Talent 100 Ranking 2026 of Business & Economics
We know the names. We cite the thought leaders. We invite the keynote speakers. We associate influence with visibility and prestige.
But strip away the brand, the biography and the conference circuit, and ask yourself who has actually produced the most sustained, high-impact research in business and economics over the past five years?
The answers may surprise you.
The Talent 100 Business & Economics 2026 ranking developed by measuresHE and published exclusively by Bluesky Thinking measures academics not by fame, institutional halo or lifetime achievement, but by recent, demonstrable research performance – publication volume, quality, citation impact and what measuresHE calls “research gravitas.”
It is a five-year performance table of academic research impact, and it reveals a very different map of influence. If the Journals 100 ranking shifted the lens from institutions to outlets, the Talent 100 Business & Economics 2026 shifts it again, this time onto individuals.
It tells a very different story about where influence in business and economics actually resides.
Reputation vs Performance
For decades, academic influence in business and economics has been closely tied to institutional prestige. When we think of intellectual heavyweights, names associated with globally dominant schools such as University of Chicago, Harvard University and UC Berkeley come to mind.
But their impact is not necessarily concentrated in peer-reviewed research output over the last five years, and that distinction matters. As measuresHE co-founder David Watkins explains, “Reputation often lags the reality of excellence. When you look at recent, sustained research output rather than institutional prestige, the distribution of influence looks very different.”
The Talent 100 captures that difference, and redraws the global map of research performance. One of the most striking features of the Talent 100 is its geography.
The top-ranked academics are not clustered solely in the US and UK. Instead, the list highlights many scholars working in Asia, the Middle East and Africa, as well as emerging research-intensive institutions in the UK and continental Europe.
This reflects broader structural shifts in global academia. Doctoral training has internationalised, research funding has expanded beyond traditional centres, and collaboration networks are increasingly global.
As measuresHE co-founder, Billy Wong notes, “The data show that excellence is more distributed than institutional reputation suggests. When you measure influence consistently over time, you uncover talent operating in places that aren’t always part of the traditional narrative.”
In other words, academic impact is no longer geographically monopolised.
The Top Three: A New Profile of Research Leadership
The top three scholars in the Talent 100 Business & Economics ranking exemplify this shift.
1. Chien-Chiang Lee – City University of Macau, China
Ranked first in the 2026 Talent 100 for Business & Economics, Chien Chiang represents a generation of research leaders working within Asia’s rapidly strengthening academic ecosystem. Based at City University of Macau, Chiang’s work spans finance, innovation and interdisciplinary business research. Over the past five years, he has produced a remarkable volume of peer-reviewed scholarship, with consistent citation impact across journals.
His profile reflects three defining characteristics of the Talent 100 methodology:
- Sustained productivity
- Cross-field influence
- Global citation reach
Rather than a single landmark paper, Chiang’s ranking is built on consistent, cumulative contribution – a hallmark of research gravitas.
2. Satish Kumar – Sunway University, Malaysia
Based at Sunway Business School in Malaysia, Satish Kumar’s research profile illustrates how strategic positioning within emerging research hubs can amplify impact. His work engages with sustainability, strategy and business systems – areas that have seen rapid expansion in both policy and corporate discourse. Over the past five years, Kumar has demonstrated:
- High publication density
- Strong field-weighted citation impact
- Broad cross-institutional engagement
Malaysia does not typically dominate conversations about global business research leadership. Yet the data-driven approach of the Talent 100 highlights how scholars within dynamic, well-supported research environments are shaping the field’s evolution.
3. Sascha Kraus – University of Siegen, Germany
At the University of Siegen in Germany, Sascha Kraus represents a European model of research productivity that combines entrepreneurship scholarship with interdisciplinary collaboration.
Kraus’ recent output demonstrates both depth and scale, with influence spanning strategy, innovation and entrepreneurial ecosystems. His five-year record reflects not episodic spikes, but sustained engagement and citation traction.
Germany’s research system has long been respected, but institutions such as Siegen are rarely positioned at the centre of global prestige hierarchies. The Talent 100 suggests that such hierarchies may obscure current performance realities.
Gravitas: Measuring Momentum, Not Memory
A key innovation of the Talent 100 is its focus on recent performance rather than accumulated legacy. Academic reputation is often a function of decades-long careers. Yet research ecosystems are dynamic. Topics rise and fall, funding priorities shift and methodological trends evolve.
By concentrating on a rolling five-year window, the Talent 100 captures research momentum and sustained citation engagement. It aligns more closely with how universities compete for research recognition today, not based on historical legacy, but on demonstrable current output.
Watkins points out, “If institutions want to understand where research impact is strongest right now, they need metrics that reflect current activity, not historical prestige.”
Complementing the Journals 100
Earlier this year, Bluesky Thinking published the Journals 100 Ranking for Business & Economics, examining where influential research is published. The Talent 100 completes the picture by examining who is producing it.
Together, the two rankings create a layered understanding of research ecosystems – the journals that curate and amplify knowledge, and tndividuals that generate and sustain it.
When both are measured using transparent, data-led methodologies, patterns emerge that reputation-based systems may miss.
As Billy Wong reflects, “Metrics should describe how the research system actually functions. When you measure influence consistently, you often discover that it’s more globally distributed than the reputation system suggests.”
A New Narrative of Influence
The Talent 100 Business & Economics 2026 ranking does not seek to dethrone established intellectual figures. Nor does it diminish the importance of broader public scholarship.
Instead, it simply asks who is producing the most sustained, high-quality research now?
The answers are more diverse, geographically and institutionally, than conventional narratives imply.
For universities seeking to recruit, for policymakers assessing research ecosystems, and for scholars navigating their own careers, the the map of business and economics research leadership is expanding.
The Talent 100 makes that expansion visible.
Talent 100 Ranking 2026 – Business & Economics
| Rank 2026 | Name | Institution | Location | Publication Volume | Typical Research Quality | Best Works | Research Gravitas | Collaboration Intensity | Overall Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Chien?Chiang Lee | City University of Macau | China | 99.9 | 98.5 | 97.5 | 100.0 | 99.9 | 99.1 |
| 2 | Satish Kumar | Sunway University | Malaysia | 99.6 | 96.4 | 95.4 | 99.7 | 97.4 | 97.7 |
| 3 | Sascha Kraus | University of Siegen | Germany | 97.4 | 99.6 | 94.7 | 100.0 | 90.7 | 97.6 |
| 4 | Elie Bouri | Lebanese American University | Lebanon | 99.7 | 94.3 | 95.9 | 99.1 | 98.9 | 97.0 |
| 4 | Muhammad Umar | Lebanese American University | Lebanon | 95.3 | 99.4 | 95.5 | 99.6 | 89.0 | 97.0 |
| 6 | Muhammad Abubakr Naeem | United Arab Emirates University | UAE | 96.7 | 97.7 | 94.6 | 97.3 | 90.8 | 96.3 |
| 7 | Tomiwa Sunday Adebayo | Near East University | Turkey | 94.3 | 96.9 | 96.8 | 99.2 | 89.7 | 96.1 |
| 8 | Muhammad Shahbaz | Beijing Institute of Technology | China | 96.0 | 95.5 | 95.0 | 99.2 | 92.0 | 95.9 |
| 9 | Chi?Wei Su | Qingdao University | China | 96.6 | 96.2 | 94.9 | 95.8 | 93.1 | 95.7 |
| 10 | Xuan Vinh Vo | University of Economics Ho Chi Minh City | Vietnam | 99.8 | 90.1 | 95.7 | 99.0 | 99.1 | 95.6 |
| 11 | Tsan?Ming Choi | University of Liverpool | UK | 96.7 | 94.5 | 92.6 | 100.0 | 89.2 | 95.2 |
| 11 | Boqiang Lin | Xiamen University | China | 99.9 | 87.3 | 97.9 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 95.2 |
| 13 | Yogesh K. Dwivedi | King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals | Saudi Arabia | 91.6 | 99.9 | 95.1 | 99.3 | 75.6 | 95.0 |
| 13 | Heesup Han | Sejong University | Korea | 97.2 | 93.6 | 96.2 | 97.0 | 89.8 | 95.0 |
| 15 | Dragan Pamu?ar | University of Belgrade | Serbia | 99.9 | 87.1 | 97.8 | 99.1 | 98.5 | 94.8 |
| 16 | Dmitry Ivanov | Berlin School of Economics and Law | Germany | 92.5 | 99.2 | 88.9 | 100.0 | 79.2 | 94.5 |
| 16 | Dervi? K?r?kkaleli | European University of Lefke | Turkey | 95.1 | 92.0 | 94.4 | 98.6 | 94.3 | 94.5 |
| 18 | David B. Audretsch | Indiana University Bloomington; University of Klagenfurt | USA | 95.9 | 91.9 | 91.0 | 99.2 | 96.2 | 94.4 |
| 19 | Brian M. Lucey | Trinity College Dublin | Ireland | 95.4 | 94.7 | 92.1 | 95.0 | 91.4 | 94.2 |
| 20 | Farhad Taghizadeh?Hesary | Keio University; Tokai University | Japan | 99.2 | 87.6 | 93.8 | 98.0 | 97.0 | 93.9 |
| 21 | Biswajit Sarkar | Yonsei University | Korea | 93.9 | 93.3 | 92.8 | 95.8 | 89.8 | 93.5 |
| 22 | Aviral Kumar Tiwari | Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad | India | 99.8 | 85.3 | 95.2 | 96.5 | 99.0 | 93.3 |
| 23 | Alfredo De Massis | IMD; Free University of Bozen-Bolzano; Lancaster University | Italy / UK | 96.2 | 89.3 | 87.3 | 99.8 | 94.4 | 93.0 |
| 24 | Demetris Vrontis | University of Nicosia | Cyprus | 99.9 | 84.5 | 95.2 | 96.1 | 98.5 | 92.9 |
| 25 | Anil Kumar | London Metropolitan University | UK | 94.4 | 96.2 | 93.8 | 94.2 | 72.7 | 92.7 |
| 26 | Kannan Govindan | The University of Adelaide | Australia | 86.6 | 95.6 | 92.6 | 99.8 | 75.3 | 92.2 |
| 27 | José Arturo Garza-Reyes | University of Derby | UK | 98.4 | 87.9 | 94.1 | 93.4 | 88.2 | 92.1 |
| 27 | Festus V?ctor Bekun | Geli?im Üniversitesi | Turkey | 89.0 | 90.8 | 94.8 | 98.6 | 85.9 | 92.1 |
| 29 | Sachin Kumar Mangla | Fore School of Management | India | 90.8 | 95.5 | 93.3 | 95.1 | 73.9 | 92.0 |
| 30 | Weng Marc Lim | Sunway University; Swinburne University of Technology Sarawak Campus | Malaysia | 82.5 | 99.5 | 93.2 | 98.9 | 64.8 | 91.6 |
| 31 | Khaled Hussainey | Bangor University | UK | 98.7 | 85.4 | 90.0 | 92.3 | 97.4 | 91.3 |
| 32 | João J. Ferreira | University of Beira Interior | Portugal | 98.8 | 82.2 | 91.6 | 95.1 | 97.6 | 91.0 |
| 33 | U?ur Korkut Pata | Mustafa Kemal University | Turkey | 75.9 | 96.4 | 93.7 | 98.9 | 80.8 | 90.8 |
| 34 | Xiaohang Ren | Central South University | China | 81.8 | 97.5 | 90.3 | 93.1 | 80.4 | 90.7 |
| 34 | Sabri Boubaker | EM Normandie Business School | France | 91.6 | 89.2 | 86.5 | 96.9 | 87.7 | 90.7 |
| 36 | Daniel Balsalobre?Lorente | University of Castilla-La Mancha | Spain | 78.1 | 97.2 | 93.3 | 96.8 | 74.7 | 90.5 |
| 37 | Syed Abdul Rehman Khan | Xuzhou University of Technology | China | 83.8 | 94.6 | 90.5 | 97.9 | 73.9 | 90.4 |
| 38 | Arshian Sharif | Sunway University; University of Humanities and Economics in Lodz | Malaysia | 76.3 | 98.6 | 93.9 | 98.6 | 66.0 | 90.2 |
| 39 | Qiang Ji | Chinese Academy of Sciences | China | 87.7 | 87.9 | 90.9 | 98.7 | 84.4 | 90.1 |
| 39 | Zaghum Umar | Zayed University | UAE | 85.3 | 92.4 | 89.3 | 94.0 | 85.3 | 90.1 |
| 41 | Amandeep Dhir | University of Agder | Norway | 74.7 | 99.6 | 93.9 | 99.3 | 62.4 | 90.0 |
| 42 | Muhammet Deveci | UCL | UK | 93.3 | 91.3 | 95.8 | 84.0 | 77.9 | 89.6 |
| 43 | Justin Paul | University of Puerto Rico | Puerto Rico | 68.9 | 97.8 | 91.0 | 100.0 | 76.0 | 89.3 |
| 44 | Shouyang Wang | Chinese Academy of Sciences | China | 98.3 | 81.7 | 92.3 | 88.1 | 94.5 | 89.2 |
| 44 | Vijay Pereira | Indian Academy of Management | India | 92.6 | 90.0 | 91.5 | 87.5 | 79.7 | 89.2 |
| 44 | M. Kabir Hassan | University of New Orleans | USA | 100.0 | 74.9 | 94.6 | 94.0 | 99.8 | 89.2 |
| 47 | Shaen Corbet | Dublin City University; University of Waikato | Ireland | 97.8 | 82.4 | 89.6 | 88.0 | 95.5 | 89.0 |
| 47 | Sunil Luthra | All India Council for Technical Education | India | 84.6 | 95.5 | 92.6 | 91.0 | 65.5 | 89.0 |
| 49 | Muhammad Irfan | Shandong Management University | China | 77.7 | 97.9 | 94.1 | 91.5 | 65.8 | 88.8 |
| 50 | Muhammad Akram | University of the Punjab | Pakistan | 95.8 | 75.9 | 93.8 | 96.3 | 96.0 | 88.7 |
| 51 | Sang Hoon Kang | Pusan National University | Korea | 90.6 | 90.7 | 90.1 | 84.8 | 83.1 | 88.6 |
| 52 | T. Ramayah | Universiti Sains Malaysia | Malaysia | 98.2 | 79.9 | 91.7 | 88.1 | 94.4 | 88.4 |
| 53 | Jiju Antony | Northumbria University | UK | 99.3 | 79.6 | 93.5 | 86.0 | 93.8 | 88.3 |
| 53 | Andrew Adewale Alola | University of Inland Norway | Norway | 88.3 | 82.6 | 92.4 | 93.3 | 91.9 | 88.3 |
| 53 | Dalia Štreimikien? | Lithuanian Energy Institute; Vilnius University; Vytautas Magnus University | Lithuania | 94.7 | 79.4 | 92.2 | 94.0 | 89.4 | 88.3 |
| 56 | Walid Mensi | Sultan Qaboos University | Oman | 89.3 | 90.7 | 90.8 | 83.2 | 83.5 | 88.2 |
| 57 | Serhat Yüksel | Istanbul Medipol University | Turkey | 97.0 | 86.4 | 93.3 | 75.1 | 93.6 | 88.0 |
| 57 | Harish Garg | Thapar Institute of Engineering & Technology | India | 94.4 | 76.0 | 94.8 | 97.2 | 88.5 | 88.0 |
| 59 | Imran Yousaf | Prince Sultan University | Saudi Arabia | 75.2 | 96.5 | 88.9 | 86.5 | 82.6 | 87.7 |
| 59 | Hasan D?nçer | Istanbul Medipol University | Turkey | 97.1 | 85.6 | 93.1 | 75.0 | 93.7 | 87.7 |
| 61 | Joseph Sarkis | Worcester Polytechnic Institute | USA | 71.0 | 95.4 | 86.9 | 99.2 | 70.2 | 87.5 |
| 62 | Vinit Parida | Luleå University of Technology | Sweden | 67.6 | 98.2 | 87.7 | 99.2 | 64.6 | 87.3 |
| 62 | Kangyin Dong | University of International Business and Economics | China | 72.4 | 94.1 | 93.7 | 92.0 | 74.1 | 87.3 |
| 64 | Dongmin Kong | Huazhong University of Science and Technology | China | 80.7 | 88.6 | 86.9 | 91.5 | 87.0 | 87.2 |
| 65 | Vanessa Ratten | La Trobe University | Australia | 99.3 | 71.2 | 91.6 | 98.9 | 88.2 | 87.1 |
| 66 | Marina Dabi? | University of Dubrovnik; University of Ljubljana | Croatia | 83.7 | 89.2 | 87.1 | 89.7 | 78.9 | 86.9 |
| 67 | Haitao Wu | Hainan University | China | 67.2 | 98.1 | 90.5 | 97.4 | 58.9 | 86.7 |
| 67 | Rangan Gupta | University of Pretoria | South Africa | 100.0 | 66.7 | 93.2 | 97.0 | 99.9 | 86.7 |
| 69 | Léo?Paul Dana | Dalhousie University | Canada | 98.7 | 77.1 | 87.7 | 85.1 | 97.0 | 86.6 |
| 70 | Sanjoy Kumar Paul | University of Technology Sydney | Australia | 77.4 | 89.7 | 88.7 | 98.9 | 64.4 | 86.4 |
| 71 | Nawazish Mirza | Excelia Business School | France | 68.2 | 97.8 | 88.2 | 92.5 | 66.4 | 86.2 |
| 72 | Afees A. Salisu | University of Pretoria | South Africa | 95.7 | 74.1 | 84.4 | 93.2 | 97.1 | 86.1 |
| 72 | Samuel Fosso Wamba | Toulouse Business School | France | 59.8 | 98.2 | 87.3 | 98.7 | 69.4 | 86.1 |
| 74 | Canh Phuc Nguyen | University of Economics Ho Chi Minh City | Vietnam | 74.4 | 87.3 | 86.5 | 95.2 | 85.2 | 86.0 |
| 75 | T.C.E. Cheng | Hong Kong Polytechnic University | Hong Kong | 98.9 | 71.8 | 90.3 | 89.2 | 94.5 | 85.7 |
| 76 | Yu Hao | Beijing Institute of Technology | China | 64.8 | 97.1 | 88.9 | 97.9 | 54.8 | 85.3 |
| 77 | Vikas Kumar | University of Portsmouth | UK | 90.5 | 81.4 | 85.6 | 87.3 | 83.4 | 85.2 |
| 78 | Wil M. P. van der Aalst | RWTH Aachen University | Denmark | 89.8 | 74.0 | 92.3 | 93.5 | 85.7 | 85.0 |
| 78 | Mahdi Salehi | Ferdowsi University of Mashhad | Iran | 91.0 | 77.7 | 87.3 | 88.8 | 87.7 | 85.0 |
| 80 | Witold Pedrycz | University of Alberta | Canada | 97.5 | 70.6 | 93.2 | 91.0 | 84.9 | 84.9 |
| 80 | Muhammad Shujaat Mubarik | Heriot-Watt University | UK | 81.7 | 84.5 | 84.9 | 91.6 | 79.8 | 84.9 |
| 82 | Muhammad Turki Alshurideh | University of Sharjah | UAE | 93.5 | 96.6 | 89.7 | 54.1 | 79.5 | 84.8 |
| 83 | Muntasir Murshed | Bangladesh Institute of Development Studies | Bangladesh | 63.3 | 96.4 | 93.7 | 97.9 | 46.9 | 84.7 |
| 84 | Chun?Ping Chang | Shih Chien University | Taiwan | 71.3 | 95.4 | 88.9 | 81.6 | 72.9 | 84.6 |
| 84 | Peterson K Ozili | Chitkara University; Emerald Group Publishing (United Kingdom); Panjab University | India | 100.0 | 76.2 | 92.5 | 99.6 | 41.3 | 84.6 |
| 86 | Zaheer Khan | University of Aberdeen; University of Vaasa | UK/Finland | 77.8 | 86.9 | 84.1 | 95.0 | 67.5 | 84.3 |
| 87 | Emmanuel Mogaji | Keele University | UK | 75.4 | 94.7 | 86.1 | 81.4 | 67.8 | 84.2 |
| 87 | Samuel Adomako | University of Birmingham | UK | 72.0 | 87.1 | 86.1 | 93.1 | 78.1 | 84.2 |
| 89 | Zeshui Xu | Hangzhou Normal University | China | 99.8 | 59.9 | 93.7 | 95.6 | 99.4 | 84.0 |
| 90 | Ahmed A. Elamer | Alfaisal University | Saudi Arabia | 67.6 | 94.0 | 84.4 | 86.8 | 70.9 | 83.5 |
| 91 | Maksim Belitski | University of Reading | UK | 50.6 | 95.6 | 84.1 | 97.4 | 77.3 | 83.4 |
| 92 | Rajesh Kumar Singh | Management Development Institute | India | 57.9 | 94.9 | 88.4 | 92.3 | 67.0 | 83.2 |
| 92 | Arunodaya Raj Mishra | ITM University | India | 66.8 | 93.7 | 91.9 | 88.7 | 55.5 | 83.2 |
| 94 | Ahmet ?ensoy | Bilkent University | Turkey | 71.0 | 88.3 | 82.7 | 94.3 | 65.8 | 83.0 |
| 94 | Syed Jawad Hussain Shahzad | Montpellier Business School | France | 66.8 | 92.3 | 84.9 | 89.5 | 66.8 | 83.0 |
| 96 | Mamdouh Abdulaziz Saleh Al?Faryan | Saudi Economic Association | Saudi Arabia | 97.4 | 78.9 | 91.2 | 63.1 | 92.4 | 82.6 |
| 96 | Sitara Karim | ILMA University | Pakistan | 63.7 | 97.5 | 89.7 | 80.2 | 62.6 | 82.6 |
| 96 | Yuriy Gorodnichenko | University of California, Berkeley | USA | 87.9 | 72.2 | 75.3 | 98.1 | 88.0 | 82.6 |
| 99 | Mohammad Zoynul Abedin | Swansea University | UK | 89.0 | 90.0 | 89.9 | 58.5 | 78.7 | 82.3 |
| 100 | Marinko Škare | Juraj Dobrila University of Pula | Croatia | 77.2 | 86.4 | 84.4 | 78.5 | 81.6 | 82.2 |
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…