If you ask a group of MBA, MiM or executive education candidates what matters most to them when choosing a business school, the answers come quickly: ROI, post-graduation salary, the alumni network, career progression, international mobility, perhaps achieving the specific goals they’ve set for themselves.

Alumni, too, tend to measure their experience in terms of return on investment and the professional doors that their school opened. These are natural, tangible concerns, and they are exactly the kinds of outcomes business schools market most heavily. 

But how often does a prospective student, or even an alumnus say, “I’m choosing this school because of its research output”? Almost never.

And yet, when the Financial Times publishes its global business school rankings, research output is one of the most heavily weighted factors, accounting for 10% of the overall ranking.

This raises an important question for business schools. If prospective students don’t necessarily prioritise research, why does it matter so much in rankings, and how should schools engage with what I’ll describe as the “FT50” list of journals?

The FT Research Rank

Specifically, the FT measures the number of articles published by full-time faculty members in 50 selected academic and practitioner journals in the previous year. 

The FT Research Rank, combines the absolute number of publications with the number weighted relative to the faculty’s size. In this year’s Global MBA Ranking, big schools dominated the top five places:

1. The Wharton School
2. Columbia Business School
3. Chicago Booth
4. INSEAD
5. Harvard Business School

So far, so predictable. But the following five places introduce some interesting results:

6. UT Dallas – Jindal
7. Cornell – Johnson
8. London Business School
9. U Washington – Foster
10. UT Austin McCombs

Why should schools from Singapore to Seattle invest so much time, money and energy in ensuring their faculty are published in these journals? 

Why the FT includes research in its rankings

On October 21 & 22 in London, I will be hosting more than 60 of the top business schools at the BlueSky Media Connect Conference in London, and will sit down with the FT Global Education Editor, Andrew Jack and the FT Rankings Editor, Leo Cremonezi to talk about business school rankings.

Part of the discussion will explore the broader role of a business school. MBA and Master’s students may focus on short-term metrics like salary, but rankings also aim to reflect long-term reputation and authority. 

Research output is a proxy for a school’s credibility in the global academic and business ecosystem. It’s a recognition that leading business schools are defined not just by what they teach, but by what they contribute to global knowledge.

1. Thought leadership – A school that publishes in the Academy of Management Journal or Journal of Finance is helping to shape the global conversation on management and economics. This positions the school not just as a place of learning, but as a generator of knowledge.
2. Teaching quality – Students may not realise it, but when they sit in a classroom with a professor who has just published in a top journal, they are learning cutting-edge insights before they filter into textbooks or mainstream business media.
3. Employer value – Recruiters and corporate partners know the difference between a teaching institution and a research powerhouse. Schools with a strong research track record are associated with rigour, innovation and credibility.
4. Global visibility – Research citations, journal articles and practitioner pieces put the school’s name on the world stage in ways that career statistics alone cannot.

In short, while students may not articulate it, research output quietly underpins many of the outcomes they value most: employability, credibility, and global recognition. The FT’s focus on research ensures schools are also judged on their ability to advance business thinking itself.

What exactly are the FT50 journals?

The 50 academic and practitioner journals cover a wide disciplinary spread: economics, finance, marketing, management, operations, and strategy. Most are traditional academic journals, such as Econometrica, Journal of Marketing Research, or Strategic Management Journal. These are highly technical, peer-reviewed outlets that demand methodological rigour and theoretical depth.

But a few stand out because they are written in a more accessible style, notably Harvard Business Review and MIT Sloan Management Review. These journals are where professors and thought leaders address practising managers, policymakers, and the wider business community.

The FT’s inclusion of both kinds of outlets – the deeply academic and the practitioner-friendly – reflects the balance business schools are expected to strike with rigour and relevance.

How business schools can best engage with FT50 publications

1. Invest in faculty research

• Research doesn’t happen by accident. Schools that prioritise high-quality output provide faculty with resources, time, data access, and recognise research achievements with incentives.

• Junior academics in particular benefit from structured mentoring on how to navigate the long and competitive peer-review process.

2. Value both academic and practitioner impact

• Publishing in HBR or Sloan Management Review shouldn’t be seen as “lesser” than an econometrics paper. Both types of publications serve different but complementary audiences.

• Schools can encourage faculty to engage in both streams – advancing theory while also translating insights for practitioners, alumni and students.

3. Align research with institutional strategy

• Schools that define clear thematic strengths (e.g. sustainability, digital transformation, entrepreneurship) are better able to focus faculty research and create visible impact.

• Journals such as Research Policy (for innovation) or Journal of Business Venturing (for entrepreneurship) become natural homes for this kind of strategic alignment.

4. Empower communications and PR teams

• Too often, groundbreaking research remains behind journal paywalls. Smart schools work with PR and communications teams such as BlueSky Education to translate findings into accessible insight through press releases, op-eds, blogs, podcasts, knowledge platforms and alumni magazines.

• Done well, this not only boosts citations but also ensures faculty research influences public debates and corporate practice.

Do students and alumni benefit from this?

At first glance, research may feel disconnected from what students or alumni want from a degree. But dig deeper and the connections are clear:

• Students taught by world-class researchers can position themselves as experts in cutting-edge topics when speaking to recruiters.
• Alumni take pride in their school’s research reputation, which strengthens the value of their credential long after graduation.
• Executives in custom or open programmes benefit from insights distilled from rigorous, peer-reviewed studies, not just anecdotal case material.

So while candidates may not say they care about research, the outcomes they do care about are often powered by it.

Why it matters beyond rankings

For business schools themselves, the stakes are even higher. Rankings may come and go, but research is one of the few long-term assets that builds enduring reputation. A school with strong research output is not just delivering degrees; it is shaping policy, business practice, and even societal debates.

Those who neglect research may temporarily satisfy student demands for career progression but risk losing credibility in the eyes of peers, employers, and governments. Those who invest in it stand to become global authorities – the schools that set the agenda, not just follow it.

At the end of the day, the FT’s decision to weigh research output heavily in its rankings sends a clear message. A great business school is not only a teaching institution but a knowledge engine.

The list of 50 journals identified by the FT remain the benchmark for that contribution. Schools that embrace them are not only rewarded in rankings but also establish themselves as thought leaders in a world that needs bold ideas more than ever.

About the author

Matt Symonds is Chief Editor of BlueSky Thinking. He is the S of QS, co-founding QS Quacquarelli Symonds, publishers of the QS World University Rankings and numerous business school rankings.

In 2010 Matt was the media consultant for Times Higher Education to support the launch of their own THE World University Rankings, and has subsequently worked for THE and WSJ for business school rankings.

Matt writes about Higher Education and management for BBC, Times of India and formerly Forbes, The Economist and Bloomberg.

Interested in this topic? You might also like this: