reward faculty with convenient schedules that allow ong>theong>m to minimize ong>theong>ir time at

Baruch. What makes office space and teaching schedules appealing is that ong>theong>re are few union

guidelines regarding each; nor does it require additional funds. Office space and teaching

schedules are like ong>theong> three-credit pass for research, ong>theong>y are “money on ong>theong> table” that can be

used immediately.

Ideally, such “sticks” should not be necessary. In a good department with a researchsupportive

culture, faculty are expected to remain active and many do. Michael Edelstein, longtime

former Chair of ong>theong> Economics Department at Queens College, CUNY told a member of ong>theong>

committee that changing ong>theong> culture to where research is expected often requires strong incentives

in ong>theong> beginning. But, as new faculty are socialized into ong>theong> more active environment, ong>theong> culture

is maintained with often little need for such explicit disincentives.

3 Based on conversations with John Duggan, Legal Counsel at Baruch.


ong>Taskong> ong>Forceong> members have had numerous discussions with faculty from oong>theong>r institutions.

These were not systematic surveys, but what is clear from every discussion is how much

compensation, broadly defined, is linked to productivity at most top schools and departments. An

example is ong>theong> distribution of raises in ong>theong> Department of Economics at ong>theong> University of

Wisconsin at Madison. The Dean allocates a fixed pool of funds for raises to each department. In

economics, ong>theong> vita of each faculty member are distributed to all faculty and each faculty member

votes on ong>theong> raises for everyone but him or herself. Everyone knows what everyone else is doing

and money is tied directly to accomplishment and contribution. Some faculty are recognized for

ong>theong>ir work with Ph.D. students or curriculum development. Oong>theong>rs are given raises in order to

retain ong>theong>m. We are not proposing such a system at Baruch. The point is to underscore ong>theong> direct

link between work and reward at top schools.

Anoong>theong>r example comes from ong>theong> Department of Economics at Vanderbilt University. The

Chair is appointed ong>byong> ong>theong> Dean. The Chair has a 50 percent vote on all tenure decisions and ong>theong>

Chair determines all salaries. Full Professors at Vanderbilt earn between $120,000 and $200,000.

The range reflects variance in productivity. Baruch has been completely sheltered from such

incentive systems. This must end. We must structure a system of rewards that is specific to our

needs and constraints. Neverong>theong>less, unless we are willing to move in ong>theong> direction of explicitly

rewarding research, ong>theong> status quo will not change.

c) Success must be publicized

Websites are an easy and modern way to market Baruch. They should also be viewed as a

way to “market” research. The ong>Taskong> ong>Forceong> suggests that each department create a standardized

website that includes curriculum vita, working papers, and course syllabi. Faculty vita should

include books, journal articles and possibly research grants received. The Dean should create a

research website that lists all awardees of summer research money, grants, recent publications,

seminars given, in short, all forms of current productivity. Faculty designated as active or Baruch


College Fund Fellows (BCF) also could be listed as well. The goal is not only to recognize

research, but also to make transparent why some faculty teach less or receive more summer

support than oong>theong>rs. It is not necessary to publicly embarrass ong>theong> inactive, but it’s essential to

praise ong>theong> active. Most importantly, ong>theong> entire school must be made aware of who is productive

and that productivity is rewarded.

The recent award dinner for productive faculty and luncheon for faculty with external

grants provide good opportunities to recognize research scholars within our institution. We

suggest more widely publicizing and supporting functions like ong>theong>se. First, ong>theong> criteria as to who

was to be honored should made clear in advance of ong>theong> reception, and publicly available to ong>theong> full

community. The event should also be attended ong>byong> ong>theong> entire school faculty where possible. The

fact that few of ong>theong> inactive faculty knew about ong>theong> event reduced ong>theong> effectiveness of ong>theong> award,

which is to praise in front of ong>theong> entire school those faculty who ong>byong> ong>theong>ir research raise ong>theong> stature

of Baruch. The Dean's office should also send an email to ong>theong> entire faculty listing ong>theong> award

recipients ong>byong> name and department.

In sum, ong>theong> research environment must change. A new culture must be created in which

those who contribute to ong>theong> advancement of Baruch as a top 25 business school are treated

differently from those who do not. The clearest and most immediate way to recognize and reward

research—an essential step in Baruch’s drive for excellence—is to change ong>theong> teaching loads of

active and inactive faculty. Such a move could be largely self-financed as ong>theong> larger teaching

loads of inactive faculty subsidized ong>theong> lesser loads of active faculty. In fact, such a system might

even result in initial savings as less adjuncts are hired. We recognize that teaching loads are not

ong>theong> only way to recognize research. Merit pay, summer support, and annual awards all contribute

to a culture in which ong>theong> contribution of scholarly research is rewarded. In ong>theong> short-term, ong>theong>re

is a limit to such inducements in an environment of scarce resources. Altering ong>theong> teaching loads


would have an immediate impact and would send ong>theong> important message both internally and

externally, that Baruch is serious about its drive for excellence.

2. How to support research

Additional resources must be devoted to support research at ong>theong> departmental and school

levels. Current resource constraints are detrimental to research productivity at Zicklin. These


- Failure of some (all ?) departments to pay submission fees.

- Inadequate support for conference travel.

- Inadequate funding for experiments.

- Inadequate RA support, both in terms of quantity and quality.

- Inadequate systems/software support (e.g., SAS programming help), and statistical help

(e.g., statistical consulting).

Within reason, faculty should not have to consider submission fees when submitting ong>theong>ir

work to journals. This is especially ong>theong> case for top-tier journals. 4

Faculty should not be

discouraged from seeking a review from a top journal because of ong>theong> substantial submission fees

that may be involved. Our practice of not paying submission fees is also at variance with practices

at all top research schools. This issue should be addressed urgently.

The current fixed $800 state conference travel allowance and funding for experiments are

inadequate. In addition, ong>theong> administrative hurdles to recoup this small travel sum are formidable

and act as a deterrent to travel.

There is inadequate research assistant (RA) support. Ph.D. students teach too much and

are thus not available to work as RAs. As a result, many RAs fail to acquire ong>theong> statistical and

programming skills essential for dissertation work.

Ph.D. students should be encouraged to

engage in more research assistantships raong>theong>r than become substitute professors. Although this


concern may be taken up ong>byong> ong>theong> Ph.D. task force, RA support is an essential component of ong>theong>

research infrastructure.

Baruch’s Library recently won well-deserved recognition for its outstanding service.

However, ong>theong> library’s collection of journals still falls short of what is available at oong>theong>r first-rate

schools. Many important journals are only available electronically. This would not be a

limitation, but for ong>theong> lag in availability. It often takes two, sometimes three years before issues

become available in common electronic data bases. One recommendation would be for

departments to prioritize a list of additional journals that would be important to have in real time.

More long term, if we are to elevate ong>theong> stature of this school, ong>theong>n we need to replicate at

Zicklin ong>theong> sorts of dedicated research-supporting facilities found at ong>theong> majority of top-tier

schools. These include: statistical consulting help, statistical programming help, dedicated

facilities and support staff for conducting experiments. The need is especially acute given ong>theong>

small number of Ph.D. candidates and ong>theong> limited pool of RAs.

In ong>theong> shorter term, efforts should be made to optimize ong>theong> allocation of resources with a

view to maximizing research output. For example, junior faculty should be neiong>theong>r assigned nor

expected to do substantial service. There should be no mis-communication to junior faculty that

ong>theong>ir primary role is to produce scholarly work. Research active senior faculty also should have

limited service obligations. In addition, limited conference travel funds should be devoted to

research active faculty.

As an immediate issue, administrative mechanisms and procedures must be designed to

foster and support faculty research productivity. For example, inflexibility within teaching

schedules that seem to prevent a one-semester teaching load, or team teaching where a semester is

split into two halves, should be removed.

4 Submission fees at ong>theong> Journal of Financial Economics, a top finance journal, are $450.00.


Research productivity should be recognized and rewarded internally, ideally at ong>theong>

departmental, college, school and university levels. Although awards are part of changing ong>theong>

culture at Baruch, ong>theong>y also provide meaningful incentives. One suggestion would be to formally

recognize faculty who are invited to give seminars and workshops at top research universities.

(e.g. Michigan, Chicago, Indiana, North Carolina, etc). Anoong>theong>r suggestion would be to recognize

and reward ong>theong> senior faculty members who help junior faculty members publish – as a result of

ong>theong> mentoring process. Junior faculty and Ph.D. students could be surveyed annually.

Faculty should be awarded annual research accounts that could be used for travel, data

acquisition, journal submission, or RA support, ong>theong> amount of ong>theong> award commensurate with

productivity. This is a simple and direct means of letting each active faculty manage ong>theong>ir scarce

resources most efficiently. A good starting range would be between $3,000 and $6,000 dollars

annually commensurate with productivity and subject to periodic review.

ong>Finalong>ly, we need more Endowed Chairs to help attract accomplished and active

researchers. Chairs could also be set aside for internal candidates as a reward for outstanding

achievement. The internal Chairs could be rotated so to promote and reward numerous


In sum, first dedicated resources should be increased to encourage and support research.

Second, to ong>theong> extent that ong>theong> resources are limited, a larger amount should be allocated to ong>theong>

research-active faculty.

3. How to evaluate and designate research-active from research-inactive faculty

In order to promote high-quality research activities, ong>theong> contribution of “research active”

faculty members should be recognized via lower teaching loads, merit pay, summer research

support, research travel support, research excellence awards, etc.

To facilitate ong>theong>se various forms of recognition, each faculty member’s research output

will be evaluated on an annual basis using a single evaluation process. The outcome of this


evaluation process will be used to determine ong>theong> type and ong>theong> “quantity” of recognition for each

faculty member. The same process can be used in tenure and promotion decisions.

1. The evaluation process:

• must be consistent with ong>theong> research goals of ong>theong> school – high quality research;

• should be widely publicized within departments far in advance of annual reviews;

• should focus on long-term productivity.

2. Research output considered in ong>theong> evaluation process should include:

• articles in high-quality refereed academic journals;

• research monographs and books (non-textbook);

• major external research grant awards;

• editorial positions at high-quality refereed academic journals.

3. Given that ong>theong> gestation period for research can be quite lengthy in some fields and for some

projects, faculty members should be evaluated based on articles and books published and

grants received within ong>theong> last five years.

4. The quality of research is of paramount importance. In order to promote “high-quality”


• Monographs and research grant awards will be evaluated on an individual basis.

• Each department will develop a list that categorizes journals into A / A- / B publications.

These lists will be submitted to and approved ong>byong> ong>theong> Dean so that equity among departments

can be maintained.

• Oong>theong>r information indicating ong>theong> recognition of ong>theong> importance and ong>theong> contribution of ong>theong>

research within ong>theong> field (e.g., citation counts, “best paper” awards, presentations at major

conferences and universities, etc.) should also be submitted.


5. The departments will develop recommendations on recognition of individual faculty members

and forward ong>theong>se along with ong>theong> evaluation materials to ong>theong> Dean, who in turn will allocate

summer support, lower teaching loads, etc.

6. The Dean can use different thresholds for different types of recognition of research active

faculty. These thresholds may change over time. For example, as a starting point, some form

of “research active” recognition can be given to all faculty with at least some publications in

ong>theong> last five years.

7. Oong>theong>r forms of productive activity should also be recognized. Some faculty have editorial

responsibilities that can be quite demanding, even if not at A journals. More established

faculty are often asked to serve as external reviewers on grants, books and monographs.

Oong>theong>r faculty serve on prestigious governmental or not-for-profit task forces, commissions and

advisory boards. They also serve as external reviewers on dissertations at oong>theong>r Universities.

These roles can be quite consuming and rarely result in publications.

But ong>theong>y certainly

increase Baruch’s visibility.


II. Recommend a process to allocate summer research support

Current Baruch Policy

1.The School may offer 2/9ths (22 %) of ong>theong> faculty member's tax levy

base salary to encourage and support ong>theong> beginning of a high quality

research record.

2. This summer compensation will be available until ong>theong> granting of tenure,

subject to ong>theong> following conditions:

a) Summer compensation is guaranteed for ong>theong> first three summers, unless

ong>theong> faculty member is not re-appointed to ong>theong> next year.

b) After ong>theong> third summer, and every summer ong>theong>reafter, ong>theong> Dean and

respective Department Chair will undertake a review to determine if

summer compensation will continue.

Criteria for this review will be:

1) The faculty member must be making reasonable progress toward a

high quality research record.

2) All oong>theong>r aspects of ong>theong> faculty member's record, including quality of

teaching and service, must warrant re-appointment.

3) After tenure is granted, it is ong>theong> intention of ong>theong> School to have a program

in place, available to all faculty, that will recognize research productivity

ong>byong> summer compensation.


1.The School offer 2/9ths (22 %) of ong>theong> faculty member's tax levy base salary to encourage ong>theong>

beginning of a high quality research record and to sustain active research programs. Grants are

restricted to faculty in tenure track positions, but are available for tenured and non-tenured faculty


2. This summer compensation will be awarded subject to ong>theong> following conditions:

a) Summer compensation is guaranteed for ong>theong> first three summers, unless

ong>theong> faculty member is not re-appointed to ong>theong> next year.

b) After ong>theong> third summer, and every summer ong>theong>reafter, faculty members are invited to apply for a

competitive research grant. Competitive research grants are available for all tenure track faculty

including Assistant Professors, non-tenured Associate Professors, tenured Associate Professors

and Full Professors. Non-tenure track faculty, faculty with terminal contracts and visitors are not

eligible for ong>theong>se grants. Grants will be awarded based on ong>theong> following criteria:


1. Competitive research grants will be awarded based on a proposal as well as ong>theong>

investigator’s past research performance. Priority will be given to faculty with recent

high research productivity.

2. Applicants for a competitive research grant will submit:

a. A brief non-technical description of ong>theong> project, indicating precisely what is

being investigated. This description is limited to a maximum of 200 words.

b. A current vita should be submitted with ong>theong> research proposal.

3. Research proposals will be reviewed ong>byong> a special committee appointed to review

summer proposals. The Committee will recommend to ong>theong> Dean an award for each

faculty member subject to ong>theong> funds available. It is expected that all research active

faculty members applying for summer support will be granted some amount of funding

up to a maximum of 2/9.

Benchmarking oong>theong>r schools

We contacted schools indicated ong>byong> Dean’s office to be peer and aspirant institutions. Four peer

schools and five aspirant schools responded to our request. It is important to note that our peer

institutions have no summer support, or formal policy of providing summer support beyond ong>theong>

new-hire years. Our aspirant schools all have a formal process through which faculty apply for a

competitive grant, and receive some money. The conclusion is clear – if we want to rise in ong>theong>

ranks, and be a research productive institution, we must find ong>theong> funds to support faculty summer

research programs.

Peer schools (Univ. of Central Florida, Univ. of South Carolina, UI at Chicago, Georgia State


1. No formal process after new-hire guaranteed summer support runs out. Additional

summer support is reviewed on an ad-hoc basis ong>byong> Dept. Chair depending on available


2. Reducing guaranteed summer support to two years. Amount varies from1/9 to 2/9

depending on what ong>theong>y need to do to get ong>theong> recruit to come. No support after this.

3. Committee reviews application for a competitive grant, which is ong>theong>n prioritized

according to rank and productivity.

Aspirant schools (UF Gainesville, Univ. of Maryland, UT Austin, Univ. of Michigan at Ann

Arbor, University of Arizona):

1. Who is eligible:

a. All junior and research active faculty receive 2/9.

b. Guaranteed 20% of salary for three years for junior faculty. This is being

extended to 5-6 years. Remaining faculty are all eligible for competitive


c. In addition to junior faculty, many senior faculty get guaranteed support of


2. Process for competitive grants:

a. Proposals reviewed ong>byong> committee at all schools.

b. Committee made up of one faculty member from each department.

c. Application and vita due 1) early January - decisions made mid March or 2)

April - decisions made May/June.


3. How much:

a. Dean makes approximately $350,000 available. This is allocated to

individual faculty ong>byong> committee.

b. Everyone gets some money – top award is $20,000.

c. Everyone gets 2/9.


Due Date:


April of previous year

Original + 1 copy to Associate Dean's office


Summer, 200X

Zicklin School of Business

Baruch College

Name of Principal Investigator

Signature of Principal Investigator

Signature of Department Chair

Title of Project

1. Provide a brief non-technical description of ong>theong> project, indicating precisely what is being

investigated. PLEASE limit ong>theong> length of this description to 200 or fewer words.

2. Provide a statement as to expected outside activities during summer.

3. Attach a current vita.


III. Formal Ranking of Journal Quality ong>byong> Field, Sole Versus Joint

Authorship, and ong>theong> Importance of Publication in Top Journals for Promotion

and Tenure Decisions

A. Formal Ranking of Journal Quality ong>byong> Field

Top-tier journal publications are ong>theong> most important measure for research excellence and

need to receive ong>theong> highest recognition when evaluating research output. But we also acknowledge

that quality research papers may be published in a wide range of academic journals, not just in a

few top journals (“A” journals). However, it is difficult to objectively verify ong>theong> quality of a

research paper in a non-familiar area. In order to provide somewhat objective guidelines to assess

ong>theong> quality of research publications, we suggest ong>theong> creation of a formal journal ranking system,

similar to approaches taken in oong>theong>r research-oriented business schools. While no list can be

perfect in terms of both completeness and accuracy, clearly defined and communicated lists can be

an important and effective means to indicate how research output will be evaluated. This is also

useful when recruiting new faculty, providing ong>theong> departments with a tool to increase fit between

departmental needs and ong>theong> applicant’s interests and aspirations. A journal ranking may thus help

both junior and senior faculty in focusing ong>theong>ir research and also understanding research

expectations. But oong>theong>r criteria that go beyond counting publications of specific types should also

be applied when evaluating ong>theong> research output of a candidate 5 . The purpose of ong>theong> ranking is to

identify ong>theong> best journals in ong>theong> relevant fields, to separate ong>theong> good from ong>theong> not so good, and to

indicate ong>theong> departments’ particular research focus. Typically, journal rankings distinguish

between “Excellent” (A level), “Very Good” (A- level), “Good” (B+ level), “Fair” (B level), and

oong>theong>r publications of lesser quality. Before developing specific guidelines, we should establish a

commonly agreed understanding of ong>theong> meaning of ong>theong> different quality levels.

It is assumed that an “Excellent” journal (or “A” journal) will only publish high quality

papers that have gone through an extremely rigorous process that can often be quite lengthy,

though some top journals do adhere strictly to published turnaround times that can be as fast as

5 Oong>theong>r research-related activities that should be recognized include ong>theong> publication of books and monographs,

publication in refereed research conference proceedings, serving on editorial boards, serving on organization and

program committees of well-regarded conferences, reviewing research papers, reviewing book proposals, reviewing

external grant proposals, reviewing for external tenure and promotions cases, reviewing appointments to senior

positions in oong>theong>r universities, and so on.


three months. “Excellent” journals are usually well-established journals that have earned and

maintained ong>theong>ir reputation over long periods of time. They have become flagship journals in ong>theong>ir

fields and will publish papers from a variety of sub-fields, using a variety of research

methodologies or research approaches. “Excellent” journals define ong>theong> mainstream of a research


A “Very Good” journal (or “A-“ journal) will employ a review process that is still very

rigorous, but sometimes not quite as demanding or time-consuming as in an “Excellent” journal.

Most papers published in “Very Good” journals are high quality research, too. Newer journals

that have been rising in reputation are quite often labeled as “A-” (“Very Good”). Top niche

journals that specialize in a specific sub-area are frequently also labeled “A-“ or “Very Good”, yet

ong>theong>ir quality standards and reputation in ong>theong>ir specific research community might be comparable to

mainstream “Excellent” journals. For researchers in specific sub-areas, publishing in such top

specialty journals may be as important as publishing in standard “Excellent” journals.

“Good” journals (or “B+” journals) will still employ rigorous reviewing but will tend to

publish papers of somewhat uneven or sometimes controversial quality, although low quality

papers will be rare. Some “Good” journals will specialize in a focus area or a newly emerging

research area and generally publish high quality work. While not necessarily ong>theong> case, “Good”

journals tend to have a faster review process than top tier journals, and many authors use ong>theong>m in

order to get new, original research published faster than it would be possible if ong>theong>y submitted ong>theong>

same work to an “Excellent” journal.

“Fair” journals (or “B” journals) also follow a formal peer reviewing process, but are

typically less rigorous than top journals. This generally allows ong>theong>m to publish research faster

than more rigorously refereed journals. Some very interesting new work of high quality can be

found ong>theong>re, but in general ong>theong> quality is uneven. Most publications will represent marginal

research contributions.

Some journal rankings include “B-“ or “C” level journals. But those journals rarely

publish high quality academic research and can be ignored for our purpose.

Aside from periodical journals, refereed quality research publications are also found in

monographs, book chapters, conference proceedings, and working paper series. While ong>theong>se

publications are not really ranked, it should be noted that certain annual conference proceedings


have attained a status similar to quality journal publications, at least in some disciplines.

Electronic distribution of research papers via faculty or departmental web sites has recently

become an increasingly important method of communicating both already published research and

working papers that are not yet published elsewhere. Hence, ong>theong> provision of an easy to access

and navigate web site that hosts ong>theong> faculty’s research output has become a requisite channel for

disseminating research produced at top universities. It is highly recommended that ong>theong> ZSB

creates such a web site.

The journal ranking system to be proposed, wheong>theong>r it is in ong>theong> form of an A list 6 , an A/A-

7 list, an A/A-/B+ 8 list, or a more comprehensive and differentiated list 9 , will have to be done ong>byong>

research discipline. That is, we cannot use one common list for ong>theong> entire Zicklin School. There

will have to be a different list for each department or research discipline. We recommend adopting

a “Excellent / Very Good / Good” list (or in oong>theong>r words, A/A-/B+ list), which means that each

department will create a separate journal list for each of ong>theong> independent research disciplines it

represents, identifying ong>theong> “Excellent” journals, ong>theong> “Very Good” journals, and ong>theong> “Good”

journals it considers relevant for ong>theong>ir research programs.

At least, ong>theong>re needs to be a separate journal ranking list for ong>theong> following thirteen areas

that are currently organized in six departments:


Research Discipline

Accountancy • Accounting

Economics & Finance • Economics

• Finance

Law • Law

Management • Org. Behavior & HR Mgmt

• Production & Operations Mgmt

• SME & Entrepreneurship

• Strategic Management

Marketing • International Business

• Marketing

Statistics & Comp. Inf. Systems • Computer Information Systems

• Operations Research

• Statistics

6 This approach is used, for example, ong>byong> ong>theong> University of Texas at Austin.

7 This approach is used, for example, ong>theong> Hong Kong University of Science & Technology.

8 for example, Georgia State University

9 for example, University of Michigan


Furong>theong>rmore, research specialization has increased to a degree where most disciplines have now

well established specialty areas with ong>theong>ir own research approaches and ong>theong>ir own top journals and

conferences. For example, Marketing might declare specialty areas in Quantitative Marketing,

Behavioral Marketing, Advertising, and New Products & Innovation. Hence, ranking list designs

could be considered that include top journals of particular specialty areas. For example, such a list

might contain a ranking of journals in ong>theong> general field but in addition also identify a number of

recognized sub-areas with ong>theong>ir own top journals. However, in order to avoid too much

fragmentation it is important not to create too many sub-lists or sub-areas.

Recognizing ong>theong> increased importance of teaching quality in competitive evaluations of business

programs, some schools have recently introduced a separate journal quality list for ong>theong> scholarship

of teaching 10 which complements ong>theong> research journal list. Such a list identifies ong>theong> best journals

that focus on publishing papers concerning teaching and learning in ong>theong> fields of business and

management fields. This would include teaching cases, pedagogical papers, studies on

educational technology and instruction methods. Listed journals must adhere to rigorous editorial

policies in terms of refereeing process and acceptance rates. The creation of a teaching

scholarship list should be considered.

It seems evident that ong>theong> departments will have to provide ong>theong> main input for creating ong>theong>

specific rankings. It is suggested to have ong>theong> departments – represented ong>byong> senior faculty

committees or ong>theong> standing executive committees – come up with ong>theong> ranking lists covering ong>theong>ir

own disciplines. It is also recommended that ong>theong> departmental be approved ong>byong> ong>theong> Dean before

ong>theong>y go into effect. Recognizing that academic disciplines and research have become more

dynamic and that changes will affect journal standards and journal rankings, it is also suggested

that ong>theong> departments will be responsible for maintaining ong>theong> ranking lists and responsible for

proposing changes when needed, again subject to School approval. Revisions of ong>theong> lists may be

considered on a regular or on an irregular basis whenever ong>theong> need for a change arises. We

suggest to review and update ong>theong> lists every three years.

In most fields, it is fairly clear what ong>theong> top two or three journals are, but less so what ong>theong>

top ten journals might be. Published journal rankings, like any kind of ranking, will differ

significantly. Departments need to decide which journal list best reflects its research agenda.

Aside from acknowledging journal quality, ong>theong> journals selected for ong>theong> list should be chosen in

10 for example, Georgia State University


accordance with ong>theong> specific research ong>theong>mes that are encouraged and supported ong>byong> a department,

and thus ong>theong> list should also facilitate and communicate ong>theong> particular reputation of ong>theong> department

in ong>theong> field. The number of journals in each of ong>theong> above defined quality levels will vary across

Schools, but usually ong>theong>re will be fewer journals deemed “Excellent” than “Very Good”, and

fewer “Very Good” than “Good”, and so on. It needs to be ensured that ong>theong> standards of ong>theong>

various lists are comparable.

Citation counts should be kept as additional information for ong>theong> evaluation of research

output. Where possible, journal impact factor and ong>theong> citation half-life factor should be included

as additional information in ong>theong> journal lists. For most journals both factors are available and

published annually in ong>theong> Social Science Citation Index. The journal impact factor measures how

often, on average, a typical article in a particular journal is cited ong>byong> oong>theong>r papers. Citation half-life

is a measure that indicates how long it takes for ong>theong> citation index of an average article in a

particular journal to drop to fifty percent of its original value. Both measures are necessary to

judge ong>theong> academic quality of a journal. A journal’s impact factor will be high for top journals but

also for widely read magazines and trade publications. On ong>theong> oong>theong>r hand, ong>theong> impact of ong>theong>

magazines and trade publications usually doesn’t last very long, and this is precisely what ong>theong>

citation half-life factor accounts for. A paper in a top journal will typically be cited frequently

soon after its publication, but contrary to a magazine article, will still get a significant number of

citations many years later. Digital download counts – especially downloads from online journal

databases (e.g., Social Science Research Network) - have emerged as a new measure to evaluate

ong>theong> impact of completed research work and should be considered when evaluating research output.

Top 20 business schools typically have fairly short lists of “A” journals, perhaps five or

less for each discipline. Oong>theong>r Schools in ong>theong> higher rankings will often have “A” lists comprising

somewhere from eight to twelve “A” and “A-” journals per research area, but may not explicitly

differentiate between “A” and “A-” journals on ong>theong> list. Some Schools will define “B” lists as

well. It is not advised to stipulate specific numbers that will restrict ong>theong> departments in ong>theong>ir

choice of how many “Excellent” (or “A”) journals ong>theong>y can declare in ong>theong>ir lists. However, it

should be understood and agreed that ong>theong> lists presented ong>byong> ong>theong> departments adhere to comparable

standards. This is why ong>theong> School should reserve an approval right for departmental rankings.

It should be recognized that business research has become increasingly interdisciplinary

and cross-functional. In many cases this means that authors need to choose ong>theong>ir target journal


from a set of journals that will increasingly include journals crossing traditional disciplinary

boundaries. While departments may encourage authors to publish at least some of ong>theong>ir work in

mainstream journals of ong>theong>ir field, ong>theong>y should not be discouraged from publishing in highly

regarded journals that traditionally cater to neighboring disciplines, especially if those are business

journals. It is suggested that ong>theong> rankings will not list ong>theong> same journal more than once. For

example, if Management Science is listed as “Excellent” in ong>theong> Operations Research discipline it

should not also be listed in anoong>theong>r area as, for example, Management or Marketing. However, in

tenure and promotion decisions, a publication in Management Science should ong>theong>n be regarded as

an “Excellent” paper no matter in which department ong>theong> applicant is located.

Some provisions will need to be considered to serve exceptional needs of departments

whose research traditions deviate somewhat from ong>theong> mainstream business disciplines. In

particular, research in Law, Computer Information Systems (CIS), and Statistics has traditionally

been close to research traditions outside ong>theong> business schools. For example, Law Reviews for Law,

Engineering and Science journals for CIS (especially Computer Science) and Statistics (especially

Maong>theong>matics). Researchers in ong>theong>se disciplines should be encouraged to publish in businessoriented

journals, but work published in quality journals of ong>theong>ir traditional reference disciplines

also should be appropriately recognized.

B. Importance of Publication in Top Journals for Promotion and Tenure Decisions

Implementing a journal ranking system and an authorship policy serves ong>theong> purpose of

increasing ong>theong> transparency of tenure and promotion decisions. Publications in “Excellent”

journals should receive ong>theong> highest recognition when it comes to promotion and tenure decisions.

Quality should be more important than quantity. Without any “Excellent” or “Very Good”

publications, tenure or promotion should only be granted in exceptional circumstances. In oong>theong>r

words, a certain number of “Excellent” journal publications should be expected, but it should be

recognized that publication in ong>theong> very top journals (“Excellent”, or “A”) can be extremely

difficult for various reasons that may depend more on ong>theong> nature raong>theong>r than quality of ong>theong>

research. Certain top journals, for example, will rarely publish papers from authors who are

affiliated with schools outside ong>theong> top 20. And given ong>theong> sometimes extremely long turnaround

times of “Excellent” journals, and Baruch’s extremely short tenure clock, it can be quite risky for

junior faculty to focus on publications in journals with “Excellent” status only. Demonstration of

a certain level of depth in ong>theong> applicant’s research should also be required for a positive decision.


That is, ong>theong> applicant should have a number of quality publications that may include papers in ong>theong>

“B” range journals (that is, “Very Good” and “Good”). The specific numbers expected may again

vary across departments, and will presumably increase over time as Zicklin increases in ong>theong>

rankings. As a purely illustrative example, consider a department that may expect a minimum of 5

– 8 quality journal publications for tenure. The three cases in ong>theong> following table could be

considered reasonably comparable, fulfilling ong>theong> requirement of showing both quality and depth.

Excellent Very Good Good Fair # Papers

Case 1 1 0 3 2 6

Case 2 0 2 2 4 8

Case 3 0 3 4 3 10

C. Sole Versus Joint Authorship

It is generally recognized that scholarship differs ong>byong> discipline with regard to sole versus

multiple authors. In some disciplines sole-authored articles are ong>theong> norm (e.g. in Law), while in

oong>theong>r areas sole-authored articles are becoming rare. In general, business research is getting more

multidisciplinary, which sets a trend towards more co-authored papers 11 . Departments may have

different policies regarding wheong>theong>r sole-authored articles are required for tenure and/or


Junior faculty in all departments should be required to demonstrate that ong>theong>y are capable of

doing independent research. For example, junior faculty should not publish only in collaboration

with ong>theong>ir advisor, or with ong>theong> same senior faculty members. Sole-authored articles are, of course,

one way for a faculty member to demonstrate his or her ability to do independent research. It

should also be recognized that sole-authored articles demonstrate a significant amount of work ong>byong>

ong>theong> author, and this should be a factor when determining ong>theong> quantity of scholarship required for

11 For ong>theong> particular field of Computer Information System, for example, ong>theong> trend towards multiple authorship has

been shown in a recent, rigorous research study [Ken Peffers and Wendy Hui, “Collaboration and Author Order:

Changing Patterns in IS Research,” Communications of ong>theong> Association for Information Systems, Vol.11, 166-190,



tenure and promotion. Additionally, in some disciplines it is significantly more difficult to get

conceptual articles published.

In articles with multiple authors, faculty who apply for tenure or promotion should be

required to describe ong>theong>ir contribution to those articles in ong>theong> research statement that candidates are

required to submit as part of ong>theong>ir application package. A descriptive account of ong>theong> candidate’s

contribution to co-authored articles, along with ong>theong> contribution percentages or numerical weights

should be included in this statement. While this self-evaluation of ong>theong>ir own contributions will, of

course, be imperfect, it is at least an indication of ong>theong> individual’s contribution.


IV. Consider mechanisms to encourage and reward ong>theong> seeking and receipt of

research grants

External grants are not a major source of research funds in many business schools. The

spreadsheet below shows research awards for selected business schools in 2001. As shown in ong>theong>

last column of ong>theong> top panel in Table 3, research awards to business schools are an insignificant

proportion of total research awards. Neverong>theong>less, even within ong>theong> business schools listed, Baruch

is ranked ong>theong> lowest in ong>theong> US News Rankings, and also has ong>theong> fewest research dollars per fulltime

faculty (We thank Alan Evelyn, Director of Sponsored Research at Baruch for ong>theong>se data).

Moreover, ong>theong> number of grants under Baruch include ong>theong> “internal” PSC-CUNY grants. It is

unclear wheong>theong>r oong>theong>r schools include similar internal awards.

Baruch, however, has a number of degrees and programs in which funding sources are

more accessible. Health care administration is one area and small business and entrepreneurship

anoong>theong>r. At a recent faculty meeting, Baruch’s alumni offered to help faculty seek funding for

research projects. Clearly such offers should be explored more fully.

The benefits from external awards are considerable. First ong>theong>re is external recognition

from outside funding agencies. Second, most funded work requires research assistance, which in

turn provides an invaluable opportunity for students. For example, Ted Joyce from ong>theong>

Department of Economics and Finance was recently awarded a grant from ong>theong> Robert Wood

Johnson foundation to study ong>theong> effect of ong>theong> State Children’s Health Insurance Program on

immunization rates in ong>theong> U.S. He hired a recent graduate of Baruch’s Undergraduate Honors

program as a research assistant. Dr. Joyce had supervised her honor ong>theong>sis, which had won ong>theong>

annual prize for ong>theong> best ong>theong>sis. The student has developed into an outstanding research assistant.

She has become an expert programmer in Stata and will begin ong>theong> Ph.D. Program in Economics at


ong>theong> Graduate Center as a Galece Fellow in ong>theong> Fall of 2003 having turned down opportunities at

Boston University and Rutgers.

Consideration should be given to expanding support for external grants in ong>theong>se areas.

Most grant research is collaborative and thus building small concentrations of faculty in ong>theong>se

areas could create ong>theong> critical mass necessary to obtain significant funding. Course release for

grants awarded would be anoong>theong>r obvious incentive.

In sum, external grants are not a significant source of external funds in most business

schools. Neverong>theong>less, Baruch has a number of “fundable” areas that could be better nurtured. In

a resource-starved system, external grants represent an important source of research resources.


V. Mentoring Junior Faculty

Mentoring junior faculty so that ong>theong>y can become excellent researchers and teachers is an

important activity for ong>theong> more seasoned faculty in a department. There are many areas in which

a junior faculty member (“mentee”) can benefit from ong>theong> guidance from a more experienced

colleague (“mentor”). The mentor could be an advisor, an advocate, and a protector. The

mentor could provide valuable guidance to ong>theong> mentee so that ong>theong> latter can better manage ong>theong>

conflicting demands in one’s research agenda, career, teaching, service, etc. Furong>theong>rmore, such a

relationship could be beneficial to ong>theong> more senior faculty member. The junior faculty member

is familiar with ong>theong> most up-to-date innovations in ong>theong> field, and as a result, can bring fresh ideas

that could potentially lead to joint work between ong>theong> two colleagues. The purpose of any

mentoring program should be, however, first and foremost, to provide a support system so that

ong>theong> junior faculty member can be more productive. A synergistic relationship might emerge as a


Any department has, to some extent, an informal mentoring relationship between senior faculty

members and junior faculty, without any formal assignment of mentors to mentees. This

informal approach has ong>theong> advantage that multiple senior faculty members are potentially

available to a junior faculty member for advice and guidance (e.g. for reading ong>theong>ir papers).

Such an informal approach, however, relies upon ong>theong> initiative of a junior faculty member to

make contact with multiple senior colleagues, and on ong>theong> active co-operation of all senior faculty

members in mentoring ong>theong>ir junior colleagues. Without such active cooperation from all or most

of ong>theong> senior faculty members, such an approach could result in only a small number of willing

senior faculty members actively helping ong>theong> junior faculty within a department.

To encourage and ensure co-operation, junior and senior faculty members could be matched to

create a formal mentoring process. Matching a junior faculty member with an appropriate

seasoned colleague might not always be straightforward, however. One has to consider various

factors such as ong>theong> areas of specialization, research interests, ong>theong> personalities, ong>theong> experience,

etc. Thus, a certain amount of flexibility is required in matching and, if necessary, re-matching



There appear to be two schools of thought with respect to ong>theong> exact nature of ong>theong> relationship

between ong>theong> mentor and mentee in such formal mentoring programs. One school of thought

proposes that ong>theong> mentoring relationship should be formalized in that ong>theong> mentor takes

responsibility for guiding ong>theong> mentee and furong>theong>rmore evaluates ong>theong> performance of ong>theong> mentee

over time. The advantage of such a system is twofold: (1) mentoring is more likely to take place,

since ong>theong> responsibility for ong>theong> mentor is formalized; and (2) ong>theong> burden on ong>theong> department chair

in terms of conducting annual reviews of junior faculty is reduced. On ong>theong> oong>theong>r hand, such a

system could give an inordinate amount of power to ong>theong> mentor over ong>theong> mentee. The mentee

may feel that he/she would not be able to work on topics of his/her choice, or with oong>theong>r senior

colleagues. Furong>theong>rmore, ong>theong> oong>theong>r senior colleagues might feel unwelcome to become involved

with a junior faculty member who is not ong>theong>ir mentee. ong>Finalong>ly, while such an approach does

reduce ong>theong> burden on department chairs when conducting annual reviews, it may introduce

inconsistency in ong>theong> annual reviews across junior faculty members.

Anoong>theong>r school of thought advocates a more informal relationship. In such a case, ong>theong> mentor

would help, guide, and advise, but would not be held responsible for evaluating ong>theong> performance

of ong>theong> mentee. Two advantages of this system are its flexibility and its cost. An optimal

relationship can emerge over time between ong>theong> two parties, ong>theong> form of which may differ among

different pairs.

The Committee is not recommending a particular mentoring format at this time. Neverong>theong>less,

ong>theong> basic principle is that mentoring is a valuable way to encourage and reward faculty who

assume that responsibility and this needs to be developed.

The following are some of ong>theong> proposed activities:

• Help new colleagues to become comfortable with Baruch College and New York City.

• Informally discuss ong>theong> standards – ways to satisfy expectations regarding teaching,

research, and service at Zicklin.

• Assist with respect to needs in ong>theong> office, classroom, etc.

• Assist with encouragement and ideas, if necessary and appropriate, concerning:

a. Teaching,


. Scholarship and publication.

Most importantly, ong>theong> mentor should try to help ong>theong> mentee with his/her research effort

and protect ong>theong> mentee from spending an “unnecessary” amount of time on teaching and service.

Such an effort could include:

• Reading working papers and making comments,

• Discussing and sharing knowledge regarding current topical research areas within ong>theong>


• Evaluating early research ideas and giving early feedback,

• Engaging in joint work,

• Helping with ong>theong> publication process for journals (determining an appropriate publication

outlet, reading referees’ comments, deciding how to respond to referees’ criticisms, etc),

• Encouraging joint work with oong>theong>rs,

• Protecting a mentee from any abusive service or administrative responsibilities.

If ong>theong> mentor were to involve him/herself with ong>theong> performance evaluation of ong>theong> mentee, a brief

report would be written on an annual basis.

While a synergistic mentor-mentee relationship would pose little or no cost to ong>theong> mentor,

such an outcome is not guaranteed. A senior faculty member might have to expend an

extraordinary effort on his/her mentee or on more than one junior faculty member. To ong>theong> extent

that a research-active faculty member is more useful to ong>theong> junior faculty, ong>theong> distribution of

effort cannot be even among ong>theong> senior faculty. Thus, some mechanism for recognition is

warranted. At present, ong>theong> committee is not aware any mechanism exists in any department in


At minimum, each chair of ong>theong> department should ask ong>theong> junior faculty and Ph.D. students as to

which faculty members are active in helping ong>theong> junior faculty, especially with respect to ong>theong>ir

research agendas. A small award to recognize ong>theong> contribution of ong>theong> “best mentor” might boost

ong>theong> moral of ong>theong> senior faculty. Anoong>theong>r possibility is to award some teaching credits for each

mentor and, possibly, give extra teaching credit for recognized “best mentors.”


VI. Flagship Programs and Cluster Hiring at CUNY: Can Zicklin Qualify?


In September 1999, CUNY initiated strategy to support creation of “flagship environments” to

achieve national prominence in targeted undergraduate arts and science programs and

professional and graduate programs.

Key aspects of initiative include:

• “Cluster hiring” of faculty in specific programmatic areas within 3-5 year period;

• Areas selected based on “projected and emerging strategic importance to society and ong>theong>

economy, ong>theong>ir relation to CUNY strengths, ong>theong>ir relevance to educational needs, and

ong>theong>ir intellectual breadth and depth;”

• Each area selected is given a package of resources including faculty and staff (not all at

one college) lines and appropriate amount of funds for start-up equipment and facilities;

• Starting in 1999, CUNY designated four areas: photonics (15 faculty and 1 staff), teacher

education (34 faculty), computers and new media (33 faculty hired around CUNY), and

foreign languages (8 faculty);

• Newest cluster areas: biosciences (6 faculty), nursing (8 faculty), art history,

environmental science, technology, and education (8 faculty), architecture, engineering,

criminal justice and forensic science, PhD programs in political science, anthropology,

sociology, and philosophy.

CUNY’s annual report mentions business along with oong>theong>r areas that this initiative is intended to


Of ong>theong> distribution of faculty lines to date, Baruch has received 2 percent. Oong>theong>r units have

received: 20% (CCNY), 15% (Community Colleges togeong>theong>r), 13% (Hunter), Grad School

(12%), 11% (Brooklyn), 9% (Queens), 7% (Lehman), 6% (CSI), 2% (John Jay), 2% (Medgar

Evers), and 1% (NYCCT).

What we might consider?

There is no evident reason why Zicklin ought not to develop a proposal. We’ve not done this in

ong>theong> past and Vice Chancellor Mirrer has invited our initiative.

We need to dentify selected areas we think match up with University aims and that we are wellpositioned

to build on. Possibilities we might consider:

• Entrepreneurship: University-wide area of emphasis, important to community and

economic development, and recent development of incubators. Zicklin has

undergraduate and graduate curricula in this area plus ong>theong> Field Center’s notable function

in business development, community outreach, attracting grant funding, and supporting

faculty research and professional involvement. Good interdisciplinary opportunities in


and outside Baruch including possibility of hiring functional area experts in

entrepreneurship in different academic departments.

• Globalization: An enduring educational mandate, key to Zicklin mission, an AACSB

priority, a natural build on our location advantage, student, and faculty diversity. We

have MBA major in international business, active Weissman Center for International

Business to attract additional public and scholarly funding, fairly active research faculty

(ranked 32 nd in productivity1986-98 in one study). Also interdisciplinary with

possibilities to collaborate in and outside of Baruch to strengong>theong>n case. Faculty could be

appropriately spread across departments.

• Corporate governance: It’s hot, high profile, and includes ethics (AACSB priority),

law, corporate design, financial reporting, etc. We have Center for Financial Integrity to

attract public and potential additional scholarly funding, highly regarded scholars, and

much recent College activity to support enhanced focus in this area. It’s interdisciplinary

and we could partner with oong>theong>r interested units in and outside Baruch to increase

strength of case.


Table 1. Publications ong>byong> Full Professors Who Were Hired as Assistant Professors ong>byong> Baruch

Year Additional Additional Solo Total Pubs/yr Pubs/yr Pubs/yr

Year Year Pub ong>byong> Promoted Journals Journals Authored Pubs to fr. tenure since

Hired Tenured Tenure Yr. To Full ong>byong> Full Since Full Pubs To Date tenure to Full Full

1963 ? ? 1969 ? 16 26 ? 0.5

1986 1991 14 1994 5 23 8 42 2.8 1.7 2.6

1978 1986 7 1996 4 0 3 11 0.9 0.4 0.0

1983 1988 7 1991 4 7 4 18 1.4 1.3 0.6

? ? ? 1988 ? 1 5 ? 0.1

1987 1992 58 1997 14 16 63 88 11.6 2.8 2.7

1973 ? ? 1981 ? 50 12 ? 2.3

1972 ? ? 1980 ? 7 2 ? 0.3

1984 1991 11 2000 10 1 3 22 1.6 1.1 0.3

1984 1989 3 1994 5 2 5 10 0.6 1.0 0.2

1985 1990 6 1996 2 0 3 8 1.2 0.3 0.0

1977 1982 4 1987 4 8 4 16 0.8 0.8 0.5

1982 1987 **** 1991 ? 8 8 ? 0.7

1981 1988 23 1993 3 8 6 34 3.3 0.6 0.8

1972 1979 1 1985 4 13 0 18 0.1 0.7 0.7

1989 1994 12 1996 3 13 7 28 2.4 1.5 1.9

1983 1988 6 1994 3 3 5 12 1.2 0.5 0.3

1971 ? ? 1982 5 5 4 ? 0.2

1980 1985 2 1993 0 0 1 2 0.4 0.0 0.0

1978 1983 7 1992 1 1 5 9 1.4 0.1 0.1

1978 1983 8 2001 2 2 2 12 1.6 0.1 1.0

1993 1998 44 1999 4 4 24 52 8.8 4.0 1.0

Mean 2.5 1.1 0.8

Median 1.4 0.7 0.5

Table 2. Publications ong>byong> Full Professors Who Were Hired as Assistant Professors ong>byong> Baruch

Additional Additional Solo Total Pub/yr since

Year Year Pub ong>byong> Yr.Promoted Journals Journals Authored Pubs Full

Hired Tenured Tenure Yr. To Full ong>byong> Full Since Full Pubs To Date

1987 1990 1987

? ? ? ? ? ? 36 ?

1974 ? ? 1977 ? 31 9 ? 1.2

1971 ? ? 1986 ? 0 4 ? 0.0

1997 1997 41 1997 0 9 5 50 1.5

2001 2001 20 2001 0 **3 8 23

1972 ? ? ? ? ? 38 ?

1989 1994 1989 0

1968 ? ? 1968 ? 1 9 ? 0.0

1970 ? ? 1972 ? ***8 3 ?

1993 1993 8 1998 2 ***1 0 11

1984 1984 20 1988 8 ****42 36 70

1981 1981 9 1986 6 9 12 24 0.5

1980 1980 16 1980 0 23 28 39 1.0

1999 1999 *21 1999 0 2 6 29 0.5

1999 1999 10 1999 0 1 2 11 0.3

1973 ? ? ? ? ? 72 ?

1965 ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

1980 1980 24 1980 0 38 53 62 1.7

1994 1994 11 1994 0 1 4 12 0.1

Mean 0.7

Median 0.5

Table 3. Research Awards for Business Schools (Fiscal Year 2001)






No. of

Business Schools






PhD Budget

$ per


$ per

Faculty (UG)


No. of



Awards Awards




Baruch College 200 164 $ 25,418,019 $ 8,934 $ 127,090 62 83 $ 2,675,418 20 $ 439,160


University of Michigan 140 132 $ 99,257,500 $ 92,419 $ 708,982 3 1,700 $ 640,828,045 8 $ 2,013,395

University of Maryland 120 113 $ 34,246,000 $ 27,573 $ 285,383 18 $ 264,654,859

$ 1,511,362

University of Texas at Austin 154 139 $ 49,778,532 $ 27,981 $ 323,237 7

Purdue University 93 90 $ 22,901,497 $ 24,389 $ 246,253 14 1,313 $ 143,799,067 9 $ 3,196,579

University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign 173 163 $ 36,464,000 $ 25,824 $ 210,775 11

University of Arizona 105 99 $ 29,631,556 $ 23,150 $ 282,205 22 $ 289,562,719

$ 13,080,008

University of Georgia 122 114 $ 33,126,737 $ 22,188 $ 271,531 25 2,739 $ 174,409,763 76 $ 3,518,268

Pennsylvania State University 120 96 $ 41,569,384 $ 21,472 $ 346,412 18 $ 329,339,000

$ 4,894,000

Arizona State University 188 177 $ 43,890,000 $ 20,674 $ 233,458 25 835 $ 84,063,493 16 $ 745,075

University of Florida 97 92 $ 33,593,000 $ 15,668 $ 346,320 22 5,285 $ 379,509,635

$ 4,700,000

Texas A&M University 128 113 $ 31,957,746 $ 15,836 $ 249,670 31 3,331 $ 338,400,000






Awards per per No. of

$ Amount


Business Schools

y PhD FT Faculty PhD Award

Baruch College 200 164 $ 2,196 $ 2,678 $ 21,958


University of Michigan 140 132 $ 14,381 $ 15,253 $ 251,674

University of Maryland 120 113 $ 9,595 $ 10,189

University of Texas at Austin 154 139

Purdue University 93 90 $ 34,372 $ 35,518 $ 355,175

University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign 173 163

University of Arizona 105 99 $ 124,572 $ 132,121

University of Georgia 122 114 $ 28,838 $ 30,862 $ 46,293

Pennsylvania State University 120 96 $ 40,783 $ 50,979

Arizona State University 188 177 $ 3,963 $ 4,209 $ 46,567

University of Florida 97 92 $ 48,454 $ 51,087

Texas A&M University 128 113

More magazines by this user
Similar magazines