The growth and direction of public administration as a field are significantly affected by editors and editorial boards of academic and practitioner journals. Rigorous evaluation and selection of research for publication are essential to strengthening the integrity, and, therefore, the identity, of public administration. Through the review process, journals not only establish quality standards but also provide a gatekeeping function, deciding the nature and scope of ideas presented to the practicing and academic communities for discussion. No other mechanism, with the possible exception of professional conferences, is as powerful in determining the boundaries and characteristics of the field. In essence, journals serve as invisible seminar of public administration research., Yet not all publication outlets are equal in terms of their impact. In this article, we identify the journals that pivotal members of the profession consider most valuable as a scholarly forum, and hence, most influential in defining the discipline. Another reason for conducting this research was to provide a more comprehensive evaluation of journal worth. Previous studies have used journal to assess the quality of graduate programs (Jennings, 1989; Legge and Devore, 1987; Morgan and Meier, 1982; Morgan et al., 198 1). Others have used journal rankings as instrument for determining the methodological soundness of empirical research in the field (Houston and Delevan, 1990). According to Colson (1990), having idea of the value of journals may facilitate the appraisal of faculty publication records, especially with respect to tenure and promotion decisions. Also, Colson claims that journal rankings might provide untenured faculty with a better understanding of the most suitable for their research (p. 452). He furthermore states that an improved assessment should also benefit journal editors, research administrators, collection development librarians, information analysts, and other persons who need qualitative measures of stratification among learned publications (p. 453). From both a scholarly and practitioner standpoint, a comprehensive list of journals that reflects their perceived worth can serve a number of practical and research applications. However, journal rankings used in previous research suffer from a number of limitations that restrict their usefulness. To develop a new ranking of public administration journals, and to understand the reasons for the rankings, we must examine the methodologies and limitations of previous research. Assessing Ranking Methodology Three limitations in particular have restricted the utility of previous assessment of public administration journals: (1) no agreement has been reached on the methods that should be used to appraise the relative values of journals to the profession; (2) the individuals and journals sampled for data have been restricted whereas the number and types of journals considered for study have been virtually boundless; and (3) hypotheses have not generally guided the research on journal assessment. With respect to the first limitation, Vocino and Elliot (1982, 1984) evaluated refereed and nonrefereed journals on the basis of prestige, which they interpreted as consisting of two dimensions, intensity and extensity.(2) Using survey data from the years 1975, 1978, and 1981, they discovered that political science journals had declined in prestige and recognition, particularly among practitioners. Moreover, according to the authors, the earlier higher prestige associated with public administration journals indicated the development of the field as a discipline separate from political science. Vocino and Elliot's (1982, 1984) research, however, has been challenged by Colson (1990, p. 452) on grounds that it had weak conceptual validity and poor methodological performance. Fundamentally different from Vocino and Elliot's study, Colson's (1990) assessment of journal quality employed citation analysis as opposed to prestige ranking. …
Read full abstract