Ranking of peer reviewed journals is commonly used as a proxy for judging the impact and quality of faculty research, an important factor in faculty salary evaluations, allocation of teaching loads, research funding, recruitment, promotion and tenure decisions in academia. As such, using the main two approaches for assessing business .
and management journals’ ranking and quality, we compared the stated preference ranking approach of the Australian Business Dean Council (ABDC) to that of the revealed preference ranking approach using citation metrics such as the SCImago Journal Rank indicator (SJR), the Source Normalized Impact per Paper indicator (SNIP), the Hirsch Index (h-Index), the Impact Factor (JIF), the 5-Year Impact Factor (5-Y JIF), the Eigenfactor Score (ES), and the Article Influence Score (AI). Our results shows that the h-Index performed better than the rest of the metrics confirming about 60% of ABDC’s journal categorization. The SJR and the SNIP metrics ranking close 2nd and 3rd respectively. Furthermore, using predictive analytics, we derived parsimonious mathematical models to assist in estimating the percentile ranking of business and management journals using any of the citations metrics listed in this paper, including an aggregate model to address the variability across the rankings of the various citation metrics with results equivalent to that of the JCR’s metrics.
Zainuba, Mohamed and Rahal, Ahmad
"Assessing the Validity of Business and Management Journals Ranking List: An Alternative Approach for Determining Journal Quality,"
Annals of Management Science: Vol. 4
, Article 1.
Available at: https://digitalscholarship.tnstate.edu/ams/vol4/iss2/1