Search results

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 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 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.

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 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 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 purpose of this paper is to explore relative deprivation and implicit bias in library and information science research publications of Africa and other continents.

Research design used for this study is descriptive survey research. Specifically, the study will adopt both web content analysis and survey to collect data. The content analysis covers the whole continents of the world: Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe, Latin America, Middle East, Northern America, Pacific Region and Western Europe; using the Webometrics World Ranking of Universities and the SCImago/Scopus Journal Ranking. Library and information science was used as the search and control parameter. The scopes covered by the research are: 1. Ascertaining the visible publishing and assessment standards of top library and information science (LIS) journals, which was evaluated using Kleinert and Wager (2010)'s study.

It was found out among others that editors making fair and unbiased decisions as policy is seen in 33% of the journals, which is very poor. All the structural disparities, such as presence ranking, impact ranking, excellence ranking, etc. were favouring Europe and the Americas mainly. As much as rejection is getting to these respondents, research generally is also suffering by missing out on some untapped knowledge and ideas from these deprived populations. Many authors are losing faith in their capabilities and are now afraid of venturing into tedious research exercises because it will most likely be rejected either ways.

It is an established fact that social media gains research impact and attracts international collaborations. In support, studies such as Hassan et al. (2019) reported the fact that tweet mentions of articles with positive sentiment to more visibility and citations. They claim that cited articles in either positive or neutral tweets have a more significant impact than those not cited at all or cited in negative tweets. In addition, Hassan et al. (2020) equally highlighted tweet coupling as a social media methodology useful for clustering scientific publications. Despite the fact that social media have these influences on research and publications visibility and presence, the context of the present research did cover this scope of study. The study focused mainly on sources from Scopus as well as results from responses. Further studies can be carried out on this area.

Research studies linking “Black Articles Matter” to relative deprivation and implicit bias in research publications, especially in library and information discipline, are very rare. Also, the scope of approach of the study is quite different and interesting.

This study aims to establish the use of active scholar assessment (ASA) in the field of education leadership as a new methodology in ranking administration and leadership journals. The secondary purpose of this study is to respond to the paucity of research on journal ranking in educational administration and leadership.

This empirical study uses on‐line survey research methods with analysis of variance (ANOVA) statistical analysis.

The main findings of this study are: ASA minimizes noted limitations in peer assessment studies; publishing rates and years of service do not significantly influence quality assessment bias; ASA provides a comprehensive and fair assessment of journals; and ASA responds to established criteria as a new, independent system for journal ranking. This study also provides current rankings of educational administration and leadership journals.

This study points to the importance of continued research using ASA in journal assessment in education and other social sciences.

This study provides a new methodology in assessing journal quality, awareness, and importance to the field for journals in educational administration and leadership.

Prior studies in citation-based journal rankings tend to be static to compare across journals. One journal may be judged better in citations than other journals at some points in time but not at the others. The assumption that the citation distribution is normally distributed and that the citation observations are independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) may not be appropriate. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

This study uses a stochastic dominance (SD) analysis, which overcomes the dynamic nature of changes in citation over time. The SD method proposed by Linton, Maasoumi, and Whang (hereafter LMW, 2005) does not require the data to be i.i.d. We use the LMW method to compare the relative ranking of 23 finance journals using citations for all articles from them during 1990-2010.

The study indicates that the citation distribution changes over time. Thus a SD analysis is a better approach for a comparison of journal ranking. The findings unambiguously place JF, JFE, RFS, JFQA, and JFI in the top five spots of the finance journal ranking. The “near-top” journals, such as JBF, JCF, and FM, are not clear cut in the SD analysis.

The results confirm that ranking for the lower ranked journals may change over time especially, but the top three journals appear to be robust across methods and over time.

The results of SD analysis provides more convincing evidence on finance journal ranking and could be useful to rank academic institutions, faculty research quality, and help the authors to decide what to read and which journals are influential.