A quarter century of management research in South Asia – III: analysis and conclusions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose In Part I and Part II of this review series, management research over a 25-year period from 1990 to 2014 from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka was reviewed (Menon, 2016, 2019). This final paper presents further analysis, including author affiliation analysis, and an exploration of contextual factors affecting management research in each of the eight South Asian countries. Design/methodology/approach Publication trends and the locational affiliation of the authors (in-country vs external) were analyzed. Country-specific analysis and policy recommendations were developed from an ecological and institutional theory perspective. Findings There were a total of 1,250 management research articles related to South Asian countries published in 183 journals, with the most being in the International Journal of Human Resource Management (n = 92). The average number of publications per year has steadily increased, nearly doubling in the last five years. An analysis of author affiliations revealed that a majority (64%) of the first authors were based in the West. Originality/value The author affiliation analysis in this paper is an original technique and offers empirical evidence that much of quality management research on South Asia is undertaken by scholars external to the region. The review series is the first such comprehensive effort covering management research in all eight South Asian countries over a 25-year period and offers country-specific explanations for the state of management research in these countries.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".