Search results

Ranking relevant journals is very critical for researchers to choose their publication outlets, which can affect their research performance. In the management information systems (MIS) subject, many related studies conducted surveys as the subjective method for identifying MIS journal rankings. However, very few consider other objective methods, such as journals’ impact factors and h-indexes. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

In this paper, top 50 ranked journals identified by researchers’ perceptions are examined in terms of the correlation to the rankings by their impact factors and h-indexes. Moreover, a hybrid method to combine these different rankings based on Borda count is used to produce new MIS journal rankings.

The results show that there are low correlations between the subjective and objective based MIS journal rankings. In addition, the new MIS journal rankings by the Borda count approach can also be considered for future researches.

The contribution of this paper is to apply the Borda count approach to combine different MIS journal rankings produced by subjective and objective methods. The new MIS journal rankings and previous studies can be complementary to allow researchers to determine the top-ranked journals for their publication outlets.

This study explores the use and perceptions of scholarly journal ranking lists in the management field based on stakeholders’ lived experience.

The results are based on a survey of 463 active knowledge management and intellectual capital researchers.

Journal ranking lists have become an integral part of contemporary management academia: 33% and 37% of institutions and individual scholars employ journal ranking lists, respectively. The Australian Business Deans Council (ABDC) Journal Quality List and the UK Academic Journal Guide (AJG) by the Chartered Association of Business Schools (CABS) are the most frequently used national lists, and their influence has spread far beyond the national borders. Some institutions and individuals create their own journal rankings.

Management researchers employ journal ranking lists under two conditions: mandatory and voluntary. The forced mode of use is necessary to comply with institutional pressure that restrains the choice of target outlets. At the same time, researchers willingly consult ranking lists to advance their personal career, maximize their research exposure, learn about the relative standing of unfamiliar journals, and direct their students. Scholars, academic administrators, and policymakers should realize that journal ranking lists may serve as a useful tool when used appropriately, in particular when individuals themselves decide how and for what purpose to employ them to inform their research practices.

The findings reveal a journal ranking lists paradox: management researchers are aware of the limitations of ranking lists and their deleterious impact on scientific progress; however, they generally find journal ranking lists to be useful and employ them.

Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) member schools often compare their faculties’ research records to journal lists of their “peer and aspirational” programs. They often survey faculty and administrators’ perceptions of journal quality; number of Social Sciences Citation Index downloads; or “count” the number of faculty publications – but rarely analyze accounting programs’ actual journal quality lists. To examine this issue, we use a survey of national accounting programs. We identify a set of quality-classified journal lists by sampling 38 programs nationwide, varying by mission (e.g., urban or research), degrees granted (e.g., doctoral degrees in accounting), and national ranking (e.g., classified as a Top 75 Research Program) – from which we derive 1,436 data points that classify 359 journals that appear on these 38 programs’ journal lists. We also describe a case study that an accounting program used to revise its old journal list. We also find that while programs generally use generally accepted “bright lines” among the top three categories (A+, A, A−), they tailor their listings from the wide variety of B or C classified journals to create their own sets of acceptable journals in these categories. The study provides guidance and data for accounting programs who wish to develop or revise their own journal lists. While many studies have examined journal rankings, this is the first study to document the use of journal lists by accounting programs with a wide array of missions.

This study introduces a new approach, called the social structure approach, for ranking academic journals by focusing on hospitality and tourism journals; and a hybrid metric, including the combination of the journal impact factor via citations and a social network metric, called the journal knowledge domain index (JKDI).

Twenty-five hospitality and tourism journals were selected to test this approach. Collaboration-based metrics, productivity-based metrics, and network-based metrics are considered components of the social structure approach. Additionally, a hybrid metric, including the combination of the journal impact factor via citations and a social network metric, JKDI, is developed.

The study’s findings show that top or leading journals have a weaker position in some social structure approach metrics compared to other (or follower) journals. However, according to the JKDI, leading journals have remained constant with the other ranking studies.

The ranking of academic journals is vital for the stakeholders of academia. Consequently, the findings of this study may help stakeholders to design an optimal ranking system and formulate and implement effective research strategies for knowledge creation and dissemination.

As one of the first in the journal-ranking literature, this study has significant implications, as it introduces a new ranking approach.

Over several decades many ranking techniques have been proposed as aids to journal selection by libraries. We review those closely related to physics and others with novel features. There are three main methods of ranking: citation analysis, use or user judgement, and size or ‘productivity’. Citations offer an ‘unobtrusive’ quantitative measure, but not only is the absolute value of a citation in question, but also there is no consensus on a ‘correct’ way to choose the citing journals, nor of the ranking parameter. Citations can, however, point out anomalies and show the changing status of journals over the years. Use and user judgement also employ several alternative methods. These are in the main of limited applicability outside the specific user group in question. There is greater ‘parochialism’ in ‘use’ ranking than in ‘judged value’ lists, with citation lists the most international. In some cases, the attempted ‘quantification’ of subjective judgement will be misleading. Size and productivity rankings are normally concerned with one or other formulation of the Bradford distribution. Since the distribution is not universally valid, for library use the librarian must satisfy him/herself that the collection conforms to the distribution, or that his users would be well served by one that did. This may require considerable effort, and statistics gained will then render the Bradford distribution redundant.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a selective review of literature and presents a conceptual framework in journal and institution rankings. Several streams of ranking literature are analyzed.

The authors provide a conceptual framework to analyze the literature of journal and school ranking. Thus, several streams of ranking literature are analyzed to support the conceptual framework.

Through the lens of a context-driven framework, the authors point to originality, utility, and timeliness as aspects that contribute to the recent increase of the ranking literature. Finally, the authors discuss other issues that arise within ranking due to subjective biases, institutional preferences and difficulties establishing weighting measurements, as well as the future direction of ranking.

The authors propose a context-based ranking framework to analyze rankings as factors that influence the environment may ultimately affect the usefulness of these rankings. It also implies that ranking of a journal or institution is a relative measure, as the context in which rankings are derived may change over time. Ultimately, the relative benchmarks used in the ranking will change as newer, more relevant metrics are developed.

The conceptual framework is new and provides a useful benchmark to understand ranking of journals and school.

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 paper is to develop a ranking of knowledge management and intellectual capital academic journals.

A revealed preference, also referred to as citation impact, method was utilized. Citation data were obtained from Google Scholar by using Harzing's Publish or Perish tool. The h‐index and the g‐index were employed to develop a ranking list. The revealed preference method was compared to the stated preference approach, also referred to as an expert survey. A comprehensive journal ranking based on the combination of both approaches is presented.

Manual re‐calculation of the indices reported by Publish or Perish had no impact on the ranking list. The revealed preference and stated preference methods correlated very strongly (0.8 on average). According to the final aggregate journal list that combined stated and revealed preference methods, Journal of Knowledge Management and Journal of Intellectual Capital are ranked A+, and The Learning Organization, Knowledge and Process Management, and Knowledge Management Research & Practice are ranked A.

This study was the first of its kind to develop a ranking system for academic journals in the field based on the journals' citation impact metrics. This list is vital for knowledge management and intellectual capital academics for tenure, merit, and promotion decisions. It may also help them achieve recognition among their peers and colleagues from other disciplines.

The proposed ranking list may be fruitfully employed by knowledge management and intellectual capital practitioners, librarians making journal subscription decisions, academics looking for best outlets, and various academic committees.

This paper represents the first documented attempt to develop a ranking of knowledge management and intellectual capital academic journals by using the h‐index and the g‐index that reflect journal citation impact.

Potential ethnocentric biases in stated preference journal rankings are reviewed and revealed preference ranking methods are investigated. The aim of the paper is to identify an approach to ranking journals that minimises ethnocentric biases and better represents the international impact of research.

Coverage of marketing journals in Ulrich's, EBSCO, SSCI, JCR, Scopus and Google Scholar is explored. Citing references to 20 articles are analysed to determine citation time lags and explore the content of SSCI, Scopus and Google Scholar. To further review the extent of citation coverage, h‐index scores are generated for ten marketing journals using data from SSCI, Scopus and Google Scholar. In total, 36 marketing journals are ranked using the g‐index and Google Scholar data and results are compared to ten published rankings.

Stated preference ranking studies of marketing journals rely on US‐based respondents. The coverage of EBSCO, SSCI, JCR and Scopus databases is not representative of marketing's literature as they have few international sources, and a disproportionate coverage of US‐based journals. Google Scholar provides broader international coverage. The Impact Factor may be inappropriate for marketing journals as a large proportion of citations occur more than five years post‐publication. Results indicate that the g‐index is a superior approach to measuring the impact of marketing journals internationally.

Exposure of the limitations in existing ranking methods should encourage improvements in the development and use of journal rankings.

The investigations present original evidence to support long‐term concerns about approaches to journal ranking and citation analysis.

The purpose of this paper is to review studies on ranking in finance journals, which have grown substantially in recent decades.

This paper depicts the trend and development of ranking studies in finance area, describes the regional work and lists the studies which focus on specific journal. This paper discusses some important and possible issues of ranking studies in finance in the future and makes some conclusions.

First, the authors find that the assessing method has changed from counting number to citation-based method. Second, the authors sort the ranking studies which focus on the research and publication quality based on regional area. Finally, in specific journal ranking studies, the authors can find how a journal reputation has changed, better or worse.

This paper reviews the ranking studies in finance area and particularly focusses on three parts. Because of the importance of ranking studies in research quality assessing, a series of issues are raised to improve the assessing objectiveness of journal ranking.