Arash Hajikhani

Arash Hajikhani, Carolyn Cole

This paper examines the comparative effectiveness of a specialized compiled language model and a general-purpose model like OpenAI's GPT-3.5 in detecting SDGs within text data. It presents a critical review of Large Language Models (LLMs), addressing challenges related to bias and sensitivity. The necessity of specialized training for precise, unbiased analysis is underlined. A case study using a company descriptions dataset offers insight into the differences between the GPT-3.5 and the specialized SDG detection model. While GPT-3.5 boasts broader coverage, it may identify SDGs with limited relevance to the companies' activities. In contrast, the specialized model zeroes in on highly pertinent SDGs. The importance of thoughtful model selection is emphasized, taking into account task requirements, cost, complexity, and transparency. Despite the versatility of LLMs, the use of specialized models is suggested for tasks demanding precision and accuracy. The study concludes by encouraging further research to find a balance between the capabilities of LLMs and the need for domain-specific expertise and interpretability.

Sajad Ashouri, Arash Hajikhani, Ari Hyytinen et al.

To better align theories of paradigm shifting discoveries and empirics identifying them, we pro-pose a novel measure that incorporates a discovery impact, novelty, and tendency to break with the past into a single, coherent measure. Calibration using the National Inventor Hall of Fame data reveals that impact, novelty, and disruptiveness are strict complements meaning, for example, that greater impact cannot substitute for moderate novelty. We illustrate the workings of the measure using data on USPTO patents from 1982 to 2015.

Arash Hajikhani, Yi Zhang, Mengjia Wu

The Financial Times 50 (FT50) journal list shapes hiring, promotion, accreditation, and research evaluation across business schools worldwide. Yet journals on the list are typically treated as if they represent a homogeneous tier of excellence. We test this assumption by comparing 53 FT50 and recently removed journals across three distinct impact channels: scholarly influence (field-weighted citations and visibility), policy uptake, and technological reach through patent citations. Using a panel of more than 60,000 publications from 2005 to 2019, we find striking heterogeneity hidden beneath the binary FT50 label. Elite economics journals dominate policy influence, information systems and marketing journals lead technological impact, while many highly cited management journals exhibit limited reach beyond academia. Citation, policy, and patent indicators behave as largely independent dimensions of impact, with a citation-only ranking correlating only moderately with a multidimensional ranking. Nearly half of all journals change quartile once policy and patent indicators are incorporated, demonstrating that assessments based solely on scholarly citations overlook important dimensions of research influence. While the FT50 remains widely used as a binary classification of journal quality, our results reveal a substantial within-list impact spectrum and show that journal rankings are highly sensitive to how impact is defined and measured.