This ranking profiles 53 of the most-cited researchers in Industrial Relations, using 53 Scopus indicators for each scholar. It goes beyond raw citation totals: you can compare productivity, impact, self-citation patterns, subfield focus and country coverage side by side, and sort any column to see who leads on a given measure.
The dataset was built by first filtering on sm-field: Economics & Business and then on sm-subfield-1. In this instalment, that subfield filter is Industrial Relations. Rankings for the other subfields in the field — Accounting, Agricultural Economics & Policy, Business & Management, Development Studies, Econometrics, Economic Theory, Economics, Finance, Logistics & Transportation, Marketing, Operations Research, and Sport, Leisure & Tourism — appear in separate Business Science Daily posts.
For the methodology behind the figures including the c-score, the Scopus snapshot date and the Science-Metrix classification, see the earlier post, Highly Cited Researchers in Business & Management.
Regarding the data source and coverage, this ranking is based on the career-long dataset from the August 2026 update of the Updated science-wide author databases of standardized citation indicators, which uses Scopus data. It measures researchers’ career-long citation impact based on citation data covering 1996–2025, while the publication-year coverage extends back to 1788. A separate ranking based solely on 2025 data is also available, but it is not included in the series of rankings published by Business Science Daily.
Fifty-three scholars. Each described by 53 Scopus indicators. The list is the Industrial Relations slice of the Economics & Business field, drawn from the August 2026 update of the standardised citation-indicator database.
Career-long impact. The ranking is based on career-long citation data covering 1996–2025, while the publication-year coverage extends back to 1788. A separate ranking based solely on 2025 data also exists, but it is not part of the series published here.
Beyond totals. Raw citation counts are only one column. The table carries productivity, impact, self-citation patterns, subfield concentration and country coverage, so that a reader can compare scholars on whichever measure matters for a given question.
— Business Science Daily
How to use it: open the table, sort on the measure you care about, then read across the row. A scholar who leads on total citations may not lead on citations per paper, on non-self-citation metrics, or on subfield concentration. The table is designed to make those differences visible rather than to collapse them into a single number.
The dataset was built by first filtering on sm-field: Economics & Business and then on sm-subfield-1. In this instalment, that subfield filter covers Industrial Relations. Rankings for the remaining subfields in that list will appear in later Business Science Daily posts.
The table keeps the source dataset’s own field names. Nothing has been renamed, rescaled or recalculated. If a column label looks cryptic, that is because it is the identifier used in the underlying database, not a label written for this page.
Output and impact measures include publication counts, citation counts, h-index and hm-index variants, citations-per-paper ratios and a composite c-score. Where a column carries an (ns) suffix, it is the version computed without self-citations.
Context measures describe where a scholar’s work sits: the Science-Metrix subfield and field classifications, the fractional share of output falling in each, ranks within subfield, and country coverage indicators such as the number of countries at the 10% threshold and the top country share.
Columns beginning with NP count publications, including counts restricted to a citation window. They answer how much a scholar has published, not how much it has been read.
Useful for comparing career volume between scholars at different career stages — read alongside first and last publication year.
Columns with NC, H, HM, C and CPRAT describe citations, h-index, the hm-index and per-paper ratios.
The (ns) versions strip out self-citations. The gap between a measure and its (ns) twin is the clearest signal of how much of a profile rests on self-citation.
Subfield and field columns, with their fractional shares, show whether a scholar’s output sits squarely inside Industrial Relations or spreads across neighbouring fields.
Country columns show how internationally distributed the citation base is, from a single dominant country to coverage across many.
A caution: the self-percentage column is the quickest way to sanity-check any citation total before comparing scholars. A high total built on a high self-citation share is not the same claim as a high total built on external citations, and the table gives you both.
Data source. This ranking is based on the career-long dataset from the August 2026 update of the Updated science-wide author databases of standardized citation indicators, which uses Scopus data.
Coverage. It measures researchers’ career-long citation impact based on citation data covering 1996–2025, while the publication-year coverage extends back to 1788.
Field classification. Scholars were identified by filtering on sm-field: Economics & Business and then on sm-subfield-1: Industrial Relations, using the Science-Metrix classification.
Career-long citation impact, with and without self-citations; publication counts; h-index and hm-index variants; subfield and field fractions; country coverage measures.
The August 2026 snapshot of the standardised database.
A separate ranking based solely on 2025 data exists in the source database, but it is not included in the series of rankings published by Business Science Daily.
Rankings for the other subfields of Economics & Business are published separately.
For the methodology behind the figures — including the c-score, the Scopus snapshot date and the Science-Metrix classification — see the earlier post, Highly Cited Researchers in Business & Management.
Industrial Relations is one subfield of Economics & Business. Rankings for the remaining subfields in that list will appear in later Business Science Daily posts.
Each instalment follows the same construction: filter on the field, then on the subfield, then report the same 53 indicators so that scholars and departments can be compared across subfields without changing the measurement basis.
Business & Management — the first instalment, with the methodology note.
Marketing — 323 scholars.
Industrial Relations — this ranking, 53 scholars.
Accounting
Agricultural Economics & Policy
Development Studies
Econometrics
Economic Theory
Economics
Finance
Logistics & Transportation
Operations Research
Sport, Leisure & Tourism
If you are looking for business and management journal rankings — such as the CABS Academic Journal Guide, the ABDC Journal Quality List, the FNEGE Journal Quality List, the VHB Journal Rating, or the SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) — you can find them via the links below.