business administration article review pdf

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

Skills of an Effective Administrator

• Robert L. Katz

Although the selection and training of good administrators is widely recognized as one of American industry’s most pressing problems, there is surprisingly little agreement among executives or educators on what makes a good administrator. The executive development programs of some of the nation’s leading corporations and colleges reflect a tremendous variation in objectives. At the […]

Although the selection and training of good administrators is widely recognized as one of American industry’s most pressing problems, there is surprisingly little agreement among executives or educators on what makes a good administrator. The executive development programs of some of the nation’s leading corporations and colleges reflect a tremendous variation in objectives.

• RK At the time this article was written, Mr. Katz was assistant professor at the Amos Tuck School of Business Administration, Dartmouth College. Since then he has taught in the graduate schools of business at Harvard and Stanford, written three textbooks, and helped found five industrial or financial companies. Until recently he was president and chief executive officer of U.S. Natural Resources, Inc. Now he heads a consulting firm specializing in corporate strategy and is a director of a number of publicly held corporations.

Partner Center

Advances in management research: a bibliometric overview of the Review of Managerial Science

• Original Paper
• Open access
• Published: 03 August 2020
• Volume 14 , pages 933–958, ( 2020 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Alicia Mas-Tur 1 ,
• Sascha Kraus   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4886-7482 2 ,
• Mario Brandtner 3 ,
• Ralf Ewert 4 &
• Wolfgang Kürsten 3  

7974 Accesses

78 Citations

1 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

The Review of Managerial Science (RMS) is a leading international journal that publishes major advances related to business administration and management. The journal was launched in April 2007 and publishes eight issues per year (from 2021 onwards). The scope of RMS encompasses, but is not limited to, the functional areas of operations (such as production, operations management, and marketing), management (such as human resources management, strategic management, and organizational theory), information systems and their interrelations with capital markets (such as accounting, auditing, finance, and taxation), as well as questions of business strategy, entrepreneurship, innovation, and corporate governance. This study offers a bibliometric overview of the publication and citation structure of RMS from its inception in 2007 until 2020 in terms of topics, authors, institutions, and countries, thereby offering a comprehensive overview of the history of the journal so far. All the data for the study are from the Web of Science Core Collection database. To complement this analysis, VOSviewer software provides graphical analysis. The analysis is based on several bibliometric techniques such as co-citation analysis and bibliographic coupling.

Similar content being viewed by others

Thirteen years of Operations Management Research (OMR) journal: a bibliometric analysis and future research directions

Mohamed M. Dhiaf, Osama F. Atayah, … Guilherme F. Frederico

A global database for conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses in innovation and quality management

Tibor Csizmadia & Attila Imre Katona

The burgeoning role of literature review articles in management research: an introduction and outlook

Sascha Kraus, Ricarda B. Bouncken & Alba Yela Aránega

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

The Review of Managerial Science (RMS) is an international journal that provides a forum for innovative research from all scientific areas of business administration and management. The scope of RMS encompasses, but is not limited to, the functional areas of operations (such as production, operations management, and marketing), management (such as human resources management, strategic management, and organizational theory), information systems and their interrelations with capital markets (such as accounting, auditing, finance, and taxation), as well as questions of business strategy, entrepreneurship, innovation, and corporate governance. RMS encourages the submission of papers combining ideas and/or approaches from different areas in an innovative way. The journal also welcomes review papers presenting the “state-of-the-art” of a research area and highlighting new directions for further research, a category that has been increasingly neglected in many other journals in recent years. The scientific standards of RMS are guaranteed by a rigorous (at least) double-blind peer review process with ad hoc referees and the journal’s international Editorial Board.

RMS first appeared in 2007, with the founding Co-Editors-in-Chief Ralf Ewert (University of Graz, Austria) and Wolfgang Kürsten (University of Jena, Germany), who still lead the journal. Since 2019, the two Editors-in-Chief are supported by a group of Associate Editors which has continuously been extended to accommodate the ongoing constant growth. From August 2020 onwards, this group consists of seven Associates: Ricarda B. Bouncken (University of Bayreuth, Germany; primary area: business strategy & innovation management), Laura Cabeza - García (University of Léon, Spain; primary area: corporate governance & corporate social responsibility), Reinhold Decker (Bielefeld University, Germany; primary area: marketing), Fabian Homberg (LUISS University, Rome, Italy; primary area: Human Resource Management), Sascha Kraus (Durham University, UK; primary area: entrepreneurship, SMEs, & family business), Marc - Steffen Rapp (University of Marburg, Germany; primary area: corporate governance, accounting, & finance), and Kirsten Thommes (University of Paderborn, Germany; primary area: Human Resource Management).

RMS started by publishing three issues per year and has increased this number over time to eight issues per year from 2021 onwards. The yearly page budget has correspondingly increased from approximately 250 pages in the founding years to around 1100 pages in recent years. The number of submissions strongly increased from approximately 40 during the founding years to more than 540 in 2019. At the same time, the acceptance rate decreased substantially to below 10% in 2018 and 2019 (see Table  1 ).

RMS is indexed and abstracted in major databases, including the Social Science Citation Index, Journal Citation Reports/Social Sciences Edition, SCOPUS, and EBSCO Discovery Service. In 2011, the journal’s first Journal Citation Reports (JCR) Impact Factor (IF) was announced. Since then, RMS has constantly increased its IF to its current IF of 3.00 in 2019. In Elsevier’s SCOPUS database, RMS is currently rated #25 out of 221 journals in the category “General Business, Management and Accounting” based on its 2019 CiteScore rank of 4.4. Additionally, RMS is rated “B” (on a scale from A to D) in the German VHB Jourqual (JQ3) journal ranking, and it has been listed in the British Academic Journal Guide (ABS) and the French CNRS ratings since their latest editions.

The purpose of this overview study is to examine the main factors that have influenced RMS so far, mainly focusing on the authors, institutions, and countries publishing in the journal, as well as the leading topics that have been published up to now. This in-depth analysis establishes a general overview of the journal’s publication structure.

In order to conduct this kind of analysis, several bibliometric techniques are applied. Bibliometrics is a library and information science research field where quantitative methods are used to study bibliographic material (Broadus 1987 ; Pritchard 1969 ). Using the Web of Science Core Collection (WoS CC) database, bibliometric analyses enable qualitative study of bibliographic material over the 13-year existence of the journal (2007–2019).

A bibliometric study of a journal is a popular approach for identifying the leading trends of a journal in terms of topics, highly cited papers, authors, institutions, and countries. Many journals have already published bibliometric analyses of their publication and citation structure, with notable examples including Accounting Review (Heck and Bremser 1986 ), Journal of Financial Economics (Schwert 1993 ), Technovation (García-Merino et al. 2006 ; Thongpapanl 2012 ), Journal of Business Research (Merigó et al. 2015 ), and Journal of Knowledge Management (Gaviria-Marín et al. 2018 ).

To thoroughly analyze bibliographic characteristics, mapping techniques are employed as well (Cobo et al. 2011 ; Small 1999 ). This article presents analysis of co-occurrences, co-citations, and bibliographic coupling based on the journal’s 10-year presence in the Web of Science (WoS) database. The results are visualized using VOSviewer software (Van Eck and Waltman 2010 ).

Bibliometrics can be defined as the research field in which the quantitative aspects of bibliographic material are studied (Broadus 1987 ). Bibliometrics was used as a key concept for the first time by Alan Pritchard in 1969 to replace the ambiguous concept of statistical bibliography (Pritchard 1969 ). Another term to refer to bibliometrics is scientometrics , which was coined by Nalimov and Mulchenko ( 1969 ) to define the study of all aspects of the literature of science and technology (Nalimov and Mulchenko 1969 ). Finally, Nacke ( 1979 ) proposed the term informetrics as a substitute for bibliometrics. Nowadays, bibliometrics, scientometrics, and informetrics are similar key concepts to define the discipline aimed at the quantitative study of bibliographic data (Sengupta 1992 ; Hood and Wilson 2001 ).

Bibliometrics is a library and information science research field where bibliographic material is studied using quantitative methods (Broadus 1987 ; Pritchard 1969 ). It is very useful for developing a comprehensive overview of the leading trends in a research field, journal, or country (Hood and Wilson 2001 ). It also enables identification of the most relevant authors on a given topic. A scientometric review provides a holistic approach because it involves a wide coverage of academic research (in this case, 285 publications) and provides objective analysis of a journal or a research field. This extensive review, which is based on a large number of published works, gives a more complete understanding of a journal or research field and can determine the qualitative and quantitative changes that occur. Likewise, it enables the creation of maps by generating groups of the main research topics. Essentially, scientometric maps give a holistic view of a particular domain and highlight trends and gaps in research (Suriñach Caralt et al. 2002 ).

Bibliometric studies are available in a wide range of fields including economics (Coupe 2003 ), management (Podsakoff et al. 2008 ), innovation (Fagerberg et al. 2012 ), entrepreneurship (Landström et al. 2012 ; Ferreira et al. 2019 ), family business (Xi et al. 2015 ), and operations research (Merigó and Yang 2017 ). In comparison with traditional literature reviews (e.g., Kraus et al. 2020 ), which are prone to subjective interpretation by researchers, scientometric reviews constitute a methodological innovation (Serrano Bedia et al. 2013 ). This innovation stems from their use of algorithms, data on production, dispersion, collaboration, and impact indexes (Moya and Prior 2008 ) to provide objectivity, consistency, and transparency (van Eck and Waltman 2014 ).

To perform a bibliometric analysis, it is important to define the bibliometric indicators that are used to analyze the data (Merigó et al. 2015 ). This study considers the number of publications and citations. The number of publications measures productivity, whereas the number of citations reflects popularity and influence. This study also considers the cites-per-paper ratio and the h-index (Hirsch 2005 ). The h-index indicates the maximum number ( h ) such that a given author (or journal) has published h papers that have each been cited at least h times. For the country analysis, the results are provided per million inhabitants in order to compare countries with different sizes (Table  7 ). For the university analysis, the general world ranking of the top universities with authors published in RMS is presented, according to the Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) and the Quacquarelli & Symonds (QS) University Ranking (Table  6 ).

The study offers further graphical analysis of the bibliographic data using VOSviewer software (Van Eck and Waltman 2010 , 2014 ). Using this software, two bibliometric techniques are presented: co-citation analysis (Small 1999 ) and bibliographic coupling (Kessler 1963 ). A co-citation occurs when two documents receive a citation from the same third document. Bibliographic coupling refers to situations where two studies cite the same third document. Co-citation analysis applies to authors, and bibliographic coupling applies to authors, institutions, and countries.

In the period 2009 to 2019, RMS published 285 documents indexed in WoS. These 285 documents encompass 248 original papers, 28 review papers, 7 editorials, and 2 other items such as proceedings or corrections. In this bibliometric analysis, 267 documents are considered. Notably, for 2019, 16 articles with early access are excluded. These articles were published online between October and November 2019, but had not been assigned to a regular issue at the time of the study.

Table  2 and Fig.  1 present the annual number of citations of RMS publications, as well as the number of publications reaching a certain citation threshold (more than 100 citations, more than 50 citations, etc.). The number of publications has increased over time. Simultaneously, there was a strong increase in the number of the citations from 2010 (24) to 2011 (296). The last few years show a decline in the number of citations. This decline can be regarded as normal and is due to the lag until articles which cite those papers have also undergone the necessary review process before acceptance or publication. Papers published in the years 2013 and 2014 seem to have attracted a smaller audience as well.

Annual citation structure of the journal

Figure  2 shows the evolution of the TOP 5 most cited papers. On an individual basis, three papers have received more than 100 citations: the 2011 paper by Gamerschlag et al. entitled “Determinants of voluntary CSR disclosure: empirical evidence from Germany”, the Kraus et al. 2012 paper by Kraus et al. entitled “Entrepreneurial orientation and the business performance of SMEs: a quantitative study from the Netherlands”, and the 2015 paper by Bouncken et al. entitled “Coopetition: a systematic review, synthesis, and future research directions”. These papers are from three separate subject areas: CSR, entrepreneurship, and strategy.

Evolution of the citations of the most cited RMS papers

Another relevant question is, Who cites RMS? The answer indicates the sources of RMS’s influence. During the years of 2009 to 2019, RMS received 1643 citations (February 2020). Table  3 presents the journals that have published more than 10 articles citing RMS.

As expected, RMS itself is the journal with the highest number of articles citing RMS publications because the research published in one journal tends to influence future research in the same journal, building an important foundation for the ongoing academic discourse on that topic. The journals Sustainability (90 documents), Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management (37 documents), Journal of Cleaner Production (32 documents), and Journal of Business Research (30 documents) also cite RMS frequently.

In the next step, the relationship between RMS and other journals is analyzed using a co-citation mapping of journals cited by RMS publications (Fig.  3 ). Co-citations can be defined as two documents that receive a citation from the same third document (Cancino et al. 2017 ). A co-citation mapping is valuable for understanding the clusters of journals that are most closely linked to RMS because they are cited by papers published in RMS.

Co-citation of journals in RMS (minimum citation threshold of 10 and 100 lines)

There are four main clusters. The first one is led by Strategic Management Journal and Academy of Management Journal , the second is led by Journal of Finance and Journal of Financial Economics , the third is led by Journal of Business Research , and the fourth is led by Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice . The conclusion is that there are four main areas of research cited by the manuscripts published in RMS: management, finance, business, and entrepreneurship.

Table  4 presents a list of the 25 most cited studies published in RMS according to the results found in WoS. In 1927, the first article that used the citation count to evaluate the importance of scientific research was published (Gross and Gross 1927 ). In the article, the author argues that success breeds success and that a document with many citations is more likely to be cited again than a document with few citations. Similarly, an author with many articles is more likely than a less productive author to publish a new article, and it is more common to refer to a frequently consulted journal than a journal with a small readership (Price 1976 ). As Joseph ( 2003 ) reports, citations can be viewed as the “currency of modern science” (Marsh and Merton 1986 ; Garfield 1999 ), and the analysis of citations has become increasingly important to journal editors, authors, and readers (Merigó et al. 2015 ). The list of the 25 most cited papers reveals three main topics: corporate social responsibility (CSR), business sustainability, and entrepreneurship and management.

In the fields of CSR and business sustainability, the topics of social entrepreneurship and green innovation are receiving considerable attention due to the current concerns related to environmental destruction (Abdullah et al. 2016 ). The most cited papers in RMS dealing with CSR and business sustainability focus on: (1) voluntary CSR disclosure as a key issue for company visibility, shareholder structure, and the relationship with stakeholders (Gamerschlag et al. 2011 ); (2) the relationship between CSR disclosure and market valuations, especially in reference to firms operating in environmentally sensitive industries (Reverte 2016 ); (3) board independence as the main way to enhance the adoption of social activities (Fernández-Gago et al. 2016 ); and (4) the growth in CSR practices and its effect on managerial discretion (Ferrero et al. 2012 ). There are two main points that attract scholars’ attention in this field of research: CSR disclosure and managerial implications of social activities.

Regarding entrepreneurship and management, Bouncken is a leading author whose research in RMS is focused on different fields of entrepreneurship. (1) Entrepreneurial orientation: Bouncken et al. ( 2016 ) focus on entrepreneurial orientation in inter-organizational alliances. From the dynamic capabilities point of view, the authors conclude that the ability to absorb partners’ knowledge is a key point to improve joint product innovation; (2) entrepreneurial performance: Bouncken and Reuschl ( 2018 ) focus on entrepreneurial performance and opportunism. Opportunism is seen as knowledge leakage, which reduces organizational learning processes by decreasing trust and community building; (3) entrepreneurial coopetition: As previously outlined, Bouncken et al. ( 2015 ) focus on coopetition. This is a novel research field, and the authors highlight the importance of developing more theoretical and empirical approaches. They focus on the implications for innovation, taking into consideration the relationship between coopetition and knowledge flow.

In the field of entrepreneurship, some of the most cited papers in RMS deal with family business, focusing on the following topics: (1) internationalization in family firms (Mitter et al. 2014 ); (2) capital structure decisions of family firms (Ampenberger et al. 2013 ); and (3) corporate reputation and image (Sageder et al. 2018 ). In all cases, the studies focus on the influence of the family owners on the management of the company.

Table  5 lists the leading authors in terms of publications and impact. To be included in this list, the authors must have more than five citations and at least three publications. In academia, it has long been argued that more than one indicator must be evaluated to determine the overall contribution of an author or institution. Therefore, Table  5 provides different commonly used impact metrics: the total publications of the author, the h-index, the total number of citations, and, as a relative impact approach, the number of citations divided by the number of publications. The leading author in both number of publications and number of citations is Sascha Kraus, whose area of expertise is entrepreneurship, strategic management, and international management.

Finally, when analyzing the location of the authors’ affiliation, two main clusters can be found: one consists of authors from German institutions, and the other of authors from Austrian institutions.

Figure  4 a, b show the co-citations of authors in RMS. A co-citation (Small 1999 ; Marshakova-Shaikevich 2005 ) of authors occurs when the authors of two documents receive a citation from the same author in a third document. Thus, the co-citation establishes the number of documents in which they are cited together.

a Co-citation of authors in RMS (minimum citation threshold of 20 and 100 links). b Co-citation of authors in RMS: one special cluster (minimum citation threshold of 20 and 100 links)

Figure  4 a shows the relationship between authors in RMS, where four different clusters can be detected. This analysis shows that two of the most cited authors, Kraus and Bouncken, are especially related because of their common field of research: entrepreneurship and coopetition.

Figure  4 b shows that Kraus, the leading author publishing in RMS according to Table  5 , is the link between the clusters. As can be seen from Table  4 , Kraus investigates topics related to entrepreneurship, coopetition, and family firms, so it is unsurprising that he has relationships with different clusters.

Figure  5 shows the co-occurrence of author keywords in RMS. Keyword co-occurrence is also called co-word analysis. This analysis links the most used keywords in the published manuscripts to describe the conceptual framework of a research field—in this case, the research focus of RMS (Callon et al. 1983 ; Courtial 1994 ; Ding et al. 2001 ).

Co-occurrence of author keywords in RMS (minimum occurrence threshold of 2 and 100 links)

Figure  5 displays the evolution of topics in RMS. Table  4 shows that there are two predominant topics addressed in RMS: CSR and family business. This figure also shows the most novel keywords (RMS keywords from 2018 appear in yellow). In the last year, two new key topics appeared: innovation and coopetition.

Table  6 presents the 14 most productive and influential institutions with more than five publications in RMS, ranked by total number of publications. For the university analysis, this study presents the general world ranking of the top universities in RMS, according to the ARWU and the QS University Ranking (Table  6 ).

Table  6 shows that the University of Regensburg (Germany) tops the ranking. Two members of the RMS Editorial Board belong to this university. One of them, Roland Helm, is the third-ranked author in terms of number of publications. Second and third, with the same number of publications, are Johannes Kepler University of Linz (Austria) and the University of Liechtenstein.

Table  6 shows a strong European cluster. From the 14 universities included in the ranking, 12 are located in Europe. The two non-European institutions are the National Chiao Tung University in Taiwan and the University of Malaya in Malaysia.

Table  7 represents the annual evolution of contributions by countries. The dominant country in RMS with the most contributions is Germany (91), followed by Spain (33) and Austria (25). For the country analysis, the results are presented per million inhabitants in order to compare countries of different sizes (Table  7 ).

Figure  6 shows the bibliographic coupling of countries publishing in RMS with a minimum publication threshold of two documents and 50 links. According to Kessler ( 1963 ), bibliographic coupling can be defined as the number of shared references by citing documents (that is, two documents that cite the same third document).

Bibliographic coupling of countries publishing in RMS (minimum publication threshold of 2 documents and 50 links)

As Fig.  6 shows, there are four country clusters. The first cluster contains Germany, Switzerland, Taiwan, and the United States. The second is composed of Spain, Chile, the United States, and Portugal. The third cluster comprises Austria, the Netherlands, Germany, and England. The fourth cluster is made up of Liechtenstein, Finland, Poland, and France. Additionally, there is a fifth cluster. Despite being small, this cluster should be mentioned because it contains countries such as China, South Korea, Malaysia, and Australia, all of which are Asia–Pacific countries that share research with each other.

Germany has by far the most bibliographic couplings and links with all other countries. This is unsurprising since Germany is the most productive and influential country publishing in RMS over time (Table  7 ). Moreover, Germany also has the most productive and influential institution, with the University of Regensburg (Table  6 ), and another six German universities appear in Table  6 among the most productive institutions. In addition, Fig.  5 shows other major clusters such as Austria, Taiwan, Liechtenstein, and England. Austria is also present in this research because it is the third country in Table  7 . Moreover, four Austrian institutions appear in Table  6 , where the most productive and influential institutions are shown, and six of the most influential authors belong to this country.

Furthermore, Spain (in blue) is closely related to Germany. Spain is also related to Chile, which is another Spanish-speaking country. As can be seen from Table  7 , Spain is the second most productive and influential country. Finally, Fig.  6 shows a close relationship between Germany, Austria, and Liechtenstein. This pattern is unsurprising because this paper has already shown that the authors and institutions from these countries–which all share the same language–are closely linked.

4 Conclusions

This study offers an overview of the structure of publications that have appeared in RMS from the journal’s launch in 2007 until the end of 2019. To carry out the study, bibliometric indicators from the WoS database are used. The analysis examines the number of citations of RMS by authors and other journals, as well as the most cited articles and the most productive and influential institutions and countries. In addition, the bibliometric study is complemented by VOSviewer analysis, which provides graphical analysis of the clusters of research topics, countries, and authors in the journal.

The results show a strong increase in publications and citations over time. It is worth highlighting the high impact of the articles published by the main authors, since they have managed to receive citations of all their articles published in RMS. The results also indicate that Germany is the leading country in the journal in terms of impact, followed by Spain, Austria, and Switzerland. In a similar vein, the most influential institution is the University of Regensburg in Germany, with a total of 15 publications, followed by other European universities. In addition, the VOSviewer analysis shows that Germany has the most bibliographic couplings and links with other countries.

Regarding the clusters obtained from the VOSviewer analysis of knowledge areas and topics, there are four main areas of research cited by the manuscripts published in RMS: management, finance, business, and entrepreneurship. Within these areas, there are two dominant topics in the journal’s publications throughout its history: CSR and family business. However, innovation and coopetition have recently become increasingly cited topics.

Although this study offers a comprehensive analysis of the main RMS publications, it of course has some limitations. The study of the journal’s publications refers to the period since the journal’s inception. Accordingly, the earliest published articles have normally received more citations than the most recent ones, even if the latter might be more influential; their long-term impact might not yet have been seen. Furthermore, by their very nature, the analyses are descriptive as well as backward-oriented. They can serve very well for presenting the past but can only give limited information about upcoming future trends in terms of the topics which will become influential. What can be concluded already, however, is that the journal is continuing to rise. As a result of the high quality of its publications, RMS has been indexed in the WoS since 2011, just four years after its launch. This achievement shows the high degree of interest of authors and readers in the topics of the journal, as well as its academic impact. Also the JCR Impact Factor is constantly increasing. RMS currently holds a JCR Impact Factor of 3.0 (as of 2019), and it is ranked in the second quartile of the “Management” category. RMS has gained international appeal and is continuing to actively shape academic discourse in several areas of management science.

All in all, RMS continues to welcome contributions from all areas within the wider business and management continuum that, regardless of the chosen method (quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods, experimental, conceptual, as well as review articles or meta-analyses, but usually excluding single case studies, student samples or samples from one single geographical area–such as cities or regions–with limited representativeness or generalizability), have the potential to set new foundations for a prominent future academic discourse within the journal and beyond.

Abdullah M, Zailani S, Iranmanesh M, Jayaraman K (2016) Barriers to green innovation initiatives among manufacturers: the Malaysian case. RMS 10(4):683–709

Google Scholar  

Ampenberger M, Schmid T, Achleitner AK, Kaserer C (2013) Capital structure decisions in family firms: empirical evidence from a bank-based economy. RMS 7(3):247–275

Bouncken RB, Reuschl AJ (2018) Coworking-spaces: how a phenomenon of the sharing economy builds a novel trend for the workplace and for entrepreneurship. RMS 12(1):317–334

Bouncken RB, Gast J, Kraus S, Bogers M (2015) Coopetition: a systematic review, synthesis, and future research directions. RMS 9(3):577–601

Bouncken RB, Plüschke BD, Pesch R, Kraus S (2016) Entrepreneurial orientation in vertical alliances: joint product innovation and learning from allies. RMS 10(2):381–409

Broadus R (1987) Toward a definition of “bibliometrics”. Scientometrics 12(5–6):373–379

Callon M, Courtial JP, Turner WA, Bauin S (1983) From translations to problematic networks: an introduction to co-word analysis. Information (International Social Science Council) 22(2):191–235

Cancino CA, Merigó JM, Coronado FC (2017) A bibliometric analysis of leading universities in innovation research. J Innovations Knowl 2(3):106–124

Cobo MJ, López-Herrera AG, Herrera-Viedma E, Herrera F (2011) Science mapping software tools: review, analysis, and cooperative study among tools. J Am Soc Inform Sci Technol 62(7):1382–1402

Coupe T (2003) Science is golden: academic R&D and university patents. J Technol Transf 28(1):31–46

Courtial J (1994) A coword analysis of scientometrics. Scientometrics 31(3):251–260

Ding Y, Chowdhury GG, Foo S (2001) Bibliometric cartography of information retrieval research by using co-word analysis. Inf Process Manag 37(6):817–842

Fagerberg J, Fosaas M, Sapprasert K (2012) Innovation: exploring the knowledge base. Res Policy 41(7):1132–1153

Ferrero-Ferrero I, Fernández-Izquierdo MÁ, Muñoz-Torres MJ (2012) The impact of the board of directors characteristics on corporateperformance and risk-taking before and during the global financial crisis. Rev Manag Sci 6(3):207–226

Fernández-Gago R, Cabeza-García L, Nieto M (2016) Corporate social responsibility, board of directors, and firm performance: an analysis of their relationships. RMS 10(1):85–104

Ferreira JJ, Fernandes CI, Kraus S (2019) Entrepreneurship research: mapping intellectual structures and research trends. RMS 13(1):181–205

Gamerschlag R, Möller K, Verbeeten F (2011) Determinants of voluntary CSR disclosure: empirical evidence from Germany. RMS 5(2–3):233–262

García-Merino MT, Pereira-do-Carmo ML, Santos-Álvarez MV (2006) 25 years of Technovation: characterisation and evolution of the journal. Technovation 26(12):1303–1316

Garfield E (1999) Journal impact factor: a brief review

Gaviria-Marín M, Merigó JM, Popa S (2018) Twenty years of the Journal of Knowledge Management: a bibliometric analysis. J Knowl Manag 22:1655–1687

Gross PL, Gross EM (1927) College libraries and chemical education. Science 66(1713):385–389

Heck JL, Bremser WG (1986) Six decades of the accounting review: a summary of author and institutional contributors. Account Rev 61(4):735–744

Hirsch JE (2005) An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proc Natl Acad Sci 102(46):16569–16572

Hood W, Wilson C (2001) The literature of bibliometrics, scientometrics, and informetrics. Scientometrics 52(2):291–314

Joseph KS (2003) Quality of impact factors of general medical journals. BMJ 326(7383):283

Kessler MM (1963) Bibliographic coupling between scientific papers. Am Doc 14(1):10–25

Kraus S, Rigtering JC, Hughes M, Hosman V (2012) Entrepreneurial orientation and the business performance of SMEs: a quantitative study from the Netherlands. RMS 6(2):161–182

Kraus S, Breier M, Dasí-Rodríguez S (2020) The art of crafting a systematic literature review in entrepreneurship research. Int Entrep Manag J. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-020-00635-4

Article   Google Scholar  

Landström H, Harirchi G, Åström F (2012) Entrepreneurship: Exploring the knowledge base. Res Policy 41(7):1154–1181

Marsh TA, Merton RC (1986) Dividend variability and variance bounds tests for the rationality of stock market prices. Am Econ Rev 76(3):483–498

Marshakova-Shaikevich I (2005) Bibliometric maps of field of science. Inf Process Manag 41(6):1534–1547

Merigó JM, Yang JB (2017) A bibliometric analysis of operations research and management science. Omega 73:37–48

Merigó JM, Mas-Tur A, Roig-Tierno N, Ribeiro-Soriano D (2015) A bibliometric overview of the Journal of Business Research between 1973 and 2014. J Bus Res 68(12):2645–2653

Mitter C, Duller C, Feldbauer-Durstmüller B, Kraus S (2014) Internationalization of family firms: the effect of ownership and governance. RMS 8(1):1–28

Moya S, Prior D (2008) ¿Quién publica en las revistas españolas de contabilidad? Análisis bibliométrico del periodo 1996–2005. Spanish J Finance Accounting/Revista Española de Financiación y Contabilidad 37(138):353–374

Nacke O (1979) Informetrics-definition, status of knowledge and development of principles. Nachrichten Fur Dokumentation 30(6):219–226

Nalimov VV, Mulchenko BM (1969) Scientometrics. Studies of science as a process of information. Science, Moscow

Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Podsakoff NP, Bachrach DG (2008) Scholarly influence in the field of management: a bibliometric analysis of the determinants of university and author impact in the management literature in the past quarter century. J Manag 34(4):641–720

Price R (1976) The Guiana maroons: a historical and bibliographical introduction. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, p 12

Pritchard A (1969) Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics. J Doc 25(4):348–349

Reverte C (2016) Corporate social responsibility disclosure and market valuation: evidence from Spanish listed firms. RMS 10(2):411–435

Sageder M, Mitter C, Feldbauer-Durstmüller B (2018) Image and reputation of family firms: a systematic literature review of the state of research. RMS 12(1):335–377

Schwert GW (1993) The Journal of Financial Economics: a retrospective evaluation (1974–1991). J Financ Econ 33(3):369–424

Sengupta JK (1992) A fuzzy systems approach in data envelopment analysis. Comput Math Appl 24(8–9):259–266

Serrano Bedia AM, López Fernández MC, Pérez Pérez M (2013) Análisis de la relación entre flexibilidad en operaciones y performance empresarial mediante técnicas bibliométricas

Small H (1999) Visualizing science by citation mapping. J Am Soc Inf Sci 50(9):799–813

Suriñach Caralt J, Duque JC, Ramos Lobo R, Royuela Mora V (2002) La investigación regional en España: un análisis bibliométrico. Documents de treball (Facultat d’Economia i Empresa. Espai de Recerca en Economia), 2002, E02/89

Thongpapanl NT (2012) The changing landscape of technology and innovation management: an updated ranking of journals in the field. Technovation 32:257–271

Van Eck NJ, Waltman L (2010) Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics 84(2):523–538

Van Eck NJ, Waltman L (2014) Visualizing bibliometric networks. In: Ding Y, Rousseu R, Wolfram D (eds) Measuring scholarly impact. Springer, Cham, pp 285–320

Xi JM, Kraus S, Filser M, Kellermanns FW (2015) Mapping the field of family business research: past trends and future directions. Int Entrep Manag J 11(1):113–132

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain

Alicia Mas-Tur

Durham University, Durham, UK

Sascha Kraus

Friedrich-Schiller-University of Jena, Jena, Germany

Mario Brandtner & Wolfgang Kürsten

Karl-Franzens-University Graz, Graz, Austria

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sascha Kraus .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Mas-Tur, A., Kraus, S., Brandtner, M. et al. Advances in management research: a bibliometric overview of the Review of Managerial Science. Rev Manag Sci 14 , 933–958 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-020-00406-z

Download citation

Received : 30 June 2020

Accepted : 01 July 2020

Published : 03 August 2020

Issue Date : October 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-020-00406-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Bibliometrics
• Co-citation
• Web of science

JEL Classification

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Need Help? Just Ask!

Call: (405) 208-5068

Text: (405) 445-3636

Reference Appointment

• Oklahoma City University
• Dulaney-Browne Library
• Research Guides
• Business Administration

Business Administration: Articles

Why articles.

Scholarly journal articles are great for:

• research reports
• current information
• narrow topics
• information for experts

Popular magazine and newspaper articles cover:

• news reports
• information for the general public

Selected Business Administration Journals

Searching for articles.

The most current research in most fields will be found in journal articles. EBSCOHost includes many databases both general and specific to various academic disciplines. To start with a broad search, type a search in the box below, and click the Search button. Or, you can click on one of the links in the database list box to search just a specific database.

• Check out this page to remind you of the difference between scholarly and popular sources.

EBSCOhost search:

You can do similar searches through the JSTOR and Project Muse databases. Just click on the buttons below to go to one of those databases.

Additional Journal Information

Many citations in the sciences use standardized abbreviations for journal titles. You will need the full title in order to request interlibrary loan and you may need the standard abbreviation for your own citations.

• Genamics Journal Seek provides information on journal titles including full titles from abbreviations or abbreviations from full titles

Limit to Scholarly & Full Text

Use the Limit to.. Full Text and Scholarly options after searching

Getting to full text

For articles not found through EBSCOhost, check the library's Discovery System for the article or request through Interlibrary Loan .

Database Citation Creators

Look for the 'cite' option

• choose your citation style

• << Previous: Home
• Next: Books >>
• Last Updated: Apr 4, 2024 11:07 AM
• URL: https://libguides.okcu.edu/busadmin

Journal of Business Administration Research

Journal Metrics

Google Based Impact Factor : 0.8

h-index (January 2022): 21

i10-index (January 2022): 36

h5-index (January 2022): N/A

h5-median(January 2022): N/A

• Other Journals
• For Readers
• For Authors
• For Librarians

Announcements

• Recruitment
• Editorial Board
• ETHICAL GUIDELINES
• GOOGLE SCHOLAR CITATIONS

Journal of Business Administration Research (JBAR) is a double-blind peer-reviewed journal which publishes scholarly work on business administration. It is published by Sciedu Press semiannually. The journal aims to encourage information exchange of relevant academic research. It covers a wide range of fields including accounting, finance, taxation, auditing, business research, human resources, management, marketing, economics and related subjects. JBAR invites original manuscripts on theoretical papers, empirical work, literature reviews, and case studies dealing with basic and applied topics on the above-mentioned fields. The journal is published both online and in printed versions.

This journal accepts article submissions online or by e-mail ( [email protected] ).

ABSTRACTING AND INDEXING:

• CNKI Scholar
• Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA)
• Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek (EZB)
• Europub Database
• Google Scholar
• PKP Open Archives Harvester
• SHERPA/RoMEO
• The Standard Periodical Directory
• Technische Informationsbibliothek (TIB)
• ZBW-German National Library of Economics
• Zeitschriften daten bank (ZDB)

2023: Articles Received: 34; Accepted: 21; Rejected: 13; Published: 9; Retracted: 0

2022: Articles Received: 20; Accepted: 11; Rejected: 11; Published: 6; Retracted: 0

2021: Articles Received: 20; Accepted: 12; Rejected: 5; Published: 10; Retracted: 0

2020: Articles Received: 23; Accepted: 13; Rejected: 6; Published: 9; Retracted: 0

2019: Articles Received: 49; Accepted: 27; Rejected: 21; Published: 8; Retracted: 0

2018: Articles Received: 99; Accepted: 54; Rejected: 45; Published: 18; Retracted: 0

2017: Articles Received: 101; Accepted: 61; Rejected: 42; Published: 17; Retracted: 0

2016: Articles Received: 107; Accepted: 55; Rejected: 50; Published: 15; Retracted: 0

2015: Articles Received: 103; Accepted: 53; Rejected: 41; Published: 17; Retracted: 0

2014: Articles Received: 61; Accepted: 31; Rejected: 29; Published: 37; Retracted: 0

2013: Articles Received: 37; Accepted: 27; Rejected: 17; Published: 19; Retracted: 0

------------------------------------------------------ Issues

• e-Version First TM ( Vol. 8, No. 2 )

------------------------------------------------------

What is e-Version First TM

e-Version First is a feature offered through our journal platform. It allows PDF version of manuscripts that have been peer reviewed and accepted, to be hosted online prior to their inclusion in a final printed journal. Readers can freely access or cite the article. We aim to publish accepted manuscripts in e-Version First in two week's time after the final draft completed.

-------------------------------------------------------

Paper Selection and Publishing Process

a) Submission Acknowledgement

When you submit a manuscript online, you will receive a submission acknowledgement letter sent by the online system automatically. For email submission, the editor or editorial assistant sends an e-mail confirmation to the submission’s author within one to three working days. If you fail to receive this confirmation, please check your bulk email box or contact the editorial assistant by email: [email protected] .

b) Basic Review

The editor or editorial assistant determines whether the manuscript fits the journal’s focus and scope. Next a check for the similarity rate is done using CrossCheck, powered by iThenticate . Any manuscripts out of the journal’s scope or containing plagiarism, including self-plagiarism, are rejected.

c) Peer Review

We use a double-blind system for peer review; both reviewers’ and authors’ identities remain anonymous. The submitted manuscript will be reviewed by at least two experts: one editorial staff member as well as one to three external reviewers. The review process may take four to ten weeks.

d) Decision Is Made

The decision to accept or reject an article is based on the suggestions of reviewers. If differences of opinion occur between reviewers, the editor-in-chief will weigh all comments and arrive at a balanced decision based on all comments, or a second round of peer review may be initiated.

e) Notification of the Result of Review

The result of review will be sent to the corresponding author and forwarded to other authors.

f) Article Processing Charge (Formatting and Hosting) Is Paid

If the submission is accepted, the authors revise paper and pay the Article Processing Charge (Formatting and Hosting) ( 300USD ).

g)  Publication Notice

The authors and readers will be notified and invited to visit our website for the newly published articles.

Vol 12, No 2 (2023)

Table of contents.

Journal of Business Administration Research (Submission E-mail: [email protected] )

ISSN 1927-9507 (Print)      ISSN 1927-9515  (Online)

Copyright © Sciedu Press

To make sure that you can receive messages from us, please add the 'Sciedupress.com' domain to your e-mail 'safe list'. If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox', check your 'bulk mail' or 'junk mail' folders.

Journal of Comprehensive Business Administration Research

About the journal.

Journal of Comprehensive Business Administration Research (JCBAR) is an open-access journal that serves as a platform for scholars, practitioners, and policymakers to engage in innovative discourse and share insights on contemporary issues in business administration. The journal fosters a culture of continuous learning and reflection among stakeholders. The journal aims to foster debates and discussions on a wide array of topics and promote excellence in research by publishing high-quality, peer-reviewed, original research articles, case studies, and reviews that contribute to the advancement of knowledge in business administration. Research into innovative approaches and strategies within the field of business administration is encouraged. Experimental and numerical research, as well as research into current advances, state-of-the-art, and upcoming breakthroughs in this sector, are strongly welcomed.

The journal is currently free to the authors, and all Article Processing Charges (APCs) are waived until 31 December 2024.

Current Issue

Research Articles

Intelligent system of estimation of total factor productivity (tfp) and investment efficiency in the economy with external technology gaps, evaluating financial support of governmental institutions and private banks to smes and farmers: case of tokat city, impact of social media sentiments on stock market behavior: a machine learning approach to analyzing market dynamics, probabilistic interpretation of entrepreneurial opportunity using the many-worlds model, blockchain-based nft warranty system: a software implementation, analysis of factors affecting purchase of dietary supplements, protection of trademark rights on e-commerce platforms: an updated outlook, the need for the green economy factors in assessing the development and growth of russian raw materials companies, the influence of internal corporate social responsibility factors on the innovation climate of employees in the healthcare industry, transcendental leadership and performance: role of workplace spirituality and corporate social responsibility, fan art in e-commerce marketplace copyright protection: a study of the chinese experience, a structural equation model study for adoption of internet of things for the growth of manufacturing industries in australia., journal information, make a submission, announcements, bon view publishing formally joined open access scholarly publishing association(oaspa).

Bon View Publishing Pte. Ltd. has recently become a member of  Open Access Scholarly Publishing Association(OASPA) . As the member of OASPA, Bon View Publishing is intrinsic to fulfilling the mission of encouraging and enabling open access as the predominant model of communication for scholarly outputs.

Journal of Comprehensive Business Administration Research has successfully registered the ISSN!

ISSN Approved: 3029-2697

• Intelligent System of Estimation of Total Factor Productivity (TFP) and Investment Efficiency in the Economy with External Technology Gaps 275
• Evaluating Financial Support of Governmental Institutions and Private Banks to SMEs and Farmers: Case of Tokat City 141
• Probabilistic Interpretation of Entrepreneurial Opportunity Using the Many-Worlds Model 123
• Blockchain-Based NFT Warranty System: A Software Implementation 112
• Protection of Trademark Rights on E-commerce Platforms: An Updated Outlook 86

eISSN 3029-2697 | Published by Bon View Publishing Pte Ltd.

Member of  

The library building will be open from 9:00am-3:00pm on Friday, March 29th. Our services will be available online 7:45am-4:30pm for your convenience.

• University of Wisconsin-Superior
• Jim Dan Hill Library
• Subject Guides

Business Administration

Subject databases, featured journals, general databases.

• Background Information
• SWOT Analysis
• Company Financial Information
• Data Sources
• Tax Research
• Streaming Videos
• Help Guides

Evaluate Journals

For the most complete, detailed publication information (including whether or not a journal is peer-reviewed), the best source of information to consult is Ulrich's:

Major source for academic journals, trade publications, market and industry research reports, company annual reports, dissertations, and working papers. Also contains country profiles and economic forecasts for most major economies.

Find company data, research, key executives, financial data, competitors, history, SWOT analysis, and more.

Help Guides:

• Business Market Research Collection database
• ProQuest platform

Included Databases:  

• ABI/INFORM Collection
• Accounting, Tax & Banking Collection
• Asian & European Business Collection
• Business Market Research Collection
• Business Video Database
• Entrepreneurship Database
• J.P. Morgan Research
• Business Premium Collection database
• International Journal of Internet Marketing and Advertising Provides information on the use of the Internet and its applications in marketing and advertising.
• Journal of Digital & Social Media Marketing Journal of Digital & Social Media Marketing is the essential peer-reviewed, professional journal for all those involved in the marketing of products or services using digital channels.
• Journal of Political Economy Presents work in traditional areas of political economics: monetary theory, fiscal policy, labor economics, planning and developments, micro- and macroeconomic theory, and international trade and finance. Also publishes analyses in related fields such as economic thought and social economics.
• Public Relations Strategist Aims to present new ideas related to effective public relations at the management level.
• Sales & Marketing Management Provides executives in the sales and marketing field with information on relevant trends, strategies, and cutting-edge case studies designed to help them sell more, manage better and market smarter.
• Harvard Business Review Written for upper level management. Presents analysis of management problems and helpful commentary on advanced thinking and practice in all fields of management and administration.

Find full text articles from core journals in history, political science, philosophy, mathematics, economics, and other social sciences and humanities. The most recent three years are not included for titles which are still being published.

Covers literature and criticism, history, the visual and performing arts, cultural studies, education, political science, gender studies, etc. Contains current full text scholarly journals which cover these fields and a significant collection of recent scholarly books.

SAGE Journals includes leading international peer-reviewed journals, including high-impact research titles published on behalf of more than 350 scholarly and professional societies. Subject coverage spans business, humanities, social sciences, and science, technology, medicine and many more.

Access the worlds leading scholarly literature in the sciences, social sciences, arts, and humanities and examine proceedings of international conferences, symposia, seminars, colloquia, workshops, and conventions. Dates of Coverage: 1987-Present

Access Note: Limited to 1 user at a time.

Included Databases:

• Science Citation Index Expanded (1987-present)
• Social Sciences Citation Index (1987-present)
• Arts & Humanities Citation Index (1987-present)
• Conference Proceedings Citation Index- Science (2013-present)
• Conference Proceedings Citation Index- Social Science & Humanities (2013-present)
• Book Citation Index Science (2013-present)
• Book Citation Index Social Sciences & Humanities (2013-present)
• Emerging Sources Citation Index (2015-present)
• Current Chemical Reactions (2013-present)
• Index Chemicus (2013-present)

• Next: Background Information >>

Business Administration

• Top Databases
• Top Journals
• Find Articles
• Find and Access Books
• Request Items not in Milner

Top Business Journals

• Academy of Management Review The mission of AMR is to publish theoretical insights that advance our understanding of management and organizations. To do this, researchers can develop new management and organization theory, significantly challenge or clarify existing theory, synthesize recent advances and ideas into fresh, if not entirely new theory, or initiate a search for new theory by identifying and delineating a novel theoretical problem.
• Academy of Management Journal The mission of AMJ is to publish empirical research that tests, extends, or builds management theory and contributes to management practice. All empirical methods including, but not limited to, qualitative, quantitative, field, laboratory, meta-analytic, and mixed methods are included.
• Journal of International Business Studies The journal publishes content from across the the six sub-domains of international business studies: (1) the activities, strategies, structures and decision-making processes of multinational enterprises; (2) interactions between multinational enterprises and other actors, organizations, institutions, and markets; (3) the cross-border activities of firms; (4) how the international environment affects the activities, strategies, structures and decision-making processes of firms; (5) the international dimensions of organizational forms and activities; and (6) cross-country comparative studies of businesses, business processes and organizational behavior in different countries and environments.
• Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science The Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science (JAMS) is devoted to the study and improvement of marketing and serves as a vital link between scholarly research and practice by publishing research-based articles in the substantive domain of marketing.
• Journal of Business Venturing The journal publishes entrepreneurship research from (1) the disciplines of economics, psychology, and sociology and welcomes research from other disciplines such as anthropology, geography, history, and so on, (2) the functions of finance/accounting, management, marketing, and strategy and welcomes research from other functions such as operations, information technology, public policy, medicine, law, music, and so on, and (3) the contexts of international and sustainability and welcomes research from other contexts such as high uncertainty, dynamism, time pressured, emotional, and so on.
• Journal of Consumer Research Empirical, theoretical, and methodological articles spanning fields such as psychology, marketing, sociology, economics, communications, and anthropology are featured in this interdisciplinary journal. The primary thrust of JCR is academic, rather than managerial, with topics ranging from micro-level processes (such as brand choice) to more macro-level issues (such as the development of materialistic values).
• Strategic Management Journal Strategic Management Journal publishes original refereed material concerned with all aspects of strategic management. It is devoted to the improvement and further development of the theory and practice of strategic management and it is designed to appeal to both practising managers and academics.
• Journal of Business Administration Research This is is an open-access, peer-reviewed journal specializing in business administration. The journal is aimed at providing innovative insights in the field of business administration. The scope of the Journal of Business Administration Research includes business operations, decision-making, management decisions, operations, administration decisions, general, strategic, international management, organizational behavior, marketing, accounting, and finance.
• American Journal of Economics and Business Administration The American Journal of Economics and Business Administration is a peer-reviewed journal that publishes original, innovative and novel work in various areas representing the intersection of economics as a scientific discipline and the professional practice of business management.
• Administrative Science Quarterly This journal is a peer-reviewed, interdisciplinary journal publishing theoretical and empirical work that advances the study of organizational behavior and theory. ASQ publishes articles that contribute to organization theory from a number of disciplines, including organizational behavior and theory, sociology, psychology and social psychology, strategic management, economics, public administration, and industrial relations.

• << Previous: Top Databases
• Next: Top Books >>
• Last Updated: Jun 2, 2023 11:08 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.illinoisstate.edu/businessadmin

Additional Links

• Directions and Parking
• Accessibility Services
• Library Spaces
• Staff Directory

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Carlos Lozada

What I Learned When I Read 887 Pages of Plans for Trump’s Second Term

By Carlos Lozada

Opinion Columnist, a co-host of “Matter of Opinion” and the author of “The Washington Book.”

Every new administration that wins power away from the opposing party contends that whatever its predecessors did was terrible and that victory constitutes a popular mandate to fix or get rid of it all. Elections have consequences, politicians love to remind us, and a big one entails trying to change everything, right away.

It is possible to read “ Mandate for Leadership : The Conservative Promise” — an 887-page document proposing to remake the executive branch, department by department, agency by agency, office by office — as one more go-round in this Washington tradition. With contributions by dozens of conservative thinkers and activists under the leadership of the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, the book announces itself as part of a “unified effort to be ready for the next conservative administration to govern at 12:00 noon, Jan. 20, 2025.” There is much work ahead, it states, “just to undo the significant damage that will have been done during the Biden years.”

The book has not been blessed by Donald Trump or his campaign, and the authors emphasize that they want to help the next conservative president, “whoever he or she may be.” But with so many former Trump officials among its contributors, so much praise for him throughout its pages (he is mentioned some 300 times, compared with once for Nikki Haley) and such clear affinity between Trump’s impulses and the document’s proposals, it is easy to imagine “Mandate for Leadership” wielding influence in a second Trump term. It is an off-the-shelf governing plan for a leader who took office last time with no clear plan and no real ability to govern. This book attempts to supply him with both.

There is plenty here that one would expect from a contemporary conservative agenda: calls for lower corporate taxes and against abortion rights; criticism of diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives and the “climate fanaticism” of the Biden administration; and plans to militarize the southern border and target the “administrative state,” which is depicted here as a powerful and unmanageable federal bureaucracy bent on left-wing social engineering. Yet what is most striking about the book is not the specific policy agenda it outlines but how far the authors are willing to go in pursuit of that agenda and how reckless their assumptions are about law, power and public service.

“Mandate for Leadership,” which was edited by Paul Dans and Steven Groves of the Heritage Foundation, is not about anything as simplistic as being dictator for a day but about consolidating authority and eroding accountability for the long haul. It calls for a relentless politicizing of the federal government, with presidential appointees overpowering career officials at every turn and agencies and offices abolished on overtly ideological grounds. Though it assures readers that the president and his or her subordinates “must be committed to the Constitution and the rule of law,” it portrays the president as the personal embodiment of popular will and treats the law as an impediment to conservative governance. It elevates the role of religious beliefs in government affairs and regards the powers of Congress and the judiciary with dismissiveness.

And for all the book’s rhetoric about the need to “dismantle the administrative state,” it soon becomes clear that vanquishing the federal bureaucracy is not the document’s animating ambition. There may be plenty worth jettisoning from the executive branch, but “Mandate for Leadership” is about capturing the administrative state, not unmaking it. The main conservative promise here is to wield the state as a tool for concentrating power and entrenching ideology.

“Mandate for Leadership” is not the kind of book meant to be read straight through from beginning to end, certainly not by any one person. (Trust me.) Each chapter features one or more authors exploring a particular department or agency in detail, so grasping the entirety of the book’s proposals would require deep expertise in multiple fields — trade negotiations, environmental science, diplomacy, nuclear power, to name a few — and in the intricacies of Washington wonkdom. The book’s prose is dense, packed with bullet points and bureaucratese, and reading about so many obscure offices, page after page, left me sympathetic to its complaints about an elephantine fourth branch of government. The introduction asserts that “one set of eyes reading these passages will be those of the 47th president of the United States,” but I wouldn’t count on any future president poring over these pages, highlighter in hand, nodding sagely. “Mandate for Leadership” is not an exercise in persuasion but a statement of purpose.

The mayhem of the Trump presidency’s early days might have occurred partly by design — recall Steve Bannon’s strategy to “flood the zone” with an expletive — but it is not an experience that the authors of this volume wish to repeat. The book’s existence is an implicit admission that the Trump administration’s haphazard approach to governance was a missed opportunity. Executing a conservative president’s agenda “requires a well-conceived, coordinated, unified plan and a trained and committed cadre of personnel to implement it,” the document says on its opening page. The phrasing quickly grows militaristic: The authors wish to “assemble an army of aligned, vetted, trained and prepared conservatives to go to work on Day 1 to deconstruct the administrative state.”

That deconstruction can be blunt. Portions of “Mandate for Leadership” read as though the authors did a Control-F search of the executive branch for any terms they deemed suspect and then deleted the offending programs or offices. The White House’s Gender Policy Council must go, along with its Office of Domestic Climate Policy. The Department of Energy’s Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations is a no-no. The E.P.A. can do without its Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights. And the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration should be dismantled because it constitutes “one of the main drivers of the climate change alarm industry.”

Sometimes search and destroy gives way to search and replace. At the Department of Health and Human Services, for instance, the Reproductive Healthcare Access Task Force, which the Biden administration created five months before the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June 2022, must be supplanted by a pro-life task force that ensures that all Health and Human Services divisions “use their authority to promote the life and health of women and their unborn children.” The document also asserts that the department should be known as the “Department of Life.” There is little interest here in the notion that different states can reach their own conclusions on abortion rights, as Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization ruling. Instead, the next president should work with federal lawmakers “to enact the most robust protections for the unborn that Congress will support.” (The focus on life is somewhat selective; while urging the next president to work on “restoring a culture of life in America,” the document also calls for “finality” in dealing with the dozens of inmates on death row.)

One of the book’s most frequent targets is D.E.I. — the diversity, equity and inclusion infrastructure erected throughout the federal government in recent years that “Mandate for Leadership” equates with racism. Just about every corner of the administration, from the Department of Labor to the U.S. Agency for International Development, must be scrubbed clean of D.E.I., and the measures to accomplish this can be brutish. At the Treasury Department, for instance, a new conservative administration would identify and interview every official who has taken part in D.E.I. programs to assess the scope of the efforts and ensure that they are eliminated, and it would “treat the participation in any critical race theory or D.E.I. initiative, without objecting on constitutional or moral grounds, as per se grounds for termination of employment.”

The excesses of diversity, equity and inclusion programs are hardly a concern only for the political right, but this isn’t just the countermanding of an ideology. It is a purging of anyone touched by it. Are you now or have you ever been a member of the D.E.I. party?

If “Mandate for Leadership” has its way, the next conservative administration will also target the data gathering and analysis that undergirds public policy. Every U.S. state should be required by Health and Human Services to report “exactly how many abortions take place within its borders, at what gestational age of the child, for what reason, the mother’s state of residence and by what method.” By contrast, the government should prohibit the collection of employment statistics based on race or ethnicity, and the Centers for Disease Control should discontinue gathering data on gender identity, on the grounds that such collection “encourages the phenomenon of ever-multiplying subjective identities.” (Why the executive branch might concern itself with the subjective identities of American citizens becomes clearer some 25 pages later, when the document affirms that the government should “maintain a biblically based, social-science-reinforced definition of marriage and family.”)

The portion of the book dedicated to the Census Bureau warns that the Biden administration’s data collection “could be skewed to bolster progressive political agendas,” yet “Mandate for Leadership” does not seem to grasp how its own proposals could prompt the same concerns in the opposite direction. It doesn’t take a conspiratorial mind to wonder about this; the document states its goal forthrightly: “Strong political leadership is needed to increase efficiency and align the Census Bureau’s mission with conservative principles.”

Even a leader who declared that he alone could fix things cannot accomplish all this alone. Joining the next conservative president would be that army of appointees marching to conquer the executive branch. One of the “pillars” of Project 2025 is the creation of a personnel database — a sort of “right-wing LinkedIn,” The Times has reported , seeking to attract some 20,000 potential administration officials. “Mandate for Leadership” maintains that “empowering political appointees across the administration is crucial to a president’s success,” and virtually every chapter calls for additional appointees to wrest power from longtime career staff members in their respective departments.

This is especially notable at both the State Department and the Department of Justice, which are considered susceptible to unsavory influences, in almost identical terms. “Large swaths of the State Department’s work force are left-wing and predisposed to disagree with a conservative president’s policy agenda and vision,” the book reads. Of the Department of Justice: “Large swaths of the department have been captured by an unaccountable bureaucratic managerial class and radical left ideologues who have embedded themselves throughout its offices.” (Lesson: Beware of swaths.)

It is, no doubt, the prerogative of all incoming presidents to appoint officials who support their agenda; in fact, since presidents are elected on their proposed agendas, it is right that they would do so. In “Mandate for Leadership,” longtime career civil servants are disparaged as “holdovers” with suspect loyalties, lacking the “moral legitimacy” that comes from being appointed by a president who is constitutionally bound to see that the laws are faithfully executed. The book calls for the reinstatement of Schedule F, a Trump-era executive order that would allow the president and political appointees to convert many career civil service positions into appointed roles, thus making those people easier to dismiss and replace with loyalists. In a memorable euphemism, the book refers to this effort as “identifying programmatic political work force needs.”

But there is a difference between fostering a work force that is accountable to the president and simply politicizing all aspects of the executive branch, including areas that require specific expertise. “Mandate for Leadership” leans toward the politicizing approach.

At the E.P.A., for example, the document calls for a new science adviser and at least six new appointees charged with reforming the agency’s scientific research; qualifications for those roles should stress managerial skills rather than “personal scientific output.” Throughout the book, descriptions of new research agendas are often paired with the explicit findings that such research should yield, whether on the mental and physical damage that abortion inflicts on women or the pernicious impact of taxes and regulations on minority-owned businesses. Later, tucked into a discussion of the National Institute of Standards and Technology at the Commerce Department — yes, the weeds are tall and scratchy here — the document urges a new administration to ensure that “any research conducted with taxpayer dollars serves the national interest in a concrete way in line with conservative principles.” It’s an effective sleight of hand: politicizing government-funded scientific research by tying the national interest to conservative priorities.

The administration of relief funds would also assume an ideological bent. “Mandate for Leadership” looks askance at Commerce’s Economic Development Administration, which makes investments to promote growth and innovation in struggling communities and helps distribute emergency funding. Ideally, the book says, a new conservative administration would abolish the agency and send its resources elsewhere. However, if congressional opposition makes that impossible, the Economic Development Administration should instead “better align funding with conservative political purposes.” There’s little subtlety: The book then argues that providing agency funds to “rural communities destroyed by the Biden administration’s attack on domestic energy production would be well within the scope of E.D.A.’s mission.” If you can’t beat them, at least make them work for you.

Despite its professed desire to reduce the size and ambition of government “back to something resembling the original constitutional intent,” in practice, the document’s contributors are willing to build significant bureaucracies. “Mandate for Leadership” calls for dismantling the Department of Homeland Security, for example, and instead creating a major stand-alone federal immigration department. It would piece together Customs and Border Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, as well as portions of the Health and Human Services and Justice Departments to build a Cabinet-level body employing more than 100,000 federal workers. This would be “the third-largest department measured by manpower,” the book boasts.

Proposed immigration policies include the “indefinite curtailment” of refugee admissions, completing a southwestern border wall and deploying “active-duty military personnel and National Guardsmen to assist in arrest operations along the border — something that has not yet been done.” It even imagines a new immigration-related revenue stream: charging asylum seekers for “premium processing” of their claims, an innovation that would offer “an opportunity for a significant influx of money.”

The authors recognize the bipartisan dangers of excessive political appointments in the executive branch, but they worry about that mainly when their opponents are the ones benefiting. “The desire to infiltrate political appointees improperly into the high career civil service has been widespread in every administration, whether Democrat or Republican,” the document acknowledges. “Democratic administrations, however, are typically more successful because they require the cooperation of careerists, who generally lean heavily to the left.”

This book does not call for an effort to depoliticize the administrative state. It simply wishes to politicize it in favor of a new side. Everybody does it; now it’s our turn. Get over it.

This attitude proves especially consequential in the book’s treatment of the Justice Department, which has “lost its way,” becoming “a bloated bureaucracy with a critical core of personnel who are infatuated with the perpetuation of a radical liberal agenda.” To find its way back in a new conservative administration, “Mandate for Leadership” implies, the department must become subservient to the White House.

The document cites several reasons the Justice Department has “forfeited the trust” of many Americans, including its promotion of the Trump-Russia collusion investigation and the abdication of its duty to enforce immigration laws. Therefore, a “vast expansion” of political appointees across the department is required, beyond those traditionally appointed to the office of the attorney general and deputy attorney general.

All such appointees must work closely with the White House; in fact, the Justice Department and the White House counsel should act “as a team.” And while the book notes that contact between the White House and the Department of Justice traditionally occurs between the office of the White House counsel and the attorney general or deputy attorney general — a practice that aims to reduce the risk of political interference in law enforcement — “Mandate for Leadership” encourages a new administration to “re-examine this policy and determine whether it might be more efficient or more appropriate for communication to occur through additional channels.”

It is more efficient and appropriate if the goal is to permit greater White House pressure on the nation’s senior law enforcement officers. Even the F.B.I. director, the document argues, must be as politically accountable to the president as any other senior official. “To ensure prompt political accountability and to rein in perceived or actual abuses,” it asserts, “the next conservative administration should seek a legislative change to align the F.B.I. director’s position with those of the heads of all other major departments and agencies.” Trump has complained that the F.B.I. and Justice Department have been weaponized against him; these reforms would ensure their politicization.

After all, when the Justice Department and White House must work as a team, it is clear who serves as team captain. “While the supervision of litigation is a D.O.J. responsibility, the department falls under the direct supervision and control of the president,” the book states. Even though the department will invariably face “tough calls” in its litigation decisions, “those calls must always be consistent with the president’s policy agenda and the rule of law.”

What happens when the agenda and the law conflict? The answer is implicit throughout “Mandate for Leadership.” At the Department of Homeland Security, for example, the general counsel should hire more political appointees to supervise the office’s career lawyers, because “the legal function cannot be allowed to thwart the administration’s agenda by providing stilted or erroneous legal positions.” The law must submit to the president’s priorities. If not, the lawyers are doing it wrong.

Declaring inconvenient laws inapplicable is another option. For example, when the secretary of homeland security decides that “an actual or anticipated mass migration of aliens” headed to the United States “presents urgent circumstances,” the secretary may issue whatever rules and regulations are deemed necessary, for as long as necessary, “including through the expulsion of such aliens,” with a final proviso that “such rule and regulation making shall not be subject to the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act.” Read the act , and you’ll see that it governs the process by which agency rules are exposed to public comment and are subject to review by the courts. That lone sentence, tacked on at the end of a paragraph on Page 152 of “Mandate for Leadership,” is a bureaucratic invitation to legal impunity.

The book regards pursuit of the president’s agenda — variously described as the president’s “needs,” “goals” or “desires” — as always consistent with the law. “The modern conservative president’s task is to limit, control and direct the executive branch on behalf of the American people,” it states. And the American people’s needs, goals and desires are conflated with those of the leader.

Ironically, in this worldview, the people’s needs and desires can become circumscribed. In the book’s foreword, Kevin D. Roberts, the president of the Heritage Foundation, writes that the “pursuit of happiness” in the Declaration of Independence should be understood as the “pursuit of blessedness,” that is, that “an individual must be free to live as his creator ordained — to flourish.” The Constitution, he explains, “grants each of us the liberty to do not what we want, but what we ought.” The book ties this argument to the philosophical and legal concept of “ordered liberty,” in which individual rights are weighed against social stability.

The notion that liberty entails the discipline to do the right thing, as opposed to the choice to do whatever things we want, has a long lineage in American political thought, dating back to the Puritans and the “city on a hill.” But in “Mandate for Leadership,” the answer to what we ought to do depends on the cultural and religious proclivities of the authors. “This pursuit of the good life is found primarily in family — marriage, children, Thanksgiving dinners and the like,” Roberts writes. It is also found in work, charity and, above all, in “religious devotion and spirituality.” Later, in a chapter on the Department of Labor, the book suggests that because “God ordained the Sabbath as a day of rest,” American workers should be paid extra for working on that day. “A shared day off makes it possible for families and communities to enjoy time off together, rather than as atomized individuals,” it says.

“Mandate for Leadership” often strains to reconcile what we ought to do with what the authors want us to do. In the same chapter on the Department of Labor, for example, the book calls on Congress to require that for all new federal contracts, at least 70 percent of contractors’ employees must be U.S. citizens (with the bar rising to at least 95 percent over time). Such a law is necessary, the book explains, “so that employers can again have the freedom to make hiring Americans a priority.”

If you want to make federal contractors hire more American workers, then, by all means, propose such a law. But couching it as a way to provide greater “freedom” to employers so they can do what the government is compelling them to do debases the notion of freedom. And it makes the book’s interpretation of “ordered liberty” seem more focused on giving orders than protecting liberty.

“Mandate for Leadership” is about not just a president exerting control over the executive branch but also the executive expanding its power over the other branches of government. In the book, the legislature and judiciary suffer from many small cuts and a few big ones.

Congress’s powers of oversight, for instance, would diminish in various ways. Rather than endure the process of congressional confirmation for people taking on key positions in the executive branch, the new administration should just place those officials in acting roles, which would allow them to begin pursuing the president’s agenda “while still honoring the confirmation requirement.” (That is, if bypassing the requirement is a form of honor.) Lawmakers would no longer review U.S. foreign arms sales, the book states, except when “unanimous congressional support is guaranteed,” a requirement that renders those reviews pointless. The Department of Homeland Security should have the power to select and limit its congressional oversight committees. And the White House can tell the State Department when to remain “radio silent” in the face of congressional inquiries.

In a section titled “Affirming the Separation of Powers,” the book contends that the executive branch — that is, the president and his team at the Justice Department — is just as empowered as any other branch of government to “assess constitutionality.” A new conservative administration must “embrace the Constitution and understand the obligation of the executive branch to use its independent resources and authorities to restrain the excesses of both the legislative and judicial branches.” The president must make sure that the leaders of the Justice Department share this view of the separation of powers.

It is the role of the judiciary, not of the president and a pliable attorney general, to decide whether laws and policies are constitutional. Believing otherwise does not “affirm” checks and balances; it undercuts them. “Mandate for Leadership” turns the separation of powers among the three branches into a game of rock, paper, scissors — except rock beats everything. It is consistent, though, with the leadership of a president who likes to talk of the nation’s top jurists as “my judges” and who referred to a former speaker of the House of Representatives as “my Kevin.”

It’s far from clear , of course, that Trump would turn to “Mandate for Leadership” as a default governing plan for a second term. Various organizations are proposing their own versions of a new conservative policy project, and it’s hard to say which, if any, might prevail. Trump’s campaign has made clear that no outside group speaks for him or represents his agenda. Keeping up with Trump’s views is the eternal challenge for anyone attempting to turn the former president’s impulses — those needs and desires — into a consistent ideology and policy program. (“Mandate for Leadership,” for example, suggests that NATO allies worried about Russia should count on Washington mainly for its nuclear deterrent and should field any conventional forces themselves, whereas this month Trump suggested that he would “encourage” Russia to attack NATO allies if they didn’t “pay their bills.”) The difficulty with Trumpism is Trump himself, who renders any coherent ism impossible.

“Mandate for Leadership” is a game effort, nonetheless. Its ability to obscure drastic change with drab prose is impressive. Its notions of an executive less encumbered by laws or oversight is of a piece with Trump’s views on the immunity and impunity that the president should enjoy. The document’s willingness to empower the administrative state when doing so suits ideological or policy preferences is remarkable, especially given its rhetoric to the contrary. At one point, in a chapter on the Commerce Department, a former Trump administration official offers some italicized advice: “When authoritarian governments explain what they plan to do, believe them unless hard evidence demonstrates otherwise.” He is discussing Russia and China, though the warning could apply more broadly.

Fifty years ago, Arthur Schlesinger Jr. published “ The Imperial Presidency ,” a study of the growing war-making abilities of the presidency and the parallel erosion of Congress’s constitutionally mandated power to declare war. Written during the Watergate scandal, the book also explored the ways in which the Nixon administration had arrogated to itself powers in the domestic arena, the abuses of which later led to the president’s resignation.

“Mandate for Leadership” also purports to lament the decline of congressional prerogatives and constitutional order. But at times the veil slips. In the final chapter, a former Trump administration Justice Department official admits that “until there is a return to a constitutional structure that the founding fathers would have recognized and a massive shrinking of the administrative state, conservatives cannot unilaterally disarm and fail to use the power of government to further a conservative agenda.”

That is the self-issued mandate of “Mandate for Leadership.” It is a call to arms, with the administrative state as its weapon of choice. In the foreword, Roberts, the Heritage Foundation president, writes that the administrative state isn’t going anywhere until Congress seizes power back from the federal bureaucracy. “But in the meantime,” he adds, “there are many executive tools a courageous conservative president can use to handcuff the bureaucracy, push Congress to return to its constitutional responsibility, restore power over Washington to the American people, bring the administrative state to heel.”

The problem with wielding the administrative state as a tool, even against itself, is that it grows comfortable in your hands. Why loosen that grip? In Washington, “the meantime” can last a long time.

Illustration by The New York Times; Photograph by David Yeazell/USA Today Sports, via Reuters Con

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here’s our email: [email protected] .

Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Instagram , TikTok , X and Threads .

Carlos Lozada is an Opinion columnist and a co-host of the weekly “Matter of Opinion” podcast for The Times, based in Washington, D.C. He is the author, most recently, of “ The Washington Book : How to Read Politics and Politicians.”  @ CarlosNYT

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Newsletters
• Photography
• Personal Finance
• AP Investigations
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Election Results
• Delegate Tracker
• AP & Elections
• March Madness
• AP Top 25 Poll
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Personal finance
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

Scathing federal report rips Microsoft for shoddy security, insincerity in response to Chinese hack

FILE - The Microsoft logo is seen in Issy-les-Moulineaux, outside Paris, France, April 12, 2016. In a scathing indictment of Microsoft corporate security and transparency, a Biden administration-appointed review board issued a report Tuesday, April 2, 2024, saying “a cascade of errors” by the tech giant let state-backed Chinese cyber operators break into email accounts of senior U.S. officials including Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo. (AP Photo/Michel Euler, File)

FILE - Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo, left, listens during a Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation hearing titled “CHIPS and Science Implementation and Oversight”, Wednesday, Oct. 4, 2023, on Capitol Hill in Washington. a scathing indictment of Microsoft corporate security and transparency, a Biden administration-appointed review board issued a report Tuesday, April 2, 2024, saying “a cascade of errors” by the tech giant let state-backed Chinese cyber operators break into email accounts of senior U.S. officials including Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo. (AP Photo/Mariam Zuhaib, File)

• Copy Link copied

BOSTON (AP) — In a scathing indictment of Microsoft corporate security and transparency, a Biden administration-appointed review board issued a report Tuesday saying “a cascade of errors” by the tech giant let state-backed Chinese cyber operators break into email accounts of senior U.S. officials including Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo.

The Cyber Safety Review Board, created in 2021 by executive order, describes shoddy cybersecurity practices, a lax corporate culture and a lack of sincerity about the company’s knowledge of the targeted breach, which affected multiple U.S. agencies that deal with China.

It concluded that “Microsoft’s security culture was inadequate and requires an overhaul” given the company’s ubiquity and critical role in the global technology ecosystem. Microsoft products “underpin essential services that support national security, the foundations of our economy, and public health and safety.”

The panel said the intrusion, discovered in June by the State Department and dating to May “was preventable and should never have occurred,” blaming its success on “a cascade of avoidable errors.” What’s more, the board said, Microsoft still doesn’t know how the hackers got in.

The panel made sweeping recommendations, including urging Microsoft to put on hold adding features to its cloud computing environment until “substantial security improvements have been made.”

It said Microsoft’s CEO and board should institute “rapid cultural change” including publicly sharing “a plan with specific timelines to make fundamental, security-focused reforms across the company and its full suite of products.”

In a statement, Microsoft said it appreciated the board’s investigation and would “continue to harden all our systems against attack and implement even more robust sensors and logs to help us detect and repel the cyber-armies of our adversaries.”

In all, the state-backed Chinese hackers broke into the Microsoft Exchange Online email of 22 organizations and more than 500 individuals around the world including the U.S. ambassador to China, Nicholas Burns — accessing some cloud-based email boxes for at least six weeks and downloading some 60,000 emails from the State Department alone, the 34-page report said. Three think tanks and foreign government entities, including a number of British organizations, were among those compromised, it said.

The board, convened by Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas in August, accused Microsoft of making inaccurate public statements about the incident — including issuing a statement saying it believed it had determined the likely root cause of the intrusion “when, in fact, it still has not.” Microsoft did not update that misleading blog post, published in September, until mid-March after the board repeatedly asked if it planned to issue a correction, it said.

Separately, the board expressed concern about a separate hack disclosed by the Redmond, Washington, company in January — this one of email accounts including those of an undisclosed number of senior Microsoft executives and an undisclosed number of Microsoft customers and attributed to state-backed Russian hackers.

The board lamented “a corporate culture that deprioritized both enterprise security investments and rigorous risk management.”

The Chinese hack was initially disclosed in July by Microsoft in a blog post and carried out by a group the company calls Storm-0558. That same group, the panel noted, has been engaged in similar intrusions — compromising cloud providers or stealing authentication keys so it can break into accounts — since at least 2009, targeting companies including Google, Yahoo, Adobe, Dow Chemical and Morgan Stanley.

Microsoft noted in its statement that the hackers involved are “well-resourced nation state threat actors who operate continuously and without meaningful deterrence.”

The company said it recognizes that recent events “have demonstrated a need to adopt a new culture of engineering security in our own networks,” adding it has “mobilized our engineering teams to identify and mitigate legacy infrastructure, improve processes, and enforce security benchmarks.”