Search results

The purpose of this paper is to present, for the first time, a case for ranking heterodox journals and departments.

The first section of the article briefly delineates the intellectual and social organization of heterodox economics as a social system of scientific activity. This background is then used to argue the case for ranking heterodox journals (section two) and heterodox departments (section three). An example of ranking journals that promote the development of heterodox theory, is not a zero‐sum game, and does not invite invidious comparisons is delineated in the fourth section. The final section summarizes the case for rankings.

There are two central issues facing heterodox economics: one is the development of a coherent, integrated economic theory that explains the social provisioning process; and the second is the making of economic departments that contribute to the development of heterodox theory and policy, and the training of heterodox economists. A case can be made for ranking journals and departments that deal with the two issues.

An example of ranking journals that promote the development of heterodox theory, is not a zero‐sum game, and does not invite invidious comparisons is delineated.

The purpose of this study is to update a global ranking of 27 knowledge management and intellectual capital (KM/IC) academic journals.

The ranking was developed based on a combination of results from a survey of 482 active KM/IC researchers and journal citation impact indices.

The ranking list includes 27 currently active KM/IC journals. The A+ journals are the Journal of Knowledge Management and the Journal of Intellectual Capital. The A journals are the Learning Organization, Knowledge Management Research & Practice, Knowledge and Process Management, VINE: The Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems and International Journal of Knowledge Management. A majority of recently launched journals did not fare well in the ranking. Whereas a journal’s longevity is important, it is not the only factor affecting its ranking position. Expert survey and citation impact measures are relatively consistent, but expert survey ranking scores change faster.

KM/IC discipline stakeholders, including practitioners, editors, publishers, reviewers, researchers, students, administrators and librarians, may consult the developed ranking list for various purposes. Compared to 2008, more researchers indicated KM/IC as their primary area of concentration, which is a positive indicator of discipline development.

This is the most recent ranking list of KM/IC academic journals.

The purpose of this paper is report the importance of research publications for the tenure promotion and for faculty in accounting, finance, and information system (IS) areas, developing valid criteria for the assessment of quality in related journals is necessary.

Existing rankings are usually based on a survey among faculty members, while ignoring the chairs' critical role in tenure evaluation. This paper uses department chairs' responses to a survey asking to assess relative journal quality, and hence provides quantitative standards to measure research productivity. The rankings are primarily obtained by the familiarity‐rank position index method. Different sets of rankings for the decision‐makers in universities, with various requirements for research are provide.

It is found that the rankings in accounting and finance areas are consistent with the prior research, but the rankings in the IS have changed significantly. This difference to the rapid growth in the field of IS is attributed. The robustness check also corroborates the ranking lists.

In addition, this paper reports not only a comprehensive ranking list including most journals in accounting, finance, and IS areas, but also separate rankings in each field.

The topic of scholarly journals is important to the marketing discipline and the worldwide research communities, due to the way the journals are categorized and judged in available and compiled journal rankings. The purpose of this paper is to describe and discuss the underlying measures of journal rankings in scholarly journals in marketing.

It is limited to the scholarly journals and journal rankings of the marketing discipline.

Journal rankings of scholarly journals in marketing are mainly based upon single‐item measures based upon either citations or perceptions, without any estimates of validity, reliability or generality.

There is a need to move away from the predominantly “single‐item measure syndrome” that characterizes most of the available and compiled journal rankings in marketing.

Broader approaches should be implemented and applied in journal rankings based upon “multi‐item measures”.

Re‐assessment of the activity of ranking journals is long overdue if the ranking lists themselves do not consider a minimum of scientific rigor and soundness as required in other areas of scholarly endeavours. The marketing discipline may be at risk of entering a vicious and irreversible circle of decline and decomposition.

In a previous paper (McKinnon, 2013), the author questioned the principle and practice of journal ranking and discussed its effects on logistics research. Since then several important developments have occurred prompting a fresh review of the issues. The paper summarises the results of this review with the aim of stimulating further discussion on the subject.

New literature on the journal ranking debate has been reviewed. The validity of the journal ranking as a proxy measure of paper quality is explored using data from the UK Research Excellence Framework (REF) assessment. Changes to the ranking of ten logistics/supply chain management (SCM) journals in four listings are analysed, and possible reasons for the relatively low status of the journals are examined.

The influence of journal rankings on the academic research process is strengthening while the debate about their legitimacy has intensified. UK REF data cast doubt on the reliability of the journal ranking as an indicator of a paper’s merit. Logistics/SCM journals continue to occupy mid-to-lower tier positions in most listings, though there has been some improvement in their standing.

The paper aims to alert those managing and undertaking logistics research to the dangers of overreliance on journal rankings in the measurement of research quality and productivity.

The paper may help logistics/SCM scholars to defend the position of their discipline and resist journal-ranking-induced pressures to marginalise it and devalue its outputs.

In this paper, academic recruitment, promotion and motivation are considered.

The paper sheds new light on the relationship between journal ranking and individual paper quality, on recent changes in the rating of logistics/SCM journals and on the wider debate about the use of bibliometrics in assessing research quality.

The purpose of this study is to update a global ranking list of 28 knowledge management and intellectual capital (KM/IC) academic journals. The list should be periodically updated because the pool of active KM/IC researchers changes, researchers adjust their journal perceptions, citation indices change and new journals appear while others become discontinued.

The ranking list was created based on a survey of 463 active KM/IC researchers and journal citation impact metrics (the h-index and the g-index).

Journal of Knowledge Management and Journal of Intellectual Capital are ranked A+, followed by The Learning Organization, Knowledge Management Research & Practice, VINE: The Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems, Knowledge and Process Management and International Journal of Knowledge Management which are ranked A. VINE, Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management and Online Journal of Applied Knowledge Management have shown the most improvement. The recently established Journal of Innovation & Knowledge has demonstrated a strong performance.

KM/IC discipline stakeholders may consult and use the ranking list for various purposes, but they should do so with caution. Highly ranked journals are quite likely to have the Clarivate’s Journal Impact Factor or be included in the Clarivate’s Emerging Sources Citation Index. A journal’s longevity is strongly correlated with its citation metrics and is moderately correlated with expert survey scores. Interdisciplinarity is the natural state of the KM and IC research domains, and it should be embraced by the research community.

This study presents the most up-to-date ranking list of KM/IC academic journals.

The purpose of this study is to update a global ranking of knowledge management and intellectual capital (KM/IC) academic journals.

Two different approaches were utilized: a survey of 379 active KM/IC researchers; and the journal citation impact method. Scores produced by the application of these methods were combined to develop the final ranking.

Twenty‐five KM/IC‐centric journals were identified and ranked. The top six journals are: Journal of Knowledge Management, Journal of Intellectual Capital, The Learning Organization, Knowledge Management Research & Practice, Knowledge and Process Management and International Journal of Knowledge Management. Knowledge Management Research & Practice has substantially improved its reputation. The Learning Organization and Journal of Intellectual Capital retained their previous positions due to their strong citation impact. The number of KM/IC‐centric and KM/IC‐relevant journals has been growing at the pace of one new journal launch per year. This demonstrates that KM/IC is not a scientific fad; instead, the discipline is progressing towards academic maturity and recognition.

The developed ranking may be used by various stakeholders, including journal editors, publishers, reviewers, researchers, new scholars, students, policymakers, university administrators, librarians and practitioners. It is a useful tool to further promote the KM/IC discipline and develop its unique identity. It is important for all KM/IC journals to become included in Thomson Reuters' Journal Citation Reports.

This is the most up‐to‐date ranking of KM/IC journals.

This is a polemical paper challenging both the principle and practice of journal ranking. In recent years academics and their institutions have become obsessive about the star‐ratings of the journals in which they publish. In the UK this is partly attributed to quinquennial reviews of university research performance though preoccupation with journal ratings has become an international phenomenon. The purpose of this paper is to examine the arguments for and against these ratings and argue that, on balance, they are having a damaging effect on the development of logistics as an academic discipline.

The arguments advanced in the paper are partly substantiated by references to the literature on the ranking of journals and development of scientific research. A comparison is made of the rating of logistics publications in different journal ranking systems. The views expressed in the paper are also based on informal discussions with numerous academics in logistics and other fields, and long experience as a researcher, reviewer and journal editor.

The ranking of journals gives university management a convenient method of assessing research performance across disciplines, though has several disadvantages. Among other things, it can skew the choice of research methodology, lengthen publication lead times, cause academics to be disloyal to the specialist journals in their field, favour theory over practical relevance and unfairly discriminate against relatively young disciplines such as logistics. Research evidence suggests that journal ratings are not a good proxy for the value and impact of an article. The paper aims to stimulate a debate on the pros and cons of journal rankings and encourage logistics academics to reflect on the impact of these rankings on their personal research plans and the wider development of the field.

The review of journal ranking systems is confined to three countries, the UK, Germany and Australia. The analysis of journal ranking was also limited to 11 publications with the word logistics or supply chain management. The results of this review and analysis, however, provide sufficient evidence to support the main arguments advanced in the paper.

The paper asserts that the journal ranking system is encouraging a retreat into ivory towers where academics become more interested in impressing each other with their intellectual brilliance than in doing research that is of real value to the outside world.

Many logistics academics are concerned about the situation and trends outlined in this paper, but find it very difficult to challenge the prevailing journal ranking orthodoxy. This paper may give them greater confidence to question the value of the journal ranking systems that are increasing dominating academic life.

The purpose of this paper is to develop a global ranking of knowledge management and intellectual capital academic journals.

An online questionnaire was completed by 233 active knowledge management and intellectual capital researchers from 41 countries. Two different approaches: journal rank‐order and journal scoring method were utilized and produced similar results.

It was found that the top five academic journals in the field are: Journal of Knowledge Management, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Knowledge Management Research and Practice, International Journal of Knowledge Management, and The Learning Organization. It was also concluded that the major factors affecting perceptions of quality of academic journals are editor and review board reputation, inclusion in citation indexes, opinion of leading researchers, appearance in ranking lists, and citation impact.

This study was the first of its kind to develop a ranking system for academic journals in the field. Such a list will be very useful for academic recruitment, as well as tenure and promotion decisions.

The findings from this study may be utilized by various practitioners including knowledge management professionals, university administrators, review committees and corporate librarians.

This paper represents the first documented attempt to develop a ranking of knowledge management and intellectual capital academic journals through a survey of field contributors.

There are a number of published studies that have ranked journals publishing research in information systems and related areas such as electronic commerce. Despite electronic government (eGov) research reaching a decade‐old milestone, none of the existing research has attempted to explore and determine the quality of journals publishing research related to this multidisciplinary area. To fill this gap, the purpose of this paper is to present the findings from a pilot survey exploring the scholarly perceptions of academic journals publishing eGov research.

A questionnaire‐based pilot survey was employed as the method for conducting this research. The survey was conducted by employing an e‐mail questionnaire which was designed as a Word file. In total, 31 usable responses were received and these provided the data presented in this paper.

The findings in the form of scholarly perceptions of journals publishing eGov research from this pilot survey explored the quality of journals. This pilot survey also explored respondents’ views on the following: whether the journals dedicated to eGov should be included in various journal rankings; and whether there is a need to have separate rankings for journals that publish eGov.

The generalization of findings is limited due to the small sample size as it was a pilot study. Hence, the findings should be treated as indicative rather than confirmatory of the quality of journals publishing eGov research. A larger survey needs to be conducted, in order to validate and generalize the findings reported in this submission.

The findings would be helpful for eGov researchers in terms of determining potential outlets with appropriate quality for future publications, and for universities/institutions engaged in supporting research in this area by recognizing and promoting publication in high‐quality outlets. The findings may also aid the decision making of those involved in maintaining journal rankings in reference to disciplines, in order to include dedicated eGov journals in such rankings.

There has been no research conducted and published (as far as the author is aware) that explores and determines the quality of journals publishing eGov research, which this paper attempts to achieve. Therefore, the findings presented in this paper are timely, original, and relevant to the eGov scholarly community. Since this is the very first step towards determining journal quality for publishing eGov research, the most important contribution of this paper would be to stimulate constructive debate amongst researchers of eGov (and its reference disciplines) on this topic, which (the author hopes) will then lead to the creation of rigorous consensus‐based ranking of journals publishing eGov research.