Open Science requires a new culture of debate in business administration

The three key learnings:

• Open Science does not merely mean that publications are freely accessible. Equally crucial is the opportunity to participate in the academic debate. Openness enables participation in the exchange of academic arguments, peer-review decisions, criticism and any necessary corrections as part of learning processes. Academic progress arises precisely because existing findings can be scrutinised and, where necessary, revised.
• Scientific relevance also depends on whether findings are comprehensible and compatible beyond one’s own specialist community. Open publications and visible debates can help to ensure that insights from finance, marketing, organisation or production are more closely interconnected.
• Open publication models such as Diamond Open Access can only function sustainably if they are funded in the long term and recognised in appointment, funding and evaluation procedures. This means that individual open action alone is not enough; rather, libraries, professional societies, funding organisations, universities and publishers must jointly create structures in which openness does not represent a career disadvantage.

Why does business administration need an open access transformation?

TG: Whether business studies in particular needs it to a greater extent is an open question. The social and economic sciences as a whole – and therefore, of course, business studies too – must become more transparent and communicate their research findings more effectively to the wider public. Research should be publicly accessible and comprehensible. That is the fundamental point.

What has caused the transformation to falter so far? If you were to look at the entire publication system, which lever would you adjust first?

TG: If you compare the various academic disciplines, you can see significant differences. In the natural sciences, specialist journals and scientific articles serve primarily to communicate positive knowledge. If, for example, a new compound is discovered, it can be published provided the findings are plausible, correct and verifiable. Others can verify them and build upon them. In this way, positive new knowledge is added to the existing body of knowledge. The role of journals is to collect this knowledge and make it publicly accessible.

In the field of economics, a strong normative component comes into play alongside this positive knowledge. It is not merely a question of whether a paper is methodologically and substantively correct. It is often also decisive whether it is deemed relevant and sufficiently significant. Is it a major contribution or merely a minor extension of the current state of research? What socio-political implications are drawn? Such assessments are increasingly being used as grounds for rejection. A typical justification is that, whilst the paper is correct, it is not significant enough. Papers are rejected far less frequently because they contain a specific error, but rather because their political implications are deemed objectionable.

An additional problem concerns critical papers that highlight errors, misleading conclusions or overly narrow assumptions in previously published works. Ten or twenty years ago, such corrections may have been easier to publish. Today, in some journals, they are treated almost as a crime of lèse-majesté. They are usually rejected under other pretexts, not because of the actual conflict.

I have experienced this myself with a paper co-authored with colleagues. We demonstrated that the results of an existing paper were valid only under very specific conditions and that generalising the assumptions led to different outcomes. Two reviewers gave our paper a positive assessment after several rounds of revisions. A third, however, remained fundamentally opposed. Presumably, this was one of the authors of the original paper. The editor finally brought the process to a close on the grounds that there had been no convergence between the reviews.

We were told, in essence, that the journal had already published the earlier paper and could not simply accept a paper that called its findings into question. This candour was remarkable, but at the same time revealed a problematic understanding of science. Science thrives on errors being identified and corrected. Correcting an error is also a scientific contribution, and sometimes even a very significant one.

A well-known example is Harold Hotelling’s paper on the principle of minimal differentiation. In a spatial competition model, Hotelling investigated why, for example, two banks or shops often establish themselves in the same location rather than spreading out geographically and covering different parts of a city. He developed a model for this and published the paper in 1929 in the Economic Journal. However, even such influential models must remain open to scrutiny and, where necessary, correction.

That was almost a hundred years ago.

TG: Around fifty years later, it was shown that Hotelling’s result is incorrect. Thisse and his co-authors demonstrated that, at the point where Hotelling had assumed an equilibrium existed, none actually does. The reaction function is discontinuous there. Furthermore, if one relaxes the model by making price competition less rigorous, the result is not minimal but maximal differentiation – in other words, exactly the opposite.

I mention this example because it illustrates how scientific learning and scientific progress work. Hotelling developed his model at a time when game theory had not yet been formally established. His principle of minimal differentiation later proved untenable in a strategic model. If one calculates a Nash equilibrium for the game he described, the original assumption does not hold. If, instead, one searches for stable states through simple modifications, one even arrives at different results, i.e. from minimal to maximal differentiation. This correction represented a significant advance in our understanding.

I would like to return to my starting point. Some areas of our discipline are strongly characterised by hierarchy and dogmatism. Once a result has been published, critical objections or counter-arguments are only reluctantly permitted. There are very few journals that explicitly provide formats for comments, replies or corrections. Yet it should go without saying that a published article should be open to criticism if it contains an error. It must be possible to rectify such an error. Where there are differing interpretations of a model, however, we are once again operating on a normative level. This is something that can and should be discussed. An academic journal would be the appropriate forum for conducting such a debate publicly and transparently.

For many researchers, the journal’s reputation is what counts most, for example when applying for jobs or third-party funding. Whether an article is actually read sometimes seems to be of secondary importance. Why, then, does business administration still need Open Access and alternative models such as Diamond Open Access?

TG: Open Access is only part of the answer. Equally important is the question of how transparent peer-review and selection processes are. Particularly when rejections are based not only on academic considerations but also on normative or ideological ones, these should be transparent. If the entire process remains secret, it is easy to get the impression that everything published is correct and no longer needs to be questioned. This contradicts an open understanding of scholarship. Science must allow for criticism and correction. Science thrives on the exchange of arguments.

So the bigger problem isn’t just about access to publications?

TG: Exactly. Added to this is the fact that we often substitute substantive quality with indicators of reputation. Reading a paper thoroughly, understanding its methods and assessing its arguments is a demanding task. It is easier to look at journal rankings and bibliometric indicators. Such indicators make decision-making easier, but say only so much about the quality of an individual paper. It becomes particularly problematic when they dominate appointments, decisions on third-party funding and access to the academic labour market.

Who benefits from this system?

TG: Those who shape the standards of leading journals simultaneously influence the academic labour market. Behind this lie disciplinary, institutional and also commercial interests. Prestigious universities benefit when their journals, degrees and networks are regarded as benchmarks of quality. The University of Chicago is a good example of this. Its journals and its academic reputation have a significant influence on the field of economics. That is not inherently problematic. It becomes problematic, however, when reputation replaces an assessment of content and part of quality management is effectively outsourced to a handful of leading institutions.

What specifically needs to change?

TG: Journals should not only select articles but also facilitate academic debate. This includes comments, replies, corrections and the opportunity to respond to criticism. Open review has its pros and cons. Not every step needs to be entirely public. What is crucial, however, is a culture of transparent debate. Open Access provides access to the articles. Open Science goes beyond that. It must be possible to exchange arguments openly, correct errors and scrutinise established positions.

Science thrives on the exchange of arguments. However, the academic world is highly competitive. For many early-career researchers, the immediate priority is to secure the next post and remain within the system. Is a culture of open debate even realistic under these conditions?

TG: Competition could certainly foster scientific debate. Anyone who has a good idea or identifies weaknesses in an existing paper should be able to publish their arguments, if necessary in another journal. A prerequisite, however, is that there are actually competing publication outlets. It becomes problematic when the editorial boards of leading journals are closely intertwined. Around the turn of the millennium, there was an intense debate on this issue in the top journals in the field of finance. At the time, editors criticised the fact that rejected manuscripts were being submitted to the next journal virtually unchanged. From the authors’ perspective, however, this was understandable. If a rejection does not contain a substantive academic justification, there is little reason to improve the manuscript.

Has this interdependence diminished in the meantime?

TG: The formal governance rules have been improved. For example, editors are no longer permitted to serve on several comparable bodies at the same time. This leads to better governance. However, the networks and the ‘gatekeeper’ function still exist, albeit less overtly. A small number of individuals and institutions thus decide which topics, methods and forms of criticism gain access to the leading journals. This influence on academic careers is considerable.

Are there any journals that deliberately provide a platform for opposing viewpoints?

TG: In the field of finance, for example, the Critical Finance Review was founded to publish methodologically sound work that critically examines established findings. For early-career researchers, however, publishing in such a journal can be risky. The journal does not feature in the leading rankings, and anyone who criticises influential work risks falling out with established academics. For me, this risk is lower because I have a permanent post. For someone at the start of their career, however, such a decision can have professional drawbacks. This shows just how fierce the competition on the academic job market really is.

Who bears responsibility for these incentives?

TG: It’s not just the journals. Appointments committees, universities and research funding bodies have also long supported the system by placing heavy weighting on journal rankings and impact factors. Such metrics are now being scaled back in some cases. Nevertheless, certain journal lists continue to serve as a shorthand for quality. This is problematic because these lists often focus on a limited selection of established journals and publishers. This puts smaller, independent or critical publication outlets at a disadvantage. Any narrowing of the circle of recognised journals ultimately restricts academic competition.

Academic-led models such as OLEcon, the ZBW’s Open Library Economics, are intended to provide an alternative to the commercial publishing system. But how sustainable are they in the long term? What must such models achieve in order to become established?

TG: The publication model alone is not enough. How academic achievement is assessed is also crucial. As long as journal rankings play a central role in appointments, funding decisions and academic careers, alternative publication platforms will remain structurally disadvantaged.

Are you thinking of rankings such as the VHB-JOURQUAL?

TG: Yes. The fundamental problem lies in the attempt to place very different subject areas into a uniform hierarchy. Business administration, for example, encompasses finance, marketing, production, organisation and business informatics. These disciplines address different issues and have their own quality standards. As economists, we know that such heterogeneous preferences cannot simply be condensed into a clear overall ranking. Whilst it is possible to generate a figure through specific weightings, this conveys a sense of objectivity that does not actually exist. Depending on the selection and weighting of the criteria, very different – indeed, virtually arbitrary – rankings can emerge, as Nobel laureate Kenneth Arrow demonstrated long ago.

The current VHB rating therefore uses subject-specific sub-ratings.

TG: In my view, this is the more sensible approach. Academic committees are better placed to assess which journals are relevant in their respective fields. Such differentiation does greater justice to the diversity of business studies and fosters more competition than a single, uniform list for the entire discipline. However, subject-specific ratings must not be allowed to replace the substantive evaluation of an individual paper. A journal can provide guidance. However, it does not automatically say anything about the quality, originality or impact of every article published in it.

What about interdisciplinary journals?

TG: This is precisely where a difficulty arises. The Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, which emerged from Business Research, for example, sees itself as an interdisciplinary journal. We explicitly aim to be a journal for general business administration, as it was taught in earlier years under the name ‘ABWL’. In this way, we address current topics such as digitalisation, transparency, resilience and artificial intelligence from various business administration perspectives. The added value lies in bringing together insights from various sub-disciplines. However, it is difficult to assign such a journal to a single subject area and thus to a single sub-rating. This must not put early-career researchers at a disadvantage. The decisive factor should be whether a paper is academically convincing, read and taken up by the academic community.

Can Open Access help to make academic impact more visible?

TG: Yes. At Business Research, we have found that open-access articles have been widely cited across disciplines. Papers on organisational resilience achieved an extremely high number of citations and shaped subsequent research. Open access played a part in this, as the articles were available without any barriers to access. This shows that the impact of a paper does not depend solely on the journal’s ranking. A paper can be highly influential in terms of content, even if the journal in which it is published does not rank in the highest category in a particular ranking.

What, therefore, needs to change in research evaluation?

TG: We need to assess individual papers more on the basis of their content and their actual scientific impact. Funding organisations such as the DFG or the Austrian FWF are now moving more in this direction and moving away from an evaluation based purely on metrics. This is important, but it requires more work. Reviewers, appointment committees and academic bodies must actually read the publications, examine the arguments and assess their significance for the respective field of research. A journal’s name or a ranking cannot replace this expert assessment. Academic publishing will therefore only become a viable alternative if the culture of evaluation and appointment also changes. Open Access provides access. For this to develop into a sustainable publishing system, open publication platforms must also be recognised in research evaluations and academic careers.

One possible approach would be to separate prestigious journals from commercial publishing structures and transition them to Diamond Open Access. Neither authors nor readers would then have to pay fees. The journals would be funded, for example, by library consortia. So far, however, this model has only been implemented gradually and often with temporary funding. How could a sustainable ‘flipping’ be achieved?

TG: In principle, I consider this approach sensible. The problem, however, begins with the very question of which journals are deemed worthy of funding. The Leopoldina paper, too, is based on quality indicators established by commercial providers and thus partly adopts the logic of the existing system. Anyone who defines the set of relevant journals on the basis of commercial indices, such as the Web of Science run by Clarivate, excludes other non-commercial publication venues from the outset.

What has been your experience with this at Business Research?

TG: Business Research was initially funded by the association and published twelve open-access articles per year until 2017. In 2018, we increased this number to 18, and eventually to 46 articles. The publisher made financial concessions to us in this regard. Otherwise, the association would not have been able to sustain this development. However, the expansion was also linked to the requirements for inclusion in certain citation indices. Initially, we were told we had to publish at least 18 articles; later, further requirements were specified. The target kept shifting.

Why is this problematic?

TG: Because the selection criteria of commercial data providers are only limitedly transparent and are typically not purely scientific in nature. At the same time, there is the substantive question of whether a journal with 40 articles is automatically better than one with twelve? We initially had a very strict selection process and rejected many manuscripts. A small number of published articles can therefore actually be an indication of high selectivity. If publication volume is nevertheless regarded as a measure of quality, small, research-led journals come under pressure. For commercial providers, the number of articles is, by its very nature, also economically relevant. It is therefore only of limited use as a neutral measure of scientific quality.

So do reform proposals also fall short if they are based on these indices?

TG: Exactly. If one defines the universe of journals eligible for funding on the basis of commercial databases, one is effectively adopting their selection criteria. This excludes many smaller, independent or emerging journals before the quality of their content has even been assessed. In my view, Business Research was already a reputable journal before it was included in such indices. It was run by established experts in the field, published relevant work and achieved good citation figures. The subsequent impact factor confirmed its visibility, but did not create that quality in the first place.

What conclusion does this imply for Diamond Open Access?

TG: A sustainable model must not rely solely on existing rankings, impact factors or commercial indices. Transparent academic criteria are crucial. These include the quality of peer review, subject-specific relevance, governance and the actual use of the articles. Furthermore, a ‘flipping’ process requires reliable communication and long-term funding. During the transition from Business Research to the Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, we saw how quickly uncertainty about new structures and contract models can deter authors. Even the merger of two associations initially led not to more, but to significantly fewer submissions.

Suppose you could fundamentally redesign the publication system. What would your ideal model look like?

TG: With Business Research, we were already quite close to this goal. The journal essentially met the criteria for inclusion in the relevant indices. Without the subsequent merger with the Schmalenbach Society, we would probably have been included more quickly and could have pursued a strategy similar to that of other established hybrid journals. I myself took on the editorship at the time primarily because *Business Research* had been open access from the outset. Engelbert Dockner had persuaded me to take over his role precisely because I found this model sensible and forward-looking. Otherwise, I would probably hardly have considered the journal, not least because my academic focus lies more in economics than in management, and the ratings at the time did not necessarily suggest I should make that decision. That is precisely why I found it interesting to be involved in an open publication model that did not yet exist in economics.

Let’s imagine the publication system without its established structures. Would journal rankings still play a role in it? How could international academic exchange in economics ideally be organised?

TG: Ratings are not needed for academic exchange itself. Researchers are familiar with the relevant specialist journals in their field, follow the debates taking place there and encounter new work at conferences. Whether a journal features in a particular ranking is, in the first instance, irrelevant to this. Ratings are particularly problematic where academic achievements are assessed by those outside the discipline, such as in appointment procedures. When faced with several hundred applications, a selection committee cannot, of course, read all the papers in full. It therefore needs guidance. As a first approximation, journal ratings can also form part of this.

So ratings are not fundamentally superfluous?

TG: No, but their significance would need to be significantly limited. What matters is how strictly and rigidly they are applied, and what further information is taken into account. Ratings should provide an initial guide, not the final judgement on the quality of a paper or a researcher. In the field of economics, however, they have increasingly taken on a life of their own. In the hectic day-to-day routine, they are often treated as absolute measures of quality because there is a lack of time and willingness to make an informed judgement on quality. If we were to scale back their significance, academia would stand to gain a great deal.

What would the alternative look like?

TG: Academic work should once again be recognised more for its content and impact. There are outstanding contributions that have not appeared in leading international journals and yet have shaped a discipline. One example is Reinhard Selten. One of his seminal papers appeared in a little-known German-language journal. It became renowned not because of the prestige of the publication venue, but through its academic significance and the discussion it sparked at conferences. The content prevailed. We need to return to this approach. The publication venue can provide guidance, but must not become more important than the argument itself.

For some time now, CoARA – the Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment – has been calling for a broader evaluation of academic achievements. A single indicator such as the Journal Impact Factor cannot do justice to the diversity of research. Yet in practice, little is changing. What would need to happen for academic achievement to be assessed in a more nuanced way?

TG: I don’t believe we need new scores above all else to achieve this. The crucial question should be: has a researcher made a scientific impact with their own work? What does the person stand for in terms of content? Whether someone has published two, three or ten articles in leading journals is then of secondary importance. At good American universities, there is more discussion about the contribution a person has made to their discipline. There is less focus on numbers and more on the substance of the work.

However, this presupposes that review panels are actually capable of assessing the research.

TG: Exactly. Anyone who moves away from relying on metrics must engage in substantive discussions. This requires academics who are capable of making judgements beyond their own specialist field. Increasing specialisation is making this more difficult. Subject-specific expertise is becoming increasingly narrow. In business administration, this is also evident in the fact that the individual sub-disciplines sometimes barely communicate with one another at all. Occasionally, researchers from one area do not even know which questions, methods or journals are relevant in another sub-field.

However, specialisation is, first and foremost, necessary for research.

TG: Of course. Specialisation and focus enable scientific progress. It becomes problematic when this leads to a permanent narrowing of focus. Then a discipline breaks down into ever smaller communities that barely share a common language. This also affects how the discipline is perceived by society. If business administration splits into numerous sub-fields that barely communicate with one another, it becomes difficult for outsiders to recognise what the discipline as a whole stands for and what contribution it makes.

Does social relevance therefore also form part of scientific achievement?

TG: Yes, absolutely. Academic achievement is not limited to specialised cutting-edge research. Researchers must also be able to place their findings within a broader academic context and communicate them to society. Focus and breadth must not be separated from one another. Anyone who is established in a specialised field should also find their way back into the interdisciplinary debate. This is challenging because it means listening to others, understanding their perspectives and arguing across disciplinary boundaries.

What does this mean in practical terms for business administration?

TG: Business administration can only be socially relevant if its sub-disciplines engage with one another. Marketing, finance, organisation and production must be able to relate their different perspectives to shared problems. If communication within the discipline breaks down, external communication also becomes difficult. Specialisation is academically productive. Narrowing the scope, on the other hand, leads to a situation where neither other researchers nor society at large understand what is actually being discussed.

Economics is very familiar with the problems of market concentration and network effects. Why, then, do researchers still cling to a handful of large publishers and established journals?

TG: Career interests play a major role. Added to this are strong network effects. Those who already publish in established journals, are well connected there and benefit from their reputation have little incentive to support new competitors. In fact, greater competition would be the obvious response to the market power wielded by a small number of publishers and journals. However, new journals find it difficult to compete against existing networks. University management and academic boards have so far provided only limited support for such alternatives.

Is this also down to personal risk?

TG: Yes. For early-career researchers, it can be risky to publish in a new or explicitly critical journal. If such a publication venue is not recognised or is even viewed as a stigma, it can harm their career. In such cases, the rational decision is often to stick with the established system.

Yet economists, in particular, know that new market entrants can disrupt established structures. Why doesn’t this work within the academic publishing system itself?

TG: Because an understanding of competition does not automatically mean that those involved have an interest in more competition. Those in a strong position often try to protect it against competition. In academia in particular, it is not just about publications, but also about controlling quality standards, appointments and career paths.

What role do expert panels and rankings such as the former VHB-JOURQUAL play in this?

TG: The intense controversy surrounding such rankings can also be explained by the fact that they create gatekeeper functions. Those who determine which journals are regarded as particularly high-quality simultaneously influence the academic labour market. In doing so, they indirectly decide which candidates have good prospects of being appointed. Of course, academic convictions also play a role here. However, institutional and personal interests are equally at play. Individual academic communities attempt to establish their own standards and control access to their section of the labour market.

Does this lead to the emergence of separate spheres of influence within business studies?

TG: To some extent, yes. The sub-disciplines are largely separate from one another. Finance does not compete directly with marketing or production for the same posts. This allows each academic community to develop its own evaluation criteria and networks. There is often no consensus on the specific ranking of journals. However, there is agreement that such rankings provide guidance and enable control. This gives rise to structures that can take on almost cartel-like characteristics.

So it’s less about competition between ideas?

TG: That is precisely where the problem lies. Competition is not solely about which idea is scientifically convincing. It is also about who sets the standards, allocates resources and controls access to the labour market. Where competition exists, there are always incentives to evade it or to gain control over the process oneself. The publication system therefore not only shows how academia strives for the best findings; it also reveals the intensity of the struggle for influence and institutional power.

Let’s look at the level of an individual journal. How much decision-making power do editors have? And what role does the publisher play?

TG: I can speak primarily from my experience with the journals of the VHB and the Schmalenbach Society. There, the editors certainly had considerable influence. *Business Research* was founded by Sönke Albers as an open-access journal. This concept found support and was consistently upheld by subsequent editors. The involvement of the Schmalenbach Society as an additional sponsor was also largely initiated and supported by us.

Where are the limits to this influence?

TG: The editors can have a strong influence on the journal’s content and strategic development. Ultimately, however, the professional societies providing the funding must back the model. They bear the costs and decide on contracts. That is why editors must present a convincing case for their plans and demonstrate that the journal is developing in the desired direction. In the case of *Business Research*, we were able to demonstrate this development through submission figures, readership and citations. As long as it was clear that we were on a sustainable path, the professional societies generously supported our proposals.

Were there any controversies regarding the journal’s direction?

TG: Yes, particularly regarding our ambition to be an interdisciplinary journal covering the entire field of business administration. In an increasingly specialised academic landscape, it makes sense to focus on a narrow field and strive for a leading position there. A journal can hardly be at the forefront of all sub-fields at the same time. Nevertheless, we made a conscious decision to opt for a general-purpose journal. This direction was discussed at great length with the chairpersons and the professional associations and was ultimately adopted with strong support.

Is the publisher more of a driving force or a limiting factor in this regard?

TG: We have a relatively significant say in editorial matters. This applies to Open Access as well as the shift from traditional special issues to ongoing thematic collections and the move towards more platform-based publishing. The publisher involves us in such decisions. The more difficult negotiations currently tend to take place between the editors and the funding professional societies. These are less about editorial freedom and more about funding, contracts and the strategic organisation of the journal. In principle, therefore, editors can bring about significant change.

Finally, two questions about OLEcon, Open Library Economics, a research-led open access initiative by the ZBW. How do you assess the model of funding journals via a library consortium? What opportunities does it offer for editorial independence and long-term planning?

TG: In principle, I consider the model to be sensible and forward-looking. It is crucial, however, that funding is secured not just on a project-by-project basis, but in the long term. Journals need planning certainty. A reliable budget, combined with regular evaluation, could create a sound basis for this.

Where do you see potential risks?

TG: We must be careful not to simply create a new gatekeeper structure. If a national body decides on funding, it indirectly determines which journals can grow and develop internationally. Academically led journals must remain flexible. They often cater to an international readership and body of authors. However, as the number of high-quality submissions rises, so do publication costs. A budget that is too tight could mean that articles of high quality have to be rejected solely for financial reasons.

So funding would need to be able to grow in line with the journal’s success?

TG: Exactly. Many high-quality submissions are, in themselves, a success. However, they must not become a financial burden. A sustainable model therefore requires mechanisms that allow the budget to be adjusted in line with the journal’s positive development. This issue is also a concern for professional societies. They wish to increase the international reach of their journals, but at the same time must keep costs under control. This tension would also exist in a consortium-funded model.

What role have libraries played in funding so far?

TG: Our experiences were initially mixed. Because Business Research was already publishing in Open Access, the transition was, in a sense, considered complete. Some libraries therefore saw no further need for funding and assumed that the professional societies could continue to bear the costs alone. This created a problematic situation. Journals that had already made the transition to Open Access could be excluded from transition funding. In some cases, publication costs were also shifted to individual department budgets, even though authors had assumed that agreements such as DEAL would cover these costs. Such cases show that libraries and professional societies should not be pitted against one another. A viable consortium model must clearly coordinate their contributions. It should not only finance the transition to Open Access, but also ensure the long-term operation of journals that have already been transformed.

You have been a member of the VHB’s ‘Open Science’ working group since June 2026. How would you recognise that the VHB’s Open Science working group has been successful?

TG: Much would be achieved if a more open culture of acknowledging errors and debate were to become established in business studies. It should be a matter of course to comment on or build upon published findings, to point out errors and to respond to criticism. This does not require endless disputes, but rather suitable formats for comments, replies and corrections. Errors can also arise in methodologically sound, positive research. The debate becomes even more important where normative assumptions and different academic schools of thought come into play. If these underlying assumptions are made transparent and different perspectives are discussed seriously, this can lead to scientific progress.

So the working group’s success would not be measured solely by individual open science tools?

TG: Exactly. What would be crucial is a culture in which criticism is not seen as an attack, but as an integral part of academic work. If we in business studies were to return more strongly to such a culture of debate, we would already have achieved a great deal.

To conclude, let’s think on an even larger scale. What role should business administration play in society in the future? How would we recognise that it is making an impact as a research discipline?

TG: Business administration can contribute to many key societal issues, such as competitiveness, artificial intelligence, digitalisation, innovation and resilience. Virtually all sub-disciplines offer relevant perspectives on these issues. The problem is not so much a lack of knowledge as its fragmentation. If the individual academic committees operate independently of one another, business administration as a whole fails to make a noticeable contribution. The challenge lies in bringing these perspectives together and making them visible to the public.

What could such a consolidation achieve?

TG: One possibility would be an institutional platform that brings together business research on major social and economic issues. A management research institute or a similar network could pool the various perspectives and use them to develop scientifically sound contributions for the business and academic community. There are already some initiatives in this direction. Institutions and professional associations are addressing topics such as innovation and resilience, bringing together academia and practice. The Schmalenbach Society also makes an important contribution through its conferences and focus topics. What has been lacking so far is a comparable level of public and political visibility to that enjoyed by some economic research institutes. The strength of business administration lies precisely in its diverse perspectives on businesses, markets and organisations. If we succeed in bringing these perspectives together and making the underlying findings transparent, accessible and open to discussion in the spirit of open science, business administration can contribute much more visibly and effectively to major societal issues.

Thank you very much!

The interview was conducted on 1 July 2026 by Dr Doreen Siegfried.
This text was translated on 7 October 2026 using DeeplPro.

About Dr Ulrich Krieger:

Dr Ulrich Krieger is Managing Director of the BERD@NFDI consortium at Mannheim University Library. The consortium is developing a research data infrastructure for the economic, social and behavioural sciences, with a particular focus on unstructured data. A social scientist, he has many years’ experience in empirical survey research. In his current work, Krieger combines expertise in survey methodology with research data management and data literacy. Among other things, he explains how research questions, data quality and the FAIR principles interact, and advocates for research practices that are open, traceable and reusable. He is also a member of the VHB’s Open Science Working Group.

Contact: https://www.bib.uni-mannheim.de/ihre-ub/ansprechpersonen/dr-ulrich-krieger/

ORCID.ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6705-7464

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ulrich-krieger-ma/