Quantifying Managerial Ability: A New Measure and Validity Tests
Impact in
- Accounting 956
Classified as
- Journal
- Management Science
In The Last Decade
doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1110.1487 →Countries where authors are citing Quantifying Managerial Ability: A New Measure and Validity Tests
This map shows the geographic impact of Quantifying Managerial Ability: A New Measure and Validity Tests. It shows the number of citations coming from papers published by authors working in each country. You can also color the map by specialization and compare the number of citations received by Quantifying Managerial Ability: A New Measure and Validity Tests with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Quantifying Managerial Ability: A New Measure and Validity Tests more than expected).
Fields of papers citing Quantifying Managerial Ability: A New Measure and Validity Tests
This network shows the impact of Quantifying Managerial Ability: A New Measure and Validity Tests. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the Quantifying Managerial Ability: A New Measure and Validity Tests.
About Quantifying Managerial Ability: A New Measure and Validity Tests
This paper, published in 2012, received 1.2k indexed citations . Written by Peter R. Demerjian, Baruch Itamar Lev and Sarah E. McVay covering the research area of Accounting and Strategy and Management. It is primarily cited by scholars working on Accounting (956 citations), Strategy and Management (454 citations), Finance (292 citations), Economics and Econometrics (286 citations) and Marketing (105 citations). Published in Management Science.
Rankless uses publication and citation data sourced from OpenAlex, an open and comprehensive bibliographic database. While OpenAlex provides broad and valuable coverage of the global research landscape, it—like all bibliographic datasets—has inherent limitations. These include incomplete records, variations in author disambiguation, differences in journal indexing, and delays in data updates. As a result, some metrics and network relationships displayed in Rankless may not fully capture the entirety of a scholar's output or impact.
This paper is also available at doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1110.1487.