How much is research in the top journals of industrial/organizational psychology dominated by authors from the U.S.?

Abstract

Industrial/organizational (I/O) psychology, the subfield of psychology applied to the context of work, has been criticized for being dominated by U.S. authors because this dominance could prevent the generalizability of results and the enrichment of theories, paradigms, and approaches by researchers from other parts of the world. Previous estimates on the extent of the U.S. dominance are, however, likely restricted in scope, outdated, and likely biased by non-U.S. researchers who were socialized in the U.S. or received help by U.S. co-authors. As such, we measured the level of U.S. dominance by analyzing 5626 papers published from the top ten journals of the field of I/O psychology in the last eleven years and their authors. The results show that the U.S. dominance continues, although the internationalization of I/O psychology has steadily increased. An additional analysis of the gender distribution across our sample revealed that female first authorship is slightly more common among authors with no U.S. affiliation. We suggest several steps to further increase the level of internationalization.

Citations Gone #Social: Examining the Effect of Altmetrics on Citations and Readership in Communication Research

“…The unit of analysis was a journal article appearing among the 10 most cited articles in a journal ranked among the top 10 in communication research. First, this method aptly captures a large and representative sample of high-impact articles in the field that also reflects trends in communication research (Bajwa & König, 2019). This approach also reflects methods used in similar studies such as Liu and Fang's (2017) examination of the top 100 papers on Altmetrics.com and Plusquellec and Denault's (2018) study of the 1,000 most cited papers in nonverbal communication research.…”

International Collaboration and European Contributions to International Business Research

“…Lastly, Eden and Rynes ( 2003 , p. 679) find that preferred perspectives also vary across regions, with European research often adopting the perspective of stakeholders beyond just managers or shareholders, as is common in North America. Bajwa and Konig ( 2019 ) add that while labor unions are often discussed in many parts of the world, they are barely covered in U.S. studies.…”

“…In sum, North American researchers enjoy what some would call an unfair advantage as their language, theories, models, and research standards have become de facto standards (Bajwa and Konig 2019 ; Üsdiken 2004 ). In the next sections, we first present our research methodology and then investigate how IB research conducted by authors in European nations has developed within this context.…”

“…For instance, GLOBE's investigation aims at discriminating the universals from the emics in leadership phenomena. There is, however, room to further expand such efforts, notably with research examining the impact of different theoretical perspectives or different foci on our understanding of business phenomena (Bajwa and Konig 2019;Eden and Rynes 2003;Hofstede 1981). Mangematin and Baden-Fuller (2008) explained that such advancements would require establishment of research epicenters outside North America.…”

What might get published in management and applied psychology? Experimentally manipulating implicit expectations of reviewers regarding hedges

“…Therefore, thorough research could help to uncover these implicit expectations to provide scholars with insights into their decision-making processes. As a surplus, research like this may contribute to making the scholarly system even more aware (above and beyond e.g., Bajwa and König 2019;Baruch 2001;Podsakoff et al 2008) of potential issues of being dominated by the American system. If there are implicit expectations elicited by an American socialization, this could add to the barriers for international scholars to publish in top-tier journals.…”