Search results

Publication in quality journals has become a major indicator of research performance in UK universities. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the notion of “quality journal”.

The paper examines the situation in management studies and finds dizzying circularity in the definitions of “quality journal”.

The paper finds that what a quality journal is does not really matter: agreement that there are such things matters very much indeed. As so often happens with indicators of performance, the indicator has become the target. So, the challenge is to publish in quality journals, and the challenge rewards gamesmanship. Vested interests have become particularly skilful at the game, and at exercising the winners’ prerogative of changing the rules. All but forgotten in the desperation to win the game is publication as a means of communicating research findings for the public benefit. The paper examines the situation in management studies, but the problem is much more widespread.

This original and topical paper concludes that laughter is both the appropriate reaction to such farce, and also, perhaps, the stimulus to reform.

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.

Pay, tenure and promotion decisions are frequently based upon inferences regarding the value of faculty research. Meanwhile, departmental, college and university reputations are frequently based on perceptions regarding the quality of research being produced by its faculty. Making correct inferences requires accurate measurement of research quality, which is often based upon the journal through which results are shared. This research expands upon the research found elsewhere through its detailed investigation of leading journals in two business disciplines, including examination of four different citation-based measures and four journal characteristics which are exogenous to the quality of any individual piece of research. The paper aims to discuss this issue.

This study assists in the development of an accurate perspective regarding research quality, by studying the popular Journal Citation Reports (JCR) impact factor. A further expansion on the past literature is consideration of three newer journal quality metrics: SCImago Journal Rank (SJR), Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) and percentage of articles cited. Top-tier journals in finance and information systems are compared to evaluate the consistency of these measures across disciplines. Differences in journal characteristics and their impact on citation-rate based measures of quality are also examined. The potential impact of discipline-based variation in acceptance rate, issue frequency, the time since journal inception and total reviewers are put forth as additional potential exogenous factors that may impact the perception of journal quality. t-Tests are employed for discipline comparisons, while correlation and multiple regression are used for journal characteristic analysis.

There is a significant difference in the JCR impact measures of high-quality finance journals vs high-quality information systems journals, which are correlated with a variety of journal-specific factors including the journal’s acceptance rate and frequency of issue. Information systems journals domination of finance journals persists whether one considers mean, median, minimum or maximum impact factors. SJR measures for finance journals are consistently higher than information systems journals, though the SJR value of any individual journal can be quite volatile. By comparison, the SNIP metric rates premier information systems journals higher. Over 12 percent more of the articles in leading information systems journals are cited during the initial three years.

Logical extensions of this research include examining journals in other business disciplines. One could also evaluate quality measures reaction to variation in journal characteristics (i.e. changes in acceptance rates). Furthermore, one could include other measures of journal quality, including the recently released CiteScore metric. Such research will build on the present research and improve the accuracy of research quality assessment.

To the extent that citation-based research measures and journal-specific factors vary across disciplines as demonstrated by our investigation, discipline-specific traits should be considered adjusted for, when making inferences about the long-term value of recently published research. For instance, finance faculty publishing in journals with JCR readings of 2.0 are in journals that are 53 percent above the discipline’s average, while information systems faculty publishing in journals with JCR readings of 2.0 are in journals that are 18 percent below the discipline’s average. Furthermore, discipline-specific differences in journal characteristics, leading to differences in citation-based quality measures, should be considered when making inferences about the long-term value of recently published research in the process of making recommendations regarding salary adjustments, retention and promotion.

Quantity and quality of research are two hallmarks of leading research institutions. Assessing research quality is very problematic because its definition has changed from being based on review process (i.e. blind refereed), to acceptance rates, to impact factors. Furthermore, the impact factor construct has been a lightning rod of controversy as researchers, administrators and journals themselves argue over which metric to employ. This research is attempting to assess how impact factors and journal characteristics may influence the impact factors, and how these interactions vary business discipline. The research is especially important and relevant to the authors which separately chair departments including finance and information systems faculty, and therefore are in roles requiring assessment of faculty research productivity including quality.

This study is a detailed analysis of bibliographic aspects of the top-tier journals in two quantitative business areas. In addition to the popular JCR, SJR and SNIP measures of performance, the analysis studies the seldom-examined percentage of the article cited metric. A deeper understanding of citation-based measures is obtained though the evaluation of changes in how journals have been rated on these metrics over time. The research shows that there are discipline-related systematic differences in both citation-based research measures and journal-specific factors and that these discipline-specific traits should be considered when making inferences about the long-term value of recently published research. Furthermore, discipline-specific difference in journal characteristics, leading to differences in citation-based quality measures, should be considered when making personnel and remuneration decisions.

This paper aims to present the results of a recent survey, in which faculty and educators who are members of the ARES, ERES, AsRES, PRRES and AREUEA were asked to rate their perception of 18 real estate journals currently available as academic publications (peer reviewed) to ascertain if there was a relationship between the affiliation of the respondent and their perception of journal quality. In addition, it aims to compare the opinions of survey respondents by their academic rank, tenure status, and the type of institution they work at. Finally the analysis seeks to investigate the possible existence of a publication bias based on where researchers have published their work.

Over 300 respondents completed the electronic survey during the latter half of 2007. Respondents provided quality ratings of the journals as well as where they actually published.

In this paper the academic respondents’ responses were analyzed (n=220) and it is clear that the perceived quality of the journals, as well as the respondent's knowledge of the various journals, varied depending on the faculty member's affiliation with a given academic association. Most researchers were aware of the journals published in their home regions, although this was not always the case. This suggests there is a need for more outreach/marketing by publishers and editors to clearly differentiate the focus of our academic journals.

Respondents were conference attendees and predominantly US‐based. Therefore, results may be somewhat biased against publications from other regions of the world.

This is the first time a review of journal quality has been conducted on an international level and included only real estate journals. Results will be useful to the rank and file of university faculty in targeting journals for their publications, particularly when journal quality matters. Results can also benefit the various academic organizations and publishers that produce the journals in targeting their promotion to the members of the academic associations where the knowledge level is significantly lower.

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.

This study aimed to identify the quality consumers expect from functional food. This study investigated the quality dimensions and indicators female consumers expect in functional food.

This study used a quantitative approach. Data were collected through a survey using a self-administered questionnaire from 149 women aged 17 years and over in the Greater Jakarta area. Data analysis consists of three stages: exploratory factor analysis (EFA), confirmatory factor analysis-structural equation modeling (CFA-SEM) and consumer expectation value analysis. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) and Lisrel software were used to assist the analysis.

The analysis results showed that women expect functional food products to fulfill the aspects of product presentation, product assurance, convenience, health benefits and safety and sensory characteristics. These five aspects are referred to as the expected quality dimensions. Twenty-one indicators can be used to measure the quality of functional food expected by women.

Other researchers can use this study to understand functional food female consumers' behavior. Furthermore, functional food companies can utilize it to measure consumers' expectations of their products' quality and performance.

This research is believed to be the first study to identify the dimensions of functional food quality expected by female consumers. Most existing research on the perceived quality of functional food measures functional food quality based on performance and ignored the differences in expectations between men and women.

This paper aims to test the relationships among the experiential quality dimensions, the green relationship quality dimensions, environmental friendliness, green support, green desire and green experiential loyalty in a green bed & breakfast (B&B) context.

The data used in this study are based on a sample of 517 customers staying at one green B&B in Yilan County of Taiwan. The predicted relationship is tested using structural equation modeling.

The empirical findings reveal the following: five dimensions (peer-to-peer quality, physical environment quality, outcome quality, venue quality and administration quality) constitute a multidimensional model to conceptualize and measure perceived experiential quality that can achieve green experiential satisfaction in addition to environmental friendliness; environmental friendliness has a direct influence on green trust and green experiential satisfaction, which has a positive significant influence on green support and green desire; and green trust, green experiential satisfaction and green support contribute to green experiential loyalty.

To increase the perceptions of experiential quality dimensions, green relationship quality dimensions, environmental friendliness, green support, green desire and green experiential loyalty, the findings of this study will help green B&B management develop and implement market-orientated service strategies.

This paper provides data that result in a better understanding of the relationships among experiential quality dimensions, green relationship quality dimensions, environmental friendliness, green support, green desire and green experiential loyalty in a green B&B setting.

Describes the process and outputs of the findings to date in a research project to determine quality in academic business journal publishing, sponsored by a major academic publishing house. Describes the refereeing/review process for journal articles, a study of quality indicators in established “academic” journals, and the same in “practitioner” journals. Draws conclusions for quality improvement in the journals surveyed based on the findings. Draws conclusions for other researchers and publishers.

This special “Anbar Abstracts” issue of Journal of Management in Medicine is split into 6 sections covering abstracts under the following headings: General Management; Personnel and Training; Quality in Health Care; Health Care Marketing; Financial Management; and Information Technology.

This study aims to identify service quality dimensions for logistics service providers (LSPs) and to examine their relationships with customer satisfaction and customer loyalty.

Service quality dimensions are identified from vast literature review. Customers who take services from LSPs were surveyed to collect data on basis of developed survey instrument. Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) is applied to test the proposed research hypotheses.

The study shows that all the five service quality constructs, i.e. “Operational Quality”, “Resource Quality”, “Information Quality”, “Personnel Contact Quality” and “Customization and Innovation Quality” have direct relationship with customer satisfaction. They also have indirect relationship with customer loyalty, implying the full mediation of customer satisfaction.

The results of the study suggest that the logistics service quality (LSQ) can be measured multi-dimensionally. It provides clear implications to LSPs for improvement of service quality. The present research work is expected to be useful for both, logistics service providers and the customer organizations, which take services from LSPs. LSPs can develop strategies to improve their service quality on basis of findings from this study.

The present research will help in extending the existing literature on service quality in context to LSPs.