Statement on Intellectual Contributions


The mission of the School of Business and Management at Bandung Institute of Technology is to educate students to be innovative leaders with entrepreneurial mindset and to develop and disseminate knowledge of business and management for the betterment of business, government, and society. As a School of the leading technological university in Indonesia, the School has a responsibility to engage in research leading to intellectual contributions that serve the needs and interests of business and management, and support learning and pedagogical research to enhance the education process.
The School is committed to providing quality educational programs that provide our students with the knowledge, entrepreneurial mindset, and innovation skills necessary for creating value to society. In conformity with its Mission Statement, the College recognizes as an intellectual contribution any activity that:

  1. Supports and encourages research with an emphasis on quality, peer-reviewed, basic or application-oriented publication.
  2. Creates an environment that supports learning, teaching excellence, educational innovation, and pedagogical research.
  3. Engages practitioners and students as coauthors.

The purpose of this statement is to ensure that the research activities and initiatives of the School fully support its mission, improve the understanding of the considerations and criteria used for the assessment of faculty intellectual contributions, engage the support and participation of its stakeholders, and enhance the reputation of the School in the business and academic communities. Such awareness should provide for better planning of faculty development through annual goal-setting activities. The guidelines presented in this document shall be used to evaluate annual performance of individual faculty members by their peers, the research group head, the school-wide evaluation committee, and the Dean.

Definition of intellectual contributions
The School recognizes the importance of research and scholarship not only to the general advancement of its mission, but also to the faculty members performing such activities. Publication often provides solid evidence of intellectual contribution since publication enables peers within the profession, as well as within the academic community, to judge the quality of scholarship. However, publication is not the sole evidence of scholarly achievement, which may also be judged through presentations at professional meetings, participation in professional and academic conferences, preparation of seminars and workshops, and other forms of intellectual contribution.

The nature of intellectual contributions can vary widely. Intellectual contributions include: refereed published academic journal articles and proceedings, practitioner journal articles, scholarly books, book chapters and monographs; abstracts of articles published in proceedings from scholarly meetings, papers presented at academic or professional meetings, research working papers submitted for review, papers presented at faculty research seminars, publications in trade journals, and scholarly book reviews; external research grants and contracts awards and external grants for curriculum development; and textbooks, mini-cases in textbooks, and unpublished instructional development contributions such as cases with written instructions, instructional software, supplemental learning materials, materials describing the design and implementation of new curricula or courses, including distance learning (on-line) course materials and similar contributions which aid the practice or instruction of the teaching related discipline.

Intellectual contributions also may be classified as contributions to the academic discipline, contributions to practice, and contributions to pedagogy. In this term, research is defined as a broad spectrum of intellectual work ranging from academic research (involving new knowledge creation), to applied (practice- oriented) research (involving improving management practices), to pedagogical research (involving creation of new learning methodologies and tools).

Because the school portfolio of intellectual contributions should support the School mission, the majority of intellectual contributions produced by faculty should be contributions to the academic discipline. Faculty members are expected to engage in a variety of scholarly activities which include, but are not limited to (AACSB, Standards for Accreditation):

1.      Instructional Development or Instructional Practitioners (IP) measures the enhancement of the educational value of instructional efforts of the institution or discipline. The characteristics are research dealing with issues related to classroom teaching and the transfer of knowledge or skills to students in an academic environment. These include preparation of new materials for use in courses, creation of teaching aids, and research on pedagogy. Specific learning and pedagogical research codes include the following: (1) tests a generalizable theory or hypothesis, (b) develops generalizable theory or conceptual frameworks for guiding thought or future research and models, (c) develops propositions (hypotheses) for future research, (d) reviews other instructional development research providing framework for analysis and understanding, (e) develops/describes new or innovative teaching techniques such as class projects and power points applications, (f) case study, (g) discusses administration or accreditation issues, and (h) other. Examples are peer-reviewed conference proceedings, further edition of scholarly textbook; teaching case, manual, or guide; obtaining a competitive internal peer-reviewed grant, obtaining other external funding / sponsorship, commissioned research report or policy analysis for external public or private sector agency, supervision of PhD student to completion student, examination of PhD thesis, editorial duties with journal (peer reviewed and indexed), membership of editorial board of journal (peer reviewed and indexed), record of journal article (peer reviewed and indexed) reviewer, academic leadership/senior administrative role (Academic Senate, Interest Group Head, Sub Interest Group Head, AoL Committee, Research Committee) within SBM ITB or other business schools, leadership role in recognized academic society, association, or accreditation body, leadership in academic conference organization, invited and delivered keynote presentation at academic society/association, visiting role at an academic institution, significant consulting activity or policy advice in discipline area related to research, development of executive education programs, and record of academic conference papers reviewer.

2.      Applied Scholarship or Practice Contribution (PC) measures the contribution of faculty to the application, transfer and interpretation of knowledge to improve management practice and teaching. The characteristics of this research are research done to solve specific managerial problems for one company (or a few companies), business(s), and research generating results that are typically not gereralized to other businesses, situations, or contexts. Examples include articles in practice-oriented journals, creation and delivery of executive education courses, development of discipline-based practice tools, and published reports on consulting. Specific applied research codes include (a) research for practitioners (to help solve particular business/managerial problems, decisions), (b) research reports to business organizations, (c) expert testimony (legal), (d) expert testimony before governmental bodies, (e) research for public policy makers or public administrators, (f) computer software applications, (g) reviews other applied research providing framework for analysis and understanding, and (h) other.  Examples are maintenance of professional certifications/standing, article in peer-reviewed professional journal, authored text for professional, published manual or technical guide; record of peer review of professional conference papers; conference discussant; panel member; etc.; senior leadership or administrative position within SBM ITB or other business school (Deans, Director, Deputy, Manager, Head of Department); leadership role or significant participation in a recognize professional society or association; leadership role in professional conference, involvement in business mentoring program, invited and delivered keynote presentation at professional society or association; substantive managerial role in a business, NGO, or government agency; and significant consulting activity or policy advice in discipline area related to business and management.

3.      Discipline-based scholarship or Scholarly Contribution (SC) is denoted by contributions that add to the theory or knowledge base with respect to business discipline and functional areas. Published research results and theoretical innovation, states AACSB, qualify in this category. Specific discipline-based scholarship (basic research) codes include: (a) tests a generalizable theory or hypothesis (empirically or conceptually), (b) develops generalizable theory or conceptual frameworks for guiding thought or future research or models, (c) develops propositions (hypotheses) or models for future research, (d) reviews other basic research, providing framework for analysis and understanding, and (e) theory testing, theory development, or model building. Examples the contribution of faculty in the creation of new knowledge include article in peer-reviewed journal, first edition of scholarly textbook, edited research book, chapter in a research book, obtaining a competitive external peer-reviewed grant, and research monograph.


Research Publication

  1. Researchers are expected to publish the findings of their research with full responsibility and with an awareness of the consequences of any such dissemination in the public realm.
  2. Researchers should make every effort to ensure their research findings are peer reviewed before it is published or disseminated. If research is placed in the public realm before any peer review has been undertaken, this must be made clear by the researcher.
  3. Researchers should acknowledge all fellow research collaborators and all sources of funding openly in any publication or publicity.


Mission Codes

Faculty contributions in the aggregate are expected to reflect the school’s mission. Since the mission of the School emphasis on innovative learning and knowledge discovery and dissemination, faculty members at the School should produce discipline based scholarship and instructional research and instructional materials and make contributions to practice by producing materials suitable for practitioners.

Mission codes are the measures that indicate how the intellectual contribution (research and the results from the research) helps the School achieve multiple components of the stated mission. It needs to note that a single intellectual contribution can help achieve more than one aspect of the stated mission. Specific mission codes include the following: (M1) this research can be used in the classroom to help transfer business knowledge or skills to students, (M2) this research can be used in the classroom to help students learn innovation and entrepreneurial mindset, (M3) this research helps develop a faculty member’s expertise in developing and disseminating knowledge of business and management, and (M4) this research can be used to support the betterment of business, government, and society and the ITB’s stakeholders.

The mission also includes the impact of intellectual contribution both in academic and teaching areas. Academic impacts include top publication, citations, editorship/reviewer, awards, invitations, grants and patents, and appointments. The teaching/instructional impact can be based on pedagogical grants, teaching practices, textbooks, instructional publications, research-based learning projects, instructional software, and teaching cases.

Research Profile
Every lecturer at SBM ITB is expected to have Researcher ID, ORCID, SCOPUS Author ID, and Google Scholar Citations.

  1. Researcher ID. By using the MyResearcherID feature in Web of Science (Web of Knowledge), researchers are assigned an individual ID number that stays with them, regardless on institutional affiliation, thus allowing their research to be more easily tracked. The ResearcherID system has been developed by Thomson Reuters as a feature to their Web of Knowledge database. Although it can be argued that the commercial nature of this database limits its use as a standard, the system has a very clear advantage for scientific research and assessment as the resulting profile is made available in the public domain. Go to Registration:
  2. ORCID provides a persistent digital identifier that distinguishes you from other researchers and supports automated linkages between you and your research activities. Go to
  3. Scopus Author Identifier distinguishes between similar names by assigning each author in Scopus a unique number and grouping together all of the documents written by that author. For more information see Scopus Author Identifier, go to
  4. Google Scholar Citations provide a simple way for authors to keep track of citations to their articles. Go to

Assessment Criteria
Since evaluating the relevance and quality of intellectual contribution is inherently subjective, practical criteria are needed to minimize subjectivity and standardize the evaluation process. One criterion that offers important evidence of quality is critical review by a broad representation of peers. Additional criteria include usefulness and relevance to stakeholders, the impact of research on business and professional practices, and faculty development and growth across a wide range of scholarly activities. Over the long term the most important measure of the relevance and quality of intellectual contribution is the extent to which it advances the mission, standing, and reputation of the School.
The following criteria will be used to evaluate faculty intellectual contributions in the context of the faculty member’s teaching, research and service roles and responsibilities:

  1. The intellectual contribution must be in a format allowing review by others and must be subjected to some type of peer evaluation – whether by academic colleagues or practitioners.
  2. The judged quality of the intellectual contribution will be assessed critically in terms of:
    1. content factors such as relevance and significance (perceived value added, citation index, etc.) to the field, quality of design and methodology, creativeness or innovativeness; and,
    2. outlet factors such as reputation or visibility (based on ratings and rankings) of the journal, review process (peer reviewed/blind, etc.), acceptance rates of the publication, and credentials of other authors who have published in that journal.
  3. The proportional contribution of multi-authored contributions.
  4. Whether publication credit for the intellectual contribution has been attributed in a previous year.

A primary objective of the College is that intellectual contributions culminate in reviewed publications, with a minimum expectation of 1.5 Peer-Reviewed Journals (PRJ) or equivalent publications per five year on average or 0.5 PRJ or equivalent per one year and at least 3 Peer-Reviewed Conference Proceedings (CP) or equivalent per five years or 1 CP or equivalent per year. Although priorities change over time, a diverse range of intellectual contribution is encouraged and expected of all faculty beginning with their initial appointment.
The level of quality for ICs for the next three years (2016-2018) is measured by points and assessed by the research committee with the following criteria.

  1. Peer-Reviewed Journals:
    1. Journal Indexed by Scopus, Web of Science, and/or Microsoft Academic Search and listed in SJR ( with maximum 1 point.
    2. Journal Indexed by Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), Centre for Agriculture and Biosciences International (CABI), the Directory of Open Access Scholarly Resources (ROAD), Copernicus, Emerging Sources Citation Index,  INSPEC, ProQuest, TOC Premier (EBSCO) and/or comply with DIKTI ( with maximum 0.8 point.
    3. National Journal Accredited by DGHE (the Directorate General of Higher Education) with maximum 0.6 point
  2. Peer-Reviewed Conference Proceedings:
    1. International Conference Proceeding Indexed by Web of Science, Scopus, and/or Microsoft Academic Search with maximum 0.5 point.
    2. International Conference Proceeding with ISBN/ISSN with maximum 0.4 point.
    3. National Conference Proceeding with ISBN/ISSN with maximum 0.3 point.

The annual faculty intellectual contributions performance review and evaluation process will consist of two steps.
Step One: Maintenance of Academic Qualifications
Step one will be the determination of whether the faculty member’s intellectual contributions over the past five years meet the School minimum standards for maintenance of academic qualifications. The following guidelines apply to the maintenance of academic qualifications:

  1. Research productivity is expected to include at least two peer-reviewed articles and three other intellectual contributions over a five year period.
  2. The peer-reviewed article requirements are higher for faculty with lower than “normal” teaching loads and for faculty with predominantly graduate teaching assignments.

Step Two: Evaluation of “New” Contributions
Step two will be the review and evaluation of new contributions during the current year and research work in progress in the context of the prior year’s intellectual contributions. The following guidelines will be used to evaluate intellectual contributions productivity:

  1. Performance evaluations reflect the degree to which the faculty member’s intellectual contributions exceed, meet or do not meet expectations. The following five performance categories will be used for evaluating intellectual contributions:
    1. Performance is above expectations
    2. Performance meets expectations
    3. Performance is below expectations
    4. Unsatisfactory performance due to lack of research required for maintenance of academic qualifications
  2. The following requirements for each performance evaluation category are based on the equivalent of a normal teaching load and/or teaching predominantly master’s courses:
    1. A performance evaluation of “above expectations” for the current year requires at least one of the following:
      1. acceptance of at least one article in journals of recognized academic quality in a recent and recognized journal rankings study in business and management;
      2. the acceptance of multiple articles in practitioner based journals in a recent and recognized journal rankings study in business and management;
      3. normally, a faculty member must have at least one publication in journals of recognized academic quality in a recent and recognized journal rankings study in business and management or other related disciplines within the three most recent years in order to receive a research rating of above expectations.
      4. other intellectual contributions that the faculty judge as of sufficient national or international recognition as to deserve evaluation as above expectations.
    2. A performance evaluation of “meeting expectations” for the current year requires at least one of the following:
      1. acceptance of an article in a journal that has value to scholars, practitioners, policy makers, and/or students;
      2. publication of first edition books, monographs, and other materials that meet reasonable scholarly standards;
      3. one or more presentations at academic conferences which the faculty judge as nationally recognized provided that there are existing working papers on which such presentations are based;
      4. in cases of faculty who were under doctoral study at the beginning of the relevant year, completion of the dissertation and granting of the doctoral degree;
      5. other intellectual contributions which the faculty judge as of sufficient quality to meet expectations.
  3. The following intellectual contributions are examples of annual performance for the current year which would be evaluated as “below expectations”:
      1. acceptance of articles or other texts in outlets other than those described in the above categories;
      2. presentations at other academic conferences;
      3. evidence of substantial progress on a pipeline of working papers and submissions within the previous twelve months.
  4. A performance evaluation of “unsatisfactory performance” due to not meeting the research expectations to remain academically qualified for the current year will be given to any faculty member who does not meet standards for higher scores. In all cases, a faculty member who is not academically qualified will be evaluated as unsatisfactory irrespective of other accomplishments.
  5. The research pipeline in the current year and research productivity in the prior two years are also considered in the assignment of a research performance category for the current year.