Editorial: Interfaces/INFORMS Journal on Applied Analytics Hall of Fame Contributors

Introduction

Applied research is both a skill and a passion. It takes a very special kind of skill set to translate cutting-edge analytics to practical use. No two problems are the same; no implementations are cookie-cutter. For that reason, our research is far from turnkey; a plethora of challenges need to be overcome in practice to apply what we teach and publish. No single analytical skill set applies; many different analytical and soft skills must be deployed to sell a project, solve a problem, and implement a solution. Furthermore, data and systems skills that extend well beyond the core analytical focus of INFORMS are required to see a project through.

Those researchers who find this challenging branch of research to be appealing are a rare and special breed. It takes patience, communication skills, perseverance, and a relatively high level of risk tolerance to take on an applied project in hopes of eventual publication. In the field, people can have misunderstanding and mistrust, which must be overcome. Perfectly good model results can be picked apart with a focus on the negative 10% instead of the positive 90%. After that, even good projects fail because management focus, industry norms, or economic conditions change, which can render a project of less interest, obsolete, or unaffordable.

Yet, applied research is critical to our field. It provides three gigantic values: relevance, awareness, and value. Application of analytical methods proves the relevance of our field of teaching and research. Awareness of our disciplines provides both recognition to the effectiveness of our methods and, as a result, opportunities for new applications. Mostly, it provides economic and social change to the world around us as leaders in the field create not an impact factor but rather impact to people and organizations. There is one underused value—a potential feedback loop to researchers that can continue to enhance the three values described previously.

In INT/IJAA history, more than 4,500 unique authors have contributed to applying analytics in a practical setting. I laud all of you who have conducted and published applied work. Some, however, are notable for their extensive and ongoing contributions. These contributors are recognized in this issue. I provide a number of different categories and scoring techniques to recognize their contributions. However, regardless of rank, they are all extraordinary researchers in the area of applied analytics. They are the Interfaces/INFORMS Journal on Applied Analytics Hall of Famers. The top contributors are discussed briefly in their area of contribution as a part of this recognition.

Method

A recently developed database (Freeman et al. 2020) contains every unique digital object identifier (DOI) for every INT/IJAA contribution, totaling more than 3,000 DOIs. That database was transformed to an author view, allowing a unique record for each author, resulting in more than 4,500 unique author records and 7,300 records in total number of author contributions to INT/IJAA.

From this database, Freeman et al. (2020) allowed unique and unprecedented analysis into the patterns of articles in the journal over its 50-year history by analyzing methodological subject area and industry of application by journal article. Gorman et al. (2020) provide similar analysis of Edelman finalists for the lifetime of that competition, albeit based on a different database. Gorman (2020) provides the first comprehensive 50-year Rothkopf rankings for both academic and nonacademic institutions and by geographic source in INT/IJAA history. This article leverages the same data source to measure contributions of individual authors, regardless of subject area, industry, country, or institutional affiliation. This analysis is to recognize the author and not the institution or the area of implementation.

I evaluate author contribution to INT/IJAA in a number of ways.

• 1. Appearances. The first, and simplest, measure is the sheer number of times an author’s name appears in the journal, regardless of the number of coauthors or article type. This is a straight count of an author’s name in any INT/IJAA article. This includes introductions, reviews, responses, notes, comments, and the like, which are not full articles but a contribution nonetheless. I excluded informational articles (announcements, calls for papers and nominations, calendars, notes, board of editors listing, obituaries, instructions to authors, errata, etc.). These contributions rarely if ever included a specific author in any case.

• 2. Appearances by category. I provide a straight count of the most commonly appearing names by major category of contribution in INT/IJAA:

  • a. Refereed papers, in which are included both (i) full-length articles and (ii) practice abstracts application reviews,

  • b. Columns,

  • c. Editorials,

  • d. Book reviews, and

  • e. Application reviews.

• 3. Rothkopf ranking. I provide a Rothkopf ranking of individual authors, using both visibility (weighted appearances) and contribution (weighted appearance as a proportion of total contribution to an article), as well as blended rank (a mix of the two). These measures are explained in Gorman (2020) and other Rothkopf rankings and described briefly here.

  • a. For visibility, a single point is given for any full-length article, and one-half point is given for any practice abstract, practice summary, or column. This measure recognizes the visibility contribution of columns and abstracts, but to a lower degree than full-length articles.

  • b. For contribution, the visibility score is divided by the number of total authors on the paper, approximating the proportion of the work contributed by the author.

  • c. For blended rank, we take a straight average of the visibility and contribution rankings and create a blended rank.

• (We do not provide academic contribution scores because this score requires identification of author affiliation, which we ignore in this analysis because affiliation can change over time.)

• 4. Citation analysis. I conduct citation analysis based on Web of Science citations.

I report on the total citations for the most cited authors for any appearances the author had in the journal.

No measure is perfect, of course, nor are the data. However, this work captures the valuable contributions of these researchers. With an extensive data collection and analysis project, there are likely to be errors. Any errors in absolute numbers are mine.

Total Appearances

After excluding informational articles’ authors, the database was reduced from 7,187 to 6,714 authors, or 94% of author contributions remain, with only 6% of DOIs in INT/IJAA being informational or announcement based.

Table 1 shows the results of the straight count of appearances in INT/IJAA. Benjamin Lev (98) is the all-time leader in appearances in the journal, followed closely by Gene Woolsey (80). A significant (21-count) drop-off occurs before John Hall Jr. (57) and Roger Miller (57).

Table 1. Total Number of Appearances of an Author in the Top 20 in INT/IJAA, Regardless of Contribution Type, but Excluding Informational Postings

I will defer additional discussion on their individual contributions after I look into total appearances by appearance type. Although the information is present in Table 1, it will be summarized by category in subsequent tables for ease of reading and interpretation.

Appearances in Refereed Contributions (Full-Length Articles and Practice Abstracts)

Although clearly the numbers, as far as appearances, favor reviews, columns, editorials, and the like because they are relatively high frequency, the lifeblood of INT/IJAA and any journal is the contribution made through refereed publications. At INT/IJAA, these are primarily full-length articles and, to a far lesser degree, practice summaries and abstracts. These articles are usually the most work, the most risk of rejection, the most recognized as adding to the literature, and recognized in awards such as the Edelman and the Wagner. Perhaps this is why the number of appearances is generally lower than the other categories.

Table 2 shows the most appearances in full-length or summary articles in INT/IJAA. Since 1996, Michael Gorman (17) has written on a number of subjects but has centered on freight rail. Since 1991, Gerald Brown (16) has written on a variety of subjects as well but focused on military application. Since 2003, Alexandra Newman has published in a variety of topics but has centered on issues in mining. Fred Murphy (13) has a long career of contribution in a wide variety of topics, but his common theme emerges in his “Art and Science of Practice” contributions. Sean Willems (10) focuses on inventory-related issues. Bob Machol (10) wrote a number of thought-provoking articles in the 1970s and 1980s related mostly to air and navigation but also on more general modeling topics. Eva Lee (10) has focused on operations research (OR) and medicine. Srinivas Bollapragada (10) rounds out the authors with more than 10 refereed articles and has the distinction of being the only (full-time) nonacademic on the list. He writes almost entirely on subjects related to General Electric. Andres Weintraub (8) is the only non-U.S. author on the list.

Table 2. Authors’ Contributions to Refereed Articles and Summaries to INT/IJAA

It should be noted that practice abstracts are referenced by the practice abstract editors as authors. In this sample are Donald Kiefer (51) from 1996 to 2004 and Brian Denton (26) from 2005 to 2009. Since then, practice summaries are referenced by author. In order to be consistent with the norm for practice summaries, I credited the contributing author for the submission and not the editor.

It is worthy of note that of the top contributors in this category, the vast majority are active researchers in the area of applied research, which is encouraging from a trend perspective.

Appearances in Columns

Columns are regularly occurring features in INT/IJAA, usually invited, often repeating, but sometimes sporadic. They all have a theme under which they operate. Table 3 shows the leading columnists for INT/IJAA. Their column name appears to the right of the table.

Table 3. Authors’ Contributions of Columns to INT/IJAA

Gene Woolsey (77) set the standard for columns and then tripled it. His long-running “Fifth Column” demonstrated his prolific ability to write in a witty, insightful (and plentiful) way and places him far ahead of any other INT/IJAA columnist. As noted by Camm in Lilien et al. (2020), and in Camm (2015), Gene’s contribution to INT/IJAA and the INFORMS community will not be forgotten.

Andrew Vazsonyi (25) wrote prolifically on the management information systems–OR/management science (MS) interface from 1973 to 1982. Harvey Shycon’s (22) contributions via his “All around the model” is most notable because Harvey is the only nonacademic in this category in the INT/IJAA Hall of Fame.

From 1982 to 1996, Arnold Barnett (22) led the charge in 22 Misapplication reviews, which focused more on flaws in modeling and decision making than their successful counterparts. These easy yet insightful and sometimes inflammatory editorial columns were an interesting read. In the early 1970s, J. I. Morgan wrote on organizational and psychological aspects of OR/MS.

Julio Bucatinsky (17) was one of the earliest columnists for INT/IJAA from 1970 to 1978. His “Management Science Roundup” was a catchall for news and interesting developments in OR/MS.

Current columnist Robert Lavasseur (20) writes on the soft and psychological side of analytics in his “Peoples Skills” column. Another current member of the board, Scott Armstrong (11), writes the “Ombudsmen” column, which covers a wide variety of topics in analytics. J. I. Morgan wrote the “Seen Elsewhere” column in the early 1980s. Hugh Miser (11) wrote numerous big-picture commentaries on the OR/MS profession in his “Easy Chair” column throughout the 1990s.

Appearances in Editorials

Editorials are largely the purview of the journal editors. Table 4 summarizes editorial contributions to INT/IJAA. No editor leveraged editorials like Michael Rothkopf (16). As noted in Lilien et al. (2020), during his tenure, the review process at INT/IJAA was solidified and standardized. His editorial numbers were boosted by his creation of a measure of applied analytics by institution, which is now dubbed the Rothkopf rankings in his honor, which Ron Fricker (4) carried on after Mike’s death, giving him the highest editorial count for a non–editor-in-chief (EiC). Gary Lilien wrote on the role of INT/IJAA and the sustainability of OR/MS in the 1980s. Fred Murphy (10) wrote particularly esoteric and philosophical editorials including one on Niccolò Machiavelli and another on panculturism in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Jeff Camm (9) wrote introspectively on the changing role of INT/IJAA. Terry Harrison (3) wrote on both the past and future of research in the discipline, discussion of the editorial process via the Internet, and preserving the history of OR/MS. Along with Harvey Shycon (2), Srinivas Bollapragada (2) is the only practitioner to write an editorial, but he is also, uniquely, the only practitioner to be EiC of the journal.

Table 4. Authors’ Contributions of Editorials to INT/IJAA

Appearances in Book Reviews

INT/IJAA provides book reviews on cutting-edge topic-of-interest books in analytics and related subjects. As shown in Table 5, Ben Lev (as noted by Jeff Camm in Lilien et al. 2020) provided tremendous service in book reviews over a 22-year span from 1989 to 2010. Marion Sobol (25), Graham Rand (24), and Wenjing Shen (23) provided remarkable service for periods of five or six years. T. J. Lowe (7) rounds out our top 5; other contributors contributed only one or two book reviews.

Table 5. Authors’ Contributions of Book Reviews to INT/IJAA

Appearances in Application Reviews

Application reviews ran from 1976 until 1996 in INT/IJAA. These reviews referenced good accounts of published work in the applied OR/MS literature, coupled with a brief description and evaluation of quality of the work—an annotated bibliography of sorts. Although these contributions could be categorized as largely informational, these reviewers provided insightful summaries and opinions of the articles.

Table 6 shows the leading contributors to application reviews. Roger Millen and John Hall Jr. collaborated and were by far the most prolific; from 1976 to 1988, they contributed almost 10 per year combined, splitting the task equally. Numerous other authors contributed to eight or fewer application reviews.

Table 6. Authors’ Contributions of Application Reviews to INT/IJAA

Rothkopf Ranking: Visibility, Contribution, Blended Rank

The Rothkopf rankings (Gorman 2020) have become a standard measure of contribution to the theoretical literature. The method of measure is described previously; however, in short, full-length articles count as one point, practice abstracts/summaries count as one-half point, and column contributions count as one-half point.

All three measures are described in Table 7. The visibility measure is similar to the appearances described previously, but more restrictive in what constitutes a contribution, and discounts something less than a full-length article. Contribution further discounts the author’s contribution, as being part of a four-person team credits the researcher with one-quarter of the credit. Therefore, full point or half point is reduced proportionally to the number of authors. A rank is created under both measures, and then the average rank is calculated, blending both the visibility and the contribution of the author. The table is sorted by blended rank.

Table 7. Authors’ Rothkopf Visibility, Contribution, and Blended Rank in INT/IJAA

Table 7 shows the top 50 for Rothkopf blended ranking measure. Gene Woolsey is clearly the greatest all-time contributor to INT/IJAA by the Rothkopf rankings, owing to his extensive writing and his largely solo column articles, despite the fact that columns count as only one-half of a point. Impressively, Harvey Shycon, the only practitioner to crack a number of the Hall of Fame rankings, is number two. Fred Murphy, based on his variety of full-length articles and columns, is third.

Both practice summaries and multiple coauthors cause some discounting in the Rothkopf ranking relative to straight appearances. Michael Gorman ranks sixth, lower than in Table 5, mostly owing to having four practice summaries. Gerald Brown ranks lower than in Table 5 because a relatively large number of coauthors (he is number 2 in visibility). Many of the remaining top 10 achieved their ranking in large part via a long-term commitment to INT/IJAA in columns.

Total Citations

INFORMS (Thanks, Matt Walls!) provided me Web of Science citations as of August 17, 2020, for the vast majority of all INT/IJAA articles. I use these reported citations where possible and use the citation count determined in Freeman et al. (2020) for those articles for which data were not available from INFORMS. There was a strong, but not perfect, correlation between the two sources. Therefore, the results vary slightly from theirs. (See Freeman et al. 2020 for more detailed discussion on their method for developing citation counts and their analyses.)

Table 8 shows the total citations for the top 50 authors.

Table 8. Total Citations per INFORMS’ Web of Science Data Sources

Gerald Brown is the journal’s most cited author as of its 50th anniversary, largely owing to his large number of reviewed articles (14). Two articles in particular in his collection received a large number of citations: “Global Supply Chain Management at Digital Equipment Corporation” and “Defending Critical Infrastructure.”

Fred Glover is second in citations, in large part due to his “Tabu Search: A Tutorial” article, though he did participate in six others.

Fatemeh Zahedi has the third most citations, in large part because of his well-known article, “The Analytic Hierarchy Process—A Survey of the Method and its Applications.”

Marshall Fisher is fourth, mostly because of two articles: “Improving the Distribution of Industrial Gases with an On-line Computerized Routing and Scheduling Optimizer” and “An Applications Oriented Guide to Lagrangian Relaxation.”

Jay Galbraith is fifth, earning this position with the single-most-cited article in INT/IJAA history: “Organization Design: An Information Processing View.”

Conclusions

All the major contributors identified in this article are to be commended. They are all INT/IJAA Hall of Famers. Applied research is an imperative (but perhaps underused and underconducted) category in the analytics research (OR/MS) field.

The impressive work recognized in this article is all commendable and critical to maintain for the discipline. INT/IJAA is the leader in applied research in analytics, and these authors are all leaders in their fields.

It is my fervent hope that after 100 years of INT/IJAA’s contribution to the discipline, none of these researchers are in the top 50, or even top 100, owing to growth in the interest in applied analytics. I believe that application of our work is the true test water of value to our disciplines, our society, and our world.