Accreditation - Accreditation.Biz

February 7, 2024February 7, 2024

Predatory Academic Journals and Accreditation

By Dr. Vlad Krotov

Predatory journals are exploitative academic publishing platforms that charge authors high submission fees but fail to provide the legitimate services associated with reputable academic journals, such as peer review and editorial oversight. These journals often promise quick publication times and lack transparency in their operations. The term “predatory” is used because these journals prey on the need of researchers to publish their work for career advancement, academic requirement, or visibility, without actually contributing to the scholarly discourse in a meaningful way. Predatory journals pose significant challenges to the integrity and quality of academic and professional accreditation standards. In this article, we explain how to identify predatory journals and what simple strategies a business school can pursue to prevent faculty from publishing in these journals.

Predatory academic journals come in all shapes and sizes and are not unique to a particular field. However, there are few things that predatory academic journals share in common. Typical characteristics of predatory journals include:

- Lack of Peer Review: They often claim to conduct peer review but either do not do it or do it superficially, failing to uphold standards of academic rigor.
- Misleading Metrics: They may claim high impact factors and indexing in reputable databases without actual inclusion or by using misleading metrics.
- Aggressive Marketing: They frequently use spam emails to solicit manuscripts from researchers.
- Unclear Editorial Policies: They have vague or nonexistent editorial policies and practices, making it difficult to understand their review processes or criteria for publication.
- Dubious Practices: They may list scholars as editorial board members without their permission or knowledge, and often have fake or non-existent contact addresses.
- Rapid Publication: They promise rapid publication, which appeals to researchers under pressure to publish but undermines the integrity of the review process.
- High Article Processing Charges (APCs): They charge authors high fees for publishing, often without providing the expected publication services

Predatory journals pose significant challenges to the integrity and quality of academic and professional accreditation standards. Accreditation bodies evaluate academic programs, institutions, and professionals based on various criteria, including research output, publication quality, and contributions to the field. The issues with predatory journals impact these evaluations in several ways:

- Dilution of Scholarly Quality: Accreditation relies on the quality of scholarly work produced by an institution or individual. Publications in predatory journals, which lack rigorous peer review, can dilute the overall quality of an institution’s or individual’s scholarly output. This makes it difficult for accreditation bodies to assess the true academic contribution and quality of research.
- Misrepresentation of Academic Productivity: Predatory journals can inflate an individual’s or institution’s publication record, misleading accreditation bodies about the actual academic productivity and impact. This misrepresentation can lead to unwarranted accreditation status or recognition, undermining the credibility of the accreditation process.
- Erosion of Trust: The involvement of faculty, researchers, or institutions with predatory journals can erode trust in their credibility and integrity. For accreditation bodies, associating with entities that lack discernment in publication venues can question their standards and the value of the accreditation they provide.
- Resource Misallocation: Resources spent on publishing in predatory journals are resources wasted, as they do not contribute to the advancement of knowledge or the academic’s reputation in a meaningful way. This misallocation can affect the overall quality of education and research that accreditation bodies seek to ensure.
- Compromised Evaluation Metrics: Accreditation often uses publication records as a metric for evaluating the quality and impact of academic work. Predatory journals, through their lack of quality control and dubious metrics, compromise these evaluation metrics, making it harder for accreditation bodies to rely on publication records as a measure of quality.
- Difficulty in Distinguishing Legitimate Work: The prevalence of predatory journals makes it increasingly difficult for accreditation bodies to distinguish between legitimate and non-legitimate work. This requires them to invest additional resources in vetting publications, which can be both time-consuming and

Researchers are advised to carefully evaluate the credibility of journals before submitting their work, using tools and checklists such as the ABDC List, Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), Think. Check. Submit., and Beall’s List (though it’s no longer updated, it served as a significant resource for identifying potential predatory publishers).

Moreover, a business school may decide to develop policies that give faculty members credit only for publications that are in journals listed in well-accepted lists, such as ABDC or Cabells. Additional quality criteria may also be applied to these publications.

December 28, 2023December 28, 2023

Does AACSB accreditation lead to higher student enrollment?

By Dr. Vlad Krotov

Globally, AACSB accreditation is the most prestigious quality mark. It may take many years of concentrated effort and substantial financial investment to achieve AACSB accreditation. Before embarking on this accreditation journey, many business schools wonder whether their investment will yield a tangible return, especially in terms of student enrollment.

Several studies have attempted to link AACSB accreditation to various measures of business school performance, including student enrollment. Cameron et al. (2023) find that receiving AACSB accreditation elevates a school’s ranking, potentially attracting more students. Additionally, Ito (2022) suggests that AACSB accreditation can increase graduate student enrollment, particularly for teaching-oriented business schools. This notion is challenged by the study by Doh et al. (2018), indicating that HBCU business schools do not always get more enrollment through AACSB accreditation.

It can be argued that the results are mixed because it is difficult to develop a solid, longitudinal design that ties AACSB accreditation to school performance. There are many benefits of AACSB accreditation (Ito, 2022) but it is not the only variable that affects a business school’s performance. Other forces, such as demographic trends or competition, affect enrollment much more than accreditation in some markets.

Additionally, our experience indicates that accreditation efforts can have many negative effects in the short term. Having AACSB accreditation can, for example, lead to faculty attrition (because some faculty members may not wish to adhere to higher research standards or be involved in general quality improvement) or even to a drop in student enrollment (since some students prefer schools with lower academic standards where they can earn degrees more easily). According to Cameron et al. (2023), schools pursuing AACSB accreditation have “flatter undergraduate enrollment” than those not pursuing it.

It can be argued that AACSB accreditation is largely about creating and implementing a long-term plan for improving a business school. It’s a unique journey business schools choose to take. It’s hard to predict with certainty whether this journey will result in higher enrollment. The opposite outcome is quite possible. Dumond and Johnson (2013) suggest possible drawbacks or challenges associated with AACSB accreditation processes, such as limiting business schools’ ability to adjust to change. In some cases, business schools can make a strategic mistake by abandoning their current market in favor of one in which they have no advantage.

These errors in strategic planning, something that no business school is immune to, are likely to lead to lower enrollment. Peer Review Teams will often notice that a school lacks healthy enrollment and a viable financial position and require the school to address both. Unfortunately, not every business school can be successful at implementing these strategies, even with oversight from AACSB.

References

Cameron, M., McCannon, B. C., & Starr, K. (2023). AACSB accreditation and student demand. Southern Economic Journal, 90(2), 317-340.

Doh, L., Prince, D., McLain, M., & Credle, S. (2018). The impact of the AACSB accreditation on enrollment growth at HBCU(historically black colleges and universities) business schools. Pressacademia, 5(2), 130-141.

Dumond, E. J., & Johnson, T. W. (2013). Managing university business educational quality: ISO or AACSB?. Quality Assurance in Education, 21(2), 127-144.

Ito, H. (2022). Competing through international accreditation: cost-benefit analysis and process of AACSB for a business school in Japan. International Journal of Educational Management, 36(7), 1380-1393.

August 27, 2023August 27, 2023

Why do business schools move away from standardized test scores?

By Dr. Vlad Krotov

For decades, graduate business schools around the world have been using the GRE (Graduate Record Examination) and GMAT (Graduate Management Admission Test) scores as one of the major selection criteria. Today, some business schools are beginning to de-emphasize the importance of GRE and GMAT scores in their admission criteria, recognizing that they might not be the most accurate predictors of success in a graduate business program. Standardized test scores are being used as optional by many graduate business programs, including some of the top ones.

On the one hand, standardized test scores serve as a simple and reliable criteria for assessing certain skills of aspiring applicants, such as quantitative reasoning and analytical writing skills. On other hand, standardized tests have been plagued with numerous issues when used as the primary selection criteria for business school applicants. Some of the problems are discussed below:

- Limited Assessment: GRE and GMAT scores primarily assess quantitative and verbal reasoning skills, along with analytical writing ability. They may not fully capture an applicant’s broader skill set, such as leadership, creativity, communication, and interpersonal skills. These “soft skills” are crucial for success in business and management. It has been observed by many business schools that some applicants with outstanding test scores lack these skills and do not even seem to show a great deal of potential to improve.
- Test Anxiety: Some students experience test anxiety, which can negatively impact their performance on standardized tests. There are some business schools that worry that requiring standardized test scores may discourage potential applicants from applying.
- Bias: It has been argued in research literature that standardized tests can exhibit cultural, socioeconomic, and gender biases that may disadvantage certain groups of applicants. As a result, requiring standardized tests may put certain groups at a disadvantage, creating an unfair admission process.
- Reduced Diversity: Relying heavily on standardized tests might inadvertently limit the diversity of the admitted student body. Candidates from non-traditional backgrounds, different industries, or with unique skill sets may not be accurately represented by these tests.
- Preparation Disparities: Performance on GRE and GMAT can be influenced by the extent of test preparation. Students who can afford to spend time and money on test prep courses or resources might have an advantage, potentially leading to inequities in the admissions process. For example, younger students may have more time on their hands to prepare for these tests in comparison to older, working adults. Thus, this may put busy, experienced executives at a disadvantage when applying to programs that actually have experienced executives as their target market.
- Mismatch with Program Goals: For some business programs that focus on specialized fields or non-traditional business disciplines, GRE and GMAT scores might not align well with the specific skills and knowledge required for success in those areas.
- COVID-19 Disruptions: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused disruptions in test administration, including cancellations and changes to the testing format. This has prompted some schools to temporarily or permanently waive standardized test requirements.
- Cheating: While companies administering standardized tests take numerous precautions to protect the integrity of the examination process, some students still manage to cheat on these exams. In the COVID-19 era, many standardized tests were administered online, which exacerbated the issue. Admission professionals and program directors routinely come across applicants with “sky high” test scores who appear to lack basic quantitative and verbal skills. Some graduate business programs choose to interview all the applicants to verify their skills and credentials “in person”.

Given these challenges, many business schools are reevaluating the role of GRE and GMAT scores in their admissions process and considering more holistic approaches that consider a wider range of factors when evaluating applicants. Some business schools are moving towards more holistic admission approaches, considering factors like work experience, recommendation letters, interviews, and personal statements. Overreliance on GRE/GMAT scores might overshadow these valuable insights into an applicant’s suitability for the program.

While many accredited business schools do require standardized test scores as a part of their admission process, it should be noted that some of the most prominent accreditation agencies for business schools, such as AACSB, do not explicitly require standardized test scores to be used in business school admission. An accredited business school is typically required to have a formal admission process to select applicants who are likely to master the program learning outcomes. Therefore, accreditation agencies emphasize overall education quality rather than specific selection criteria.

August 17, 2023August 17, 2023

The Impact of Accreditation on Faculty Salaries

By Dr. Vlad Krotov

Faculty compensation at AACSB accredited schools vs. the market average

As a way to attract and retain quality employees who can support the mission and goals of the college, internationally accredited business schools generally offer above-average market compensation to their faculty and staff.

According to AACSB’s 2019–20 Staff Compensation and Demographics Survey, the overall average nine-month salary for faculty at AACSB accredited schools (across all ranks and disciplines) is approximately 131 thousand USD; the median is 12 thousand USD. ZipRecruiter, a leading employment website in the United States, reports that the average compensation for a business school professor in the United States in 2023 is approximately 103 thousand USD. The compensation offered by AACSB-accredited schools is therefore noticeably higher than the market average.

References

AACSB (2023). 2019–20 Staff Compensation and Demographics. Retrieved from https://www.aacsb.edu/insights/data-insights/staff-compensation-and-demographics-survey

ZipRecruiter (2023). Business School Professor Salary. Retrieved from https://www.ziprecruiter.com/Salaries/Business-School-Professor-Salary

August 2, 2023August 2, 2023

What is Triple Crown Accreditation?

By Dr. Vlad Krotov

Triple crown accreditation: AACSB, EQUIS, AMBA

Triple crown accreditation refers to a prestigious recognition awarded to business schools that have achieved accreditation from three prominent international accreditation bodies for business education. These three major accrediting organizations are:

- Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB): AACSB accreditation is widely regarded as the most rigorous and prestigious accreditation for business schools. It focuses on evaluating the quality of a business school’s faculty, curriculum, teaching methods, and research output.
- European Quality Improvement System (EQUIS): EQUIS is a European-based accreditation body that assesses the overall quality and internationalization of business schools. It evaluates aspects such as governance, programs, student body, research, and engagement with the corporate world.
- Association of MBAs (AMBA): AMBA is a global accreditation body specifically focused on MBA programs. It assesses the curriculum, faculty, student diversity, and career services of MBA programs offered by business schools.

Achieving triple crown accreditation signifies that the school has met stringent international standards of excellence in business education and is recognized for delivering high-quality programs with global relevance. Triple crown accreditation is a mark of distinction and can enhance a business school’s reputation and attractiveness to prospective students and employers. It is estimated that only one percent (approximately 120) of business schools have achieved triple crown accreditation. Even so, triple crown accreditation does not imply that the school is among the top one percent of business schools worldwide.

Achieving triple crown accreditation is a challenging and lengthy process that requires a strong commitment to continuous improvement and academic excellence. As a result, only a select number of business schools around the world have earned this distinguished status. Furthermore, business schools in Europe and Asia are more likely to pursue triple crown accreditation than those in the United States.

July 31, 2023July 31, 2023

Top 10 Reasons for Majoring in Business

By Dr. Vlad Krotov

Business education has been under a lot of scrutiny in recent years. There have been criticisms of business programs over their high costs, outdated curriculum, and inadequate opportunities for meaningful careers after graduation.

Still, many students choose business as their undergraduate major. In fact, in many universities, business majors comprise the largest or one of the largest groups of students. Students choose to major in business for a variety of reasons, as it offers several attractive advantages and opportunities. Some of the common reasons why students opt to major in business include:

1. Versatility: A business degree provides a broad foundation of knowledge and skills that can be applied to various industries and job roles. Graduates can pursue careers in finance, marketing, human resources, operations, entrepreneurship, and more.
2. Job opportunities: The business field offers a wide range of job opportunities with potential for growth and advancement. Graduates can enter diverse sectors, including corporate, nonprofit, government, and startup environments.
3. High earning potential: Business-related professions often come with competitive salaries and attractive benefits, especially as individuals progress in their careers and take on leadership roles.
4. Entrepreneurial aspirations: Some students with entrepreneurial ambitions choose to major in business to gain the necessary knowledge and skills to start and manage their own businesses.
5. Practical skills: Business programs typically focus on real-world problem-solving, decision-making, and critical thinking, which are highly valuable in various professional settings.
6. Networking opportunities: Business programs often provide ample networking opportunities, enabling students to connect with industry professionals, potential employers, and like-minded peers.
7. Flexibility: Business degrees can be flexible in terms of study options, allowing students to choose from various specializations and tailor their education to align with their interests and career goals.
8. Global perspective: Business programs often emphasize international business practices, helping students develop a broader understanding of the global economy and cultural diversity.
9. Influence and impact: Business leaders have the potential to drive significant change and make a positive impact on their organizations and communities.
10. Interdisciplinary nature: Business intersects with many other fields, such as economics, psychology, technology, and law, providing opportunities for cross-disciplinary learning and application.

It’s important to note that while a business degree can offer numerous benefits, students should also consider their personal interests, strengths, and long-term career goals when choosing a major. The decision should be based on a thoughtful consideration of individual aspirations and alignment with one’s passions and abilities.

In addition, students should always choose to study business at an accredited business school. Business programs that are accredited by well-known accreditation agencies such as AACSB, EQUIS, ACBSP, or AMBA are more likely to deliver on all these promises.

Certain business accreditations are granted at the program level, so a business school may have programs that are not accredited. The prospective student should always check whether the program that he or she is interested in is accredited by AACSB, EQUIS, ACBSP, or AMBA.

October 19, 2022October 19, 2022

Business Accreditation and Curriculum Alignment

By Dr. Vlad Krotov & Dr. Pitzel Krotova

AACSB and ACBSP Curriculum Standards

Obtaining an international accreditation for a business school usually requires extensive revisions of existing curriculum in order to meet the requirements of curriculum-specific accreditation standards. For example, Standard 4 of the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) requires that “the school delivers content that is current, relevant, forward-looking, globally oriented, aligned with program competency goals, and consistent with its mission, strategies, and expected outcomes” (AACSB International, 2022). Similarly, Standard 6 of the Accreditation Council for Business Schools and Programs (ACBSP) requires that “the curriculum must be comprised of appropriate business and professional content to prepare graduates for success” and that the business school “must have a systematic process to ensure continuous improvement of curriculum and program delivery” (ACBSP, 2022). In this article, we talk about the most important elements of a business curriculum and how these elements can be aligned in order to meet the accreditation requirements and build an effective, self-sustaining quality assurance system in relation to business curriculum.

Curriculum Elements

In short, curriculum describes what is taught at a business school and how it is taught (Squires, 2012). A curriculum is usually formalized using a document or a plan that spells out the following:

1. Program learning outcomes (PLOs) that graduates must master
2. Course learning outcomes (CLOs) or goals that outline smaller and specific learning objectives to be achieved within each course comprising the program
3. Alignment of program learning outcomes (PLOs) and course learning outcomes (CLOs); this alignment is usually provided with the help of a course alignment matrix (CAM) that shows how individual courses and their CLOs support PLOs
4. Appropriate assessment tools that can be used to measure CLOs and/or PLOs
5. The content or material to be taught within each course comprising the program in the form of course syllabi

There are many other elements that comprise a curriculum (see Table 1). All these elements must be properly aligned to ensure effective development of the desired competencies among students.

Curriculum Element	Description
College Mission	Defines the aim of a college, its main reason for existence
Market Conditions	Economic marketplaces often dictate which professions or competencies are in demand in the workplace
Compliance Standards	Accreditation and governing bodies often mandate competencies that a particular program needs to develop
Program Learning Outcomes (PLOs)	High-level goals (or competencies) that students are expected to attain as a result of completing a particular program of study
Course Learning Outcomes (CLOs)	Specific course-level objectives (or competencies) that students are expected to attain as a result of completing a specific course
Course Materials	Training materials used as part of a course: textbooks, books, journals and journal articles, electronic and multimedia materials, etc.
Pedagogy	Various theories, methods, or tools employed to develop competencies among students
Technology	Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) used to deliver course content
Physical Resources	Physical facilities (e.g., classrooms, labs, specialized equipment, etc.) allocated to a course or program
Credit Hours	Amount of face-to-face or online interaction between a student and an instructor devoted to a particular course or program
Assurance of Learning (AoL)	How attainment of particular learning outcomes (or competencies) is assessed and reported at the course and program level

Table 1. Curriculum Elements (Camba & Krotov, 2015)

Curriculum Alignment

Curriculum alignment can be viewed as a triangle with the following three cornerstones: curriculum, teacher, and test (see Figure 1).

The model shows the need for the three elements to be connected or aligned. Educational goals that are targeted by the curriculum become the basis of defining the work to be done by teachers. Formal testing (or assessment) is used to evaluate the degree to which teachers further deliver the educational goals set forth by the curriculum. Thus, a well-aligned curriculum can also be viewed as a self-sufficient quality control system.

Managing Curriculum Alignment

Lewin’s process-based change management model (see Figure 2) can be used as a guiding framework for an effective curriculum alignment initiative.

Figure 2. Lewin’s Change Management Model (Kaminski, 2011)

The first stage of the curriculum alignment process is the so-called “unfreeze” stage. This stage aims to prepare for the desired changes in the curriculum by having clear and open communication with all the relevant stakeholders in relation to the desired changes in the curriculum. In this stage, people involved in delivering and managing the curriculum analyze the current curriculum and identify the changes that are necessary in order to meet the accreditation standards or achieve the desired improvements in relation to the curriculum. All the stakeholders participating in the “unfreeze” stage need to be convinced that new materials, structures, and processes must be adopted in order to achieve desired improvements. In the second stage called “change,” the stakeholders implement the intended changes to the curriculum. This phase is time-consuming, confusing, and costly. The third stage of the curriculum alignment process is the “refreeze” stage. During this stage, changes to the curriculum are stabilized. The main concern in this phase is to ensure that change becomes a permanent part of the normal process and the system does not revert to the old ways and habits.

References

AACSB International (2022). 2020 Guiding Principles and Standards for Business Accreditation. Retrieved from https://www.aacsb.edu/educators/accreditation/business-accreditation/aacsb-business-accreditation-standards

ACBSP (2022). Accreditation Standards. Retrieved from https://acbsp.org/page/accreditation-standards

Camba, P., & Krotov, V. (2015). Critical success factors in the curriculum alignment process: The case of the college of business at Abu Dhabi University. Journal of Education for Business, 90(8), 451-457.

English, F. W. (2000). Deciding What to Teach and Test: Developing, Aligning, and Auditing the Curriculum. California: Corwin Press, Inc.

Glatthorn, A. A. (1999). Curriculum alignment revisited. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 15(1), 26.

Kaminski, J. (2011). Theory applied to informatics-Lewin’s change theory. Canadian Journal of Nursing Informatics, 6(1).

Squires, D. (2012). Curriculum alignment research suggests that alignment can improve student achievement. Clearing House, 85(4), 129-135.

AACSB, ACBSP, Accreditation, Change Management, Curriculum, Curriculum Alignment

August 19, 2022August 19, 2022

Accreditation Reaffirmation via Skeletons of the Self-Study Teams

By Dr. James E. Mackin

Whether we’re talking about regional or professional accreditation, there is always work to be done to ensure that the institution is progressing toward the next accreditation visit (the so-called “accreditation reaffirmation”). It is all too common that once an accreditation visit has taken place and all of the recommendations emanating from the visit have been addressed, an institution will essentially relax until the next visit is imminent. Then, the scramble begins again to ensure that the institution is in compliance with the accreditation requirements. Inevitably, the institution will at the very least receive recommendations from the next accreditation visit because accreditation standards have not been addressed in between accreditation visits.

The point is that institutions should never relax when it comes to accreditation requirements. It is useful to think about accreditation as a process by which institutions can ensure that they are always doing the right things. For example, it is a good thing for students that institutions constantly assess learning outcomes, and that is why accrediting bodies require continuous assessment of learning outcomes. Therefore, even without the looming threat of accreditation, institutions should continuously address accreditation standards on an ongoing basis.

One strategy that you can use to ensure that you are always paying attention to your accreditation standards is to maintain skeletons of the self-study teams even during periods when an accreditation visit is not imminent. The skeleton self-study teams would continuously monitor the institution’s compliance with accreditation standards, and if any “relaxing” does occur, the teams can bring concomitant issues to your attention for remediation. The point is that if the institution operates as if an accreditation visit is always on the horizon, then the issues that come up at an actual accreditation visit will be relatively minor and will be straightforward to deal with.