Ranks Of Scholars Research Articles

Ranking academic institutions based on the productivity, impact, and quality of institutional scholars

Abstract Purpose The quantitative rankings of over 55,000 institutions and their institutional programs are based on the individual rankings of approximately 30 million scholars determined by their productivity, impact, and quality. Design/methodology/approach The institutional ranking process developed here considers all institutions in all countries and regions, thereby including those that are established, as well as those that are emerging in scholarly prowess. Rankings of individual scholars worldwide are first generated using the recently introduced, fully indexed ScholarGPS database. The rankings of individual scholars are extended here to determine the lifetime and last-five-year Top 20 rankings of academic institutions over all Fields of scholarly endeavor, in 14 individual Fields, in 177 Disciplines, and in approximately 350,000 unique Specialties. Rankings associated with five specific Fields (Medicine, Engineering & Computer Science, Life Sciences, Physical Sciences & Mathematics, and Social Sciences), and in two Disciplines (Chemistry, and Electrical & Computer Engineering) are presented as examples, and changes in the rankings over time are discussed. Findings For the Fields considered here, the Top 20 institutional rankings in Medicine have undergone the least change (lifetime versus last five years), while the rankings in Engineering & Computer Science have exhibited significant change. The evolution of institutional rankings over time is largely attributed to the recent emergence of Chinese academic institutions, although this emergence is shown to be highly Field- and Discipline-dependent. Research limitations The ScholarGPS database used here ranks institutions in the categories of: (i) all Fields, (ii) in 14 individual Fields, (iii) in 177 Disciplines, and (iv) in approximately 350,000 unique Specialties. A comprehensive investigation covering all categories is not practical. Practical implementations Existing rankings of academic institutions have: (i) often been restricted to pre-selected institutions, clouding the potential discovery of scholarly activity in emerging institutions and countries; (ii) considered only broad areas of research, limiting the ability of university leadership to act on the assessments in a concrete manner, or in contrast; (iii) have considered only a narrow area of research for comparison, diminishing the broader applicability and impact of the assessment. In general, existing institutional rankings depend on which institutions are included in the ranking process, which areas of research are considered, the breadth (or granularity) of the research areas of interest, and the methodologies used to define and quantify research performance. In contrast, the methods presented here can provide important data over a broad range of granularity to allow responsible individuals to gauge the performance of any institution from the Overall (all Fields) level, to the level of the Specialty. The methods may also assist identification of the root causes of shifts in institution rankings, and how these shifts vary across hundreds of thousands of Fields, Disciplines, and Specialties of scholarly endeavor. Originality/value This study provides the first ranking of all academic institutions worldwide over Fields, Disciplines, and Specialties based on a unique methodology that quantifies the productivity, impact, and quality of individual scholars.

The advantages of Google Scholar Ranking

The ranking of universities in the world is a crucial link when it comes to the circular process called choosing the right university for each future student. During this selection process, students consider many factors. It is these rankings that help them make in-depth analysis of what different universities and professors have to offer. The purpose of this paper is to show the benefits of academic ranking of universities, faculties, professors, and researchers, as well as to get a clear picture of the degree of citation of the professors, specifically on the Google Scholar platform, while explaining the level of the faculties and universities. The criteria according to which the ranking is made is the total number of citations of professors and researchers from the universities and faculties.

Baseball and Science: What Roberto Clemente and Willie Mays Can Teach Us About Measuring Scholarly Impact

Citation-based indicators of scholarly impact are controversial in the sciences. Although they are often used in rankings of institutions, scholarly works, and scholars themselves, they have been criticized for their failure to capture a wider spectrum of “scholarly impact.” Much like the “five tools” that baseball players can use to influence the outcome of a baseball game, there are a lot of different ways that scholars can have an impact with their work. Accordingly, this article discusses multiple dimensions of impact—research (publications and citations), student mentorship, institutional and programmatic development, community engagement, and the discipline at large—where scholars can make a difference in people’s lives. In the end, the broader message is that, while there will inevitably be few players like Roberto Clemente or Willie Mays in the sciences, there are still several important ways that scholars can make an impact.

Beyond Citation Counts: Reassessing Top Criminologists’ “Influence” With Altmetric Scores

Criminal justice and criminology (CCJ), like many academic disciplines, conducts its share of rankings. Citation-based ranks of individual scholars are particularly popular, and they tend to consistently identify the field’s supposedly “top” scholars and “academic stars.” Whether citations equate with “influence,” however, is up for debate. At the least, citation-based metrics are unidimensional and fail to capture attention outside academia. Accordingly, we drew on the work of Cohn et al. and re-ranked top-cited scholars using the Google Chrome “Altmetric it!” bookmarklet. As expected, the Altmetrics methodology fundamentally altered past rankings. The most influential scholars in our rankings, Terrie E. Moffitt and Avshalom Caspi, received higher Altmetric scores than all the remaining ranked scholars combined.

Can Increasing Awareness of Gender Gaps in International Relations Help Close Them? Evidence from a Scholar Ranking Experiment

Abstract We report the results of a survey of international relations (IR) scholars on the use of an increasingly common policy designed to close recognition gaps in IR: gender balance in citation (GBC) statements. GBC statements remind and encourage authors submitting work to peer-reviewed outlets to consider the gender balance among the works they cite. We find that these policies enjoyed wide support among IR scholars in our sample countries soon after journals began instituting the policies, but women were more supportive than men of the policies. We also report the results of a question-order experiment that allows us to study how raising awareness of gender gaps in the IR discipline affects the proportion of women that scholars list among the most influential IR scholars in the last 20 years. The effects of exposure to the gender treatment vary, however, by respondents’ gender and whether respondents teach in the United States. The treatment effects were much larger for women than for men in the United States, but the reverse was true outside the United States.

Review of “The Quantified Scholar: How Research Evaluations Transformed the British Social Sciences”

The Quantified Scholar by Juan Pablo Pardo-Guerra tackles a subject that is discussed fervently behind the scenes of academia, in the corridors of universities, or during the breaks at departmental meetings, that is practices of assessing scholars’ work. With extended computational case studies on the work of social scientists in the United Kingdom, Pardo-Guerra builds a platform to address the two key questions in the book: do universities foster a form of scholarly excellence and selectivity that is, in fact, visible, measurable, accountable to the public? And how do the quantification and ranking of scholars and their work, through lists, assessment exercises, and other devices, affect the scholarship itself? Pardo-Guerra argues that knowledge produced by social scientists has become increasingly homogenous within and across institutions through a process of epistemic sorting. The book demonstrates that a key driver of homogenization has been a research evaluation exercise in the United Kingdom that started in 1986 and that epistemic sorting can be understood as a mechanism leading to institutional isomorphism in academia. The latter is my interpretation of this concept because, while the author once refers to (p. 10) the classic work of DiMaggio and Powell (1983), he does not fully explain how epistemic sorting differs from coercive isomorphism, which DiMaggio and Powell suggest is the result of “both formal and informal pressures exerted on organizations by other organizations upon which they are dependent and by cultural expectations in the society within which the organization functions” (p. 150). This definition seems to apply to the situation of social science scholars struggling with national research evaluation exercises in the United Kingdom as presented in the book.

A novel approach for ranking intuitionistic fuzzy numbers and its application to decision making

Ranking intuitionistic fuzzy numbers is an important issue in the practical application of intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Many scholars rank intuitionistic fuzzy numbers by defining different measures. These measures do not comprehensively consider the fuzzy semantics expressed by membership degree, nonmembership degree, and hesitancy degree. As a result, the ranking results are often counterintuitive, such as the indifference problems, the non-robustness problems, etc. In this paper, according to geometrical representation, a novel measure for intuitionistic fuzzy numbers is defined, which is called the ideal measure. After that, a new ranking approach is proposed. It’s proved that the ideal measure satisfies the properties of weak admissibility, membership degree robustness, nonmembership degree robustness, and determinism. A numerical example is applied to illustrate the effectiveness and feasibility of this method. Finally, using the presented approach, the optimal alternative can be acquired in multi-attribute decision-making problems. Comparison analysis shows that the ideal measure is more effective and simple than other existing methods.

From Italy to Little Italy to Big ’merica and Beyond: Thoughts on Italian Diaspora Studies

From Italy to Little Italy to Big ’merica and Beyond: Thoughts on Italian Diaspora Studies

Digital Moravians

ABSTRACT This Forum includes seven articles by scholars working in the field of Moravian Studies reflecting on their work with “Digital Moravians,” either in their scholarship or in the classroom. The articles cover everything from the nature the archivist’s work in a digital age (Paul Peucker), to the painstaking work of georectification and historic sound reproduction (Mark Sciuchetti and Sarah Eyerly, respectively), to new forms of scholarly editions of archival materials as open and public facing scholarship announced on social media (Martin Prell), to the use of digital manuscripts to invite history undergraduates behind the curtain to actively participate in the work of the historian (Jared Burkholder). Additional articles consider the challenges of digital humanities work for the growing ranks of precarious scholars who lack institutional support for the types of collaborative work required (Gregory Specter) and the innovative technical digital humanities scholarship possible when a scholar is backed by an institution committed to supporting and showcasing digital scholarship and pedagogy (Katherine Faull at Bucknell University). These articles will provide inspiration to scholars working in—or wanting to explore—archives-based digital historical scholarship and pedagogy, whatever their subfield.

U-index: A new Universal metric as unique indicator of researcher's contributions to academic knowledge

Quantification and ranking of scholars’ output via a consideration of the citations of one's works has been of global interest within the last two decades, after criticisms of the approach that uses the Journal Impact Factor as a proxy. Various metrics exist but are deemed flawed due to their susceptibility to manipulations and citation preponderance variability across different fields of study. Hence, we present the Universal Index (U-index or U) towards resolving the controversy surrounding the indication of an entity's contributions to academic knowledge. U-index is the average weighted ratio of citation rates per annum of one's research works relative to the Impact Factor of the respective publication outlets. Some attributes and benefits of this new metric are established herein. This work demonstrates the viability of U-index from synthesis as well as from an analytical survey of the publication portfolio of 32 researchers. An evaluation of Kendall tau coefficient shows that for a mix of scholars from diverse fields, ranking these researchers based on U-index is distinct from, and preferred to ratings that use h-index. A download link is provided to the Universal Index Calculator freeware, developed to analyze a scholar's profile generated from indexing databases such as Google Scholar.

Statistical Uncertainty in the Ranking of Journals and Universities

Economists are obsessed with rankings of institutions, journals, or scholars according to the value of some feature of interest. These rankings are invariably computed using estimates rather than the true values of such features. As a result, there may be considerable uncertainty concerning the ranks. In this paper, we consider the problem of accounting for such uncertainty by constructing confidence sets for the ranks. We consider the problem of constructing marginal confidence sets for the rank of, say, a particular journal as well as simultaneous confidence sets for the ranks of all journals.

Arab scholars’ acceptance of informal scholarly communication tools: applying the technology acceptance model 2 (TAM2)

PurposeThis paper aims to use the technology acceptance model 2 (TAM2) to investigate the perceived ease of use, perceived benefits, barriers to use and acceptance of Arab scholars of informal communication tools in research writing.Design/methodology/approachThis study adopted a quantitative approach using a questionnaire distributed among Arab scholars in Jordan, Egypt and Oman. The questionnaire based on the TAM2 model aimed to measure the acceptance of the sample of informal scholarly communication tools.FindingsThe study’s findings confirmed that the sample is considering informal scholarly communication tools are useful for their research. Informal scholarly communication tools increase the papers’ visibility, leading to a higher number of citations, building scholars’ reputation, creating new collaboration opportunities and maintaining the established collaboration.Research limitations/implicationsThe study’s findings can only be generalized on Arab scholars. The sample size could be one of the limitations, and the sample’s distribution was limited to three Arab universities in Jordan, Oman and Egypt. The authors recommend that future researchers use TAM2 model as a framework for studying the adoption of informal scholarly communication tools in different cultural contexts to achieve a better understanding of factors influencing the adoption of such tools.Practical implicationsA practical implication of this research is in drawing the attention of higher education institutions for the potentials of these scholarly communication tools in increasing the availability of publications of their scholars and increasing the citation of these publications, which would help in increasing the ranking of scholars, and the rank of these institutions which opens new opportunities of international research collaboration.Social implicationsThe outcomes of this research have several implications for the successful adoption of the TAM2 model. This study brings new knowledge to the literature related to informal scholarly communication adoption by the application of TAM2 constructs to determine the adoption behavior; the findings offered evidence of the TAM2 success in predicting adoption of such tools.Originality/valueTo the best of the authors’ knowledge, adopting TAM2 in this research will add to knowledge by being one of the first studies to adopt TAM2 to measure acceptance of informal scholarly communication tools.

“MANY‐CITEDNESS”: CITATIONS MEASURE MORE THAN JUST SCIENTIFIC QUALITY

AbstractCitation counts are increasingly used to create rankings of scholars or institutions: while social scientists are often skeptical of the resulting indexes, economists have mostly been supporters of this approach. Yet, citation metrics have raised two debates in the literature: empirical, regarding their technical use, and theoretical, regarding their meaning and, more generally, the meaning of “scientific quality.” I review this literature highlighting the consequences for the use of citations for research assessment. As an application, I further study the network of citations of publications indexed in Web of Science, authored by all Italian academic economists between 2011 and 2015. I find that the probability of a citation between any two authors depends on similarity in their methods and topics but also, significantly, on various measures of social community and even of ideological proximity. The influence of social relations does not cancel out in the aggregate, as total citations to an individual depend on their network centrality. In the case of economics, citations cannot be interpreted as unbiased proxies of scientific quality.

The role of language adequacy in effective educational leadership

The main purpose of this research was to investigate the verbal characteristics of the philologists as school leaders in secondary educational institutions and to evaluate their effectiveness in verbal communication with teachers. The investigation of the verbal behaviour of philologist principals is considered particularly important as, according to a recent demographic study, scholars rank first in the number of serving principals in secondary educational institutions in Greece. A qualitative methodology with semi-structured interviews and a combination of mixed purposeful sampling strategies were used to achieve the research goal. A total of 45 participants were selected from educational institutions of Athens Secondary Education: 15 principals who are philologists, 15 vice-principals and 15 teachers who are mathematicians. Parallel to that, the strategy of data triangulation from three perspectives: the philologist leader's, the vice-principal's and one mathematician's from the same school institution has been applied. A key factor in effective verbal communication was the principal's personality with their ethical-spiritual characteristics, not their scientific expertise. This research seeks to identify the most efficient way of communication between teachers and principals for the optimisation of the school's means and processes, taking into consideration the difficulties deriving from the teachers' different scientific backgrounds.

Visibility and Ethical Considerations of Pakistani Universities Researchers on Google Scholar

Maximizing visibility by using academic profiling sites is very crucial in the academic world to improve the readership of research papers published and constant evaluation of research quality. In this article, the authors focused on the visibility of Pakistani University scholars on Google Scholar (GS). An intelligent Web Bot (MAKGBOT) was developed to collect the scholarly data of all Pakistani scholars, whose data is publicly available on Google Scholar. The findings of this research show that 87% of Pakistani universities have a presence on Google Scholar. It analyzes the research performance of scholars based on the last five years’ data from 2016 to 2020. Furthermore, the analysis reports the level of scholarly activities of all provinces and autonomous areas of Pakistan. This paper concludes by discussing the ethical issue of misrepresentation of information on the public profile and its consequences on the rankings of legitimate scholars.

Research Profiling for Responsible and Sustainable Innovations

The issues of responsible and sustainable innovations have been attracting the growing attention of the ranks of scholars in recent years. However, this amassing productivity in the field has not been mapped and profiled thoroughly, yet. Therefore, the aim of the paper is to map the research output related to the concepts of responsible and sustainable innovations with the method of research profiling. The analysis consists of three components: general research profiling, subject area profiling and topic profiling conducted with the use of Scopus database. The research process is directed at answering three research questions: (1) who are the main contributors within the scholarly community? why? so what? (2) how is the research output distributed among subject areas? why? so what? (3) what are the central topics and issues discussed within the research field? why? so what? First of all, key contributing countries, research institutions, journals, and authors are identified in order to characterize the scholarly community working in the field. Secondly, research output is profiled through the prism of respective subject areas. This type of profiling aims at discovering varieties among key journals, authors and core references distributed across various subject areas. Thirdly, topic analysis is conducted in order to point out most crucial aspects studied in the body of literature in the field. The research sample consists of 1083 publications indexed in Scopus database, including the phrases ‘responsible innovation’ or ‘sustainable innovation’ within their titles, keywords, and abstracts (topic search). The findings from the general research profiling confirm the growing interest of academia in exploring and investigating the issues of responsible and sustainable innovations. The leading contributors in the field are scholars and research institutions from the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Dutch universities and research centers occupy three top three positions in regard to the number of publications. Among them, Delft University of Technology is the unquestionable leader. Journal of Cleaner Production and Journal of Responsible Innovation are found to be the most prolific and highly recognized source titles in the field. Subject area profiling shows a relatively high level of interrelatedness among the four leading subject areas i.e., Business, Management and Accounting, Engineering, Social Sciences, and Environmental Science in regard to authors, source titles and core references. Topic profiling indicates two leading thematic streams in the research field focused on the features and core aspects of responsible and sustainable innovations, and the relationships of the concept with people (human, humans), research, ethics, and technology. Discussion of research findings is focused around comparing and contrasting three overlapping concepts (i.e., responsible research and innovation, responsible innovation, and sustainable innovation), providing the critical assessment of the reasons for the scholarly research to have developed along with certain patterns and identifying unexplored aspects or possible future avenues of research.

Total Scholarly Impact: Law Professor Citations in Non-Law Journals

This Article provides the first ranking of legal scholars and law faculties based on citations in non-law journals. Applying the methods, as much as possible, of the widely used Leiter-Sisk “Scholarly Impact Score,” which includes only citations in law publications, we calculate a “Interdisciplinary Scholarly Impact Score” from the non-law citations over a five-year period (2012-2018) to the work of tenured law faculty published in that period in non-law journals. We also provide the weighted scores for law faculty at the top 25 law schools as ranked by the US News rankings, a school-by-school ranking, and lists of the top five faculty by non-law citations at each school and of the top fifty scholars overall. The work of legal scholars outside of law journals is not trivial. Over 600 faculty members from the 25 schools in our cohort published almost 3,000 articles in non-law journals from 2012-2018, and those articles received close to 21,000 citations in non-law journals. The faculties that rank in the top ten based on weighted scores for Interdisciplinary Scholarly Impact using the Leiter-Sisk weighting method (2x the mean + the median) for all faculty with at least one publication in the study period are: Minnesota, Stanford, Yale, Duke, Cal-Irvine, Georgetown, Boston University, USC, Vanderbilt, and George Washington. The rankings, although subject to limitations similar to those faced by the law journal citation studies, demonstrate that it is possible with reasonable effort to include citations in both law and non-law journals in rankings of legal scholars and law school faculties. Legal scholars are cited in non-law journals for the work they publish in legal journals and, in many cases, for work they publish in non-law journals. Counting only their citations in law journals thus underestimates both the impact of their legal scholarship and their interdisciplinary impact. Non-law journals are widely read by law and policy scholars, scientists who influence legal scholarship, and policymakers, and publications and citations of legal scholars in non-law journals can be an indication of work that has transcended the conceptual frameworks, assumptions, or methods of legal research. Publications and citations in non-law journals thus provide an additional indication of the influence of legal scholars. Citations in non-law journals also provide an indication of the influence of legal scholars on the overall scholarly enterprise outside of law, and accounting for non-law citations in legal rankings can also encourage interdisciplinary scholarship. Scholars from non-law fields have made important contributions to legal scholarship, but the reverse should also be the case. Acceptance by other fields of legal scholars’ proposed legal reforms can play an important role in determining their success, which is made more likely when legal scholars are included in the work of other disciplines. For these reasons, we suggest in the Article that future evaluations of legal scholars’ work include both the Law Scholarly Impact Score and the new Interdisciplinary Scholarly Impact Score, or combine the two into a Total Scholarly Impact Score. Although there is some mismatch in the citation engine capacities and the time frames for our non-law journal citation study and the most recent Sisk et al. law journal citation study, a combination of the two can provide a rough approximation of the Total Scholarly Impact Score. The top ten law faculties based on this combined measure are: Yale, Harvard, Chicago, NYU, Stanford, Columbia, Duke, Cal-Berkeley, Pennsylvania, and Vanderbilt. The databases used in the law and non-law studies and their search capacities differ, making it difficult to develop a citation study method that captures all of a faculty members’ law and non-law publications and all citations to them in defined time frames. We are working to improve the non-law citation study database and search capacity. Following an introduction to the project, in Part I we discuss why accounting for legal scholars’ non-law publications and citations is important when assessing scholarly impact. Part II describes our methodology. Part III presents our results, and Part IV discusses the results.

Pięćdziesięciolecie gdańskiej historii wychowania

In 2009, the Faculty of the History of Science, Learning and Education, operating within the structures of the Institute of Pedagogics at Gdańsk University, will celebrate 50th anniversary of its existence. The beginnings of the Faculty and the fust years of its operation are inseparably connected with the Higher School of Pedagogics in Gdańsk, in which, in 1958 students were offered courses in pedagogics. Following these developments, a proper organizational framework was established, which was supposed to promote the development of such studies. One of the elements was the Department of History of Learning and Education, renamed - at the close of the 1960s - the Faculty of the History of Learning and Education. Since 1983 it is the Faculty of the History of Science, Learning and Education. The founder and first director of the Department, and later of the Faculty was Professor Kazimierz Kubik. Following him, it was Professor Klemens Trzebiatowski who headed the Faculty for three years. Professor Lech Mokrzecki was the subsequent director for over twenty years. Since 2005, Professor Romuald Grzybowski from Gdańsk University has been the head of the Faculty. Since the foundation of the Faculty, its employees have been conducting intensive scholarly research, originally limited to local or regional studies, and later comprising all Poland. Numerous book publications, papers and lectures delivered at scholarly conferences, form a material confirmation of intense scholarly activity by research and teaching staff of the Faculty. The scholarly conferences organized or co-organized by individual Faculty employees must be evaluated similarly. Another confirmation of the energy of the Faculty is participation of its employees in the process of education of the young ranks of scholars. The completion of ambitious tasks was possible due to such factors as stability of scholarly staff combined with their systematic replacement, good relationships between the Faculty’s employees, and, first of all, creative personality of successive directors of the Faculty. Owing to this creativity, the Faculty has not only survived, but develops intensively in all spheres of scholarly and didactic activity.

Practical Implications in Popular Consumer Behaviour Research

Despite the frequent calls to bridge the academic-practitioner divide by making academic research easily comprehensible to practitioners, there are minimal discernible advances in this direction. The objective of this study is to identify the popular trends in academic research and establish the relevance of scholarly works for managerial action. The study initially scrutinises the prominent topics in consumer behaviour between 2005-2016 using subject terms and the Google Scholar (GS) ranking of the reviewed papers. Following which, correspondence analysis is carried out on the themes to check correlation, and then validated using content analysis. A total of 149 research articles with managerial implications on the prominent topics were considered. The themes that emerged were: marketing communication tools (advertising and promotion); influencing strategies (pricing, selling and product offering); and customer reactions (loyalty and satisfaction). The implications common to the themes are consolidated and presented in a way that could act as a quick reference guide for practitioners. The review, though being limited to studies published in top-tier marketing journals, is unique in that no other paper has previously focused exclusively on listing the academic findings of practical relevance that could aid managers in decision-making.

DETERMINANTS OF EFFECTIVE PRODUCT PLACEMENT IN COMPUTER GAMES – LITERATURE REVIEW

Product placement is a common tool in promotional campaign. Marketers feature products in the plot of movies or TV programs to improve brand image and influence purchase decisions. Companies more often decide to embed products or brand identifiers inside computer games. Product placement attracts attention of managers as well as scholars. Vast parts of research focused on determinants of effective product placement in a game environment. The present paper aims to represent the main determinants that influence the effectiveness of product placement and is based on literature review.INTRODUCTION: Recently, we have witnessed the evolution of product placement in computer games. This new medium attracted many well-known companies such as IBM, Adidas or Coca-Cola. According to the growing popularity of placing product in games, an increase in scientists' interest in the effectiveness of this phenomenon can be observed. Research focuses on evaluating players' brand memory, attitudes toward to the game, product or brand, and purchasing intentions. It is important to note that brands placed in games affect the audience in different degrees because the brand can be featured in various ways. Some of the scholars investigated the factors that can exert influence on the effectiveness of product placement in computer games.OBJECTIVES: The present paper is aimed to investigate the main determinants of effective product placement in computer games.METHODS: The article is based on polish and foreign literature review.RESULTS: The growing ranks of scholars has been observed to have interest in the effectiveness of product placement in computer games. According to the literature, it can be said that an effectiveness of product (or brand) placement in a game environment is determined by: the degree of product/brand visibility in the game (prominence as well as proximity), game-product congruity, customer engagement in a game, persuasive knowledge, and strategy of product or brand integration with the game. There is also research that explores how these determinants influence product placement effectiveness in a game environment.CONCLUSION: Despite the progress made, there are still important limitations of the conducted research, e.g. results can be moderate by various circumstances such as using fictitious or real brands. In addition, the same factor can have positive as well as negative effects. For instance, product placement proximity on the one hand enhances brand recall, but on the other can cause negative attitudes toward the brand. There are also determinants with limited research such as influence of product or brand integration with the game on product (or brand) effectiveness.