Current centers of active research on the management of technology and innovation (MOT) are identified through the use of a publication-based study. This article develops a methodology for ranking centers of MOT research and in doing so identifies 120 centers of MOT research in different parts of the world. Centers of research are identified in Africa, Asia, Australia, Europe, and North America. Detailed assessment is offered for the 21 U.S.-based schools with three or more active MOT researchers present. The nature and quality of research activity is assessed with a series of 21 metrics. These metrics consider the number of active faculty, the number of publications researchers have in the base journals during the study period, total publication history, MOT publication history, number of equivalent articles, number of pages published, frequency of citations, and a series of metrics that are a combination of two or more of these factors. The assessment identifies four groups of schools that have MOT research capabilities. Schools with substantial research capability are divided into three tiers based on their rankings in different metrics. Each of the schools ranked in the first tier placed first on at least two of the 21 metrics considered in this study. A reasonable argument can be made that any one of the schools ranking in the first tier is the strongest school in terms of MOT research capabilities. These U.S.-based schools in alphabetical order are Georgia Tech, MIT, Rensselaer, Rutgers, and Stanford. An important point to note is that there are clear differences in research focus between the different first-tier schools; therefore, it is quite likely that different types of students, faculties, and practitioners will find each of the first-tier schools most attractive based on personal fit with these differences in specialization. The schools in the second and third tier have substantial MOT research capability. The fourth tier identifies 18 additional U.S.-based schools that have some capability due to a core of two researchers. This core could be the springboard to a national ranking or a transitory state due to departure of a faculty member. Future research should consider the stability of the results over time and should explore the links among research capabilities, program structure, student output, and placement.