IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/orinte/v26y1996i2p16-21.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Editorial: Which Universities Contribute to the Practice Literature? The First Interfaces Ranking

Author

Listed:
  • Michael H. Rothkopf

    (RUTCOR, Rutgers University, PO Box 5062, New Brunswick, New Jersey 08903-5062)

Abstract

Organizations and professions get what they measure and reward. If we want educational programs to contribute to OR/MS practice, we have to figure out how to measure such contributions. The INFORMS Academic/Practitioner Interface Committee has discussed the possibility of ranking or rating academic programs on their contributions to OR/MS practice. Many difficulties stand in its way—difficulties in implementation and, especially, in defining the rating scale. How should a scale measure such factors as training students for practice, contributing to the practice literature, contributing to theory useful for practice, and conducting cooperative projects with industry? How should it combine such measures?Such overall rankings would necessarily be highly subjective and difficult to implement well. As editor of a publication focused on practice, I am interested in a more limited goal. I want a scale that measures one aspect of a university's contribution to practice: its contribution to the practice literature. I want deans who promulgate goals for their programs to have available a measure of such contributions. To encourage and reward such contributions, I want recognition for the programs that make them. To that end, I developed an index—the Interfaces index of contributions to the practice literature. Like all measurement schemes, it has limitations. Even so, when I applied it to the literature from 1988 to 1994, I obtained some interesting results and a ranking of universities. I plan to update the index and the rankings periodically.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael H. Rothkopf, 1996. "Editorial: Which Universities Contribute to the Practice Literature? The First Interfaces Ranking," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 26(2), pages 16-21, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:orinte:v:26:y:1996:i:2:p:16-21
    DOI: 10.1287/inte.26.2.16
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/inte.26.2.16
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/inte.26.2.16?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Vastag, Gyula & Montabon, Frank, 2002. "Journal characteristics, rankings and social acculturation in operations management," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 109-126, April.
    2. Michael H. Rothkopf, 2005. "Editorial: The Sixth Interfaces Ranking of Universities’ Contributions to the Practice Literature," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 35(5), pages 425-428, October.
    3. Ronald D. Fricker, 2013. "Editorial: The 10th Rothkopf Rankings of Universities’ Contributions to the INFORMS Practice Literature," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 43(6), pages 572-577, December.
    4. Michael F. Gorman, 2016. "Editorial: The 11th Rothkopf Rankings: 28 Years of Tracking Applied Research in Academia," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 46(3), pages 264-276, June.
    5. Ronald D. Fricker, 2011. "Editorial: The Ninth Rothkopf Rankings of Universities' Contributions to the INFORMS Practice Literature," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 41(6), pages 590-598, December.
    6. Ormerod, R. J., 2000. "Is content analysis either practical or desirable for research evaluation?," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 241-245, April.
    7. Ronald D. Fricker, 2009. "Editorial: The Eighth Rothkopf Rankings of Universities' Contributions to the INFORMS Practice Literature," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 39(6), pages 533-539, December.
    8. Michael F. Gorman, 2019. "Editorial: The 12th Rothkopf Rankings," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 49(4), pages 295-303, July.
    9. Michael H. Rothkopf, 2007. "Editorial: The Seventh Interfaces Ranking of Universities' Contributions to the Practice Literature," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 37(6), pages 566-569, December.
    10. Donohue, Joan M. & Fox, Jeremy B., 2000. "A multi-method evaluation of journals in the decision and management sciences by US academics," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 17-36, February.
    11. Ronald D. Fricker, 2012. "Editorial: The First Rothkopf Rankings of Nonacademic Organizations," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 42(6), pages 585-590, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    OR/MS professional;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:orinte:v:26:y:1996:i:2:p:16-21. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.