Perceptions Of Journal Quality Research Articles

Country names in journal titles: shaping researchers’ perception of journals quality

Numerous academic journals incorporate geographic names, including countries and regions, in their titles. This practice is not uniform, as some journals opt to internationalise by omitting these affiliations. To gauge the impact of country names in journal titles on researchers' perceptions of journal quality, 408 researchers in sociology, psychology, environmental sciences, and physical chemistry in Brazil, Canada, Germany, Malaysia, Nigeria, and the USA were surveyed. The study reveals that most researchers believe that a journal's association with a specific country influences their perception of its quality (74.6%) and international readership (76.8%). Consequently, researchers tend to avoid journals with country-specific titles, suspecting limited readership or a predominant focus on papers from that country. However, exceptions exist, primarily in terms of perception, especially for American journals, which are often perceived as indistinguishable from mainstream international journals. Disciplinary variations emerge, with subject matter influencing perceptions. Subjects such as sociology, closely tied to local and national issues, exhibit a more (compared to e.g., chemistry) significant tendency toward recognising national journals. The inclusion of the term "international" in journal titles elicits mixed opinions, with some associating it with low quality or predatory journals, a perception that stems from the proliferation of predatory journals in some Asian and African countries. This study offers insight into researchers’ preferences and underscores the important role of journal titles in shaping researchers' perceptions of journals’ scope, quality and readership. In a challenging metric-driven research and publishing landscape, it is important to strike a balance between internationalisation and fostering diversity in scholarly journal publishing.

Modeling quality and prestige in applied linguistics journals: A bibliometric and synthetic analysis

The importance of academic journals in second language (L2) research is evident on at least two levels. Journals are, first of all, central to the process of disseminating scientific findings. Journals are also critical on a professional level as most L2 researchers must publish articles to advance their careers. However, not all journals are perceived as equal; some may be considered more prestigious or of higher quality and may, therefore, achieve a greater impact on the field. It is therefore necessary that we understand the identity and quality of L2 research journals, yet very little research (e.g., Egbert, 2007; VanPatten & Williams, 2002) has considered these issues to date. The current study sought to explore L2 journal identity and quality, and the relationship between these constructs. In order to do so, a database was compiled based on three different types of sources: (1) a questionnaire eliciting L2 researchers’ perceptions of the quality and prestige of 27 journals that publish L2 research (N = 327); (2) manual coding of different types of articles (e.g., empirical studies, review papers), data (quantitative, qualitative, mixed), research settings, and authorship patterns (K = 2,024) using the same 27 journals; and (3) bibliometric and submission data such as impact factors, citation counts, and acceptance rates. Descriptive statistics were applied to explore overall quality and prestige ratings as well as publication trends found in each journal. The relationships between those patterns and subjective ratings were also examined. In addition, regression models were built to determine the extent to which perceptions of journal quality and prestige could be explained as a function of journal and article features. We discuss the findings of the study in terms of on-going debates concerning publication practices, study quality, impact factors, journal selection, and the “journal culture” in applied linguistics.

Finance journal rankings: Active scholar assessment revisited

Abstract This study constructs finance journal rankings and classifications using the active scholar assessment (ASA) methodology with nested effects regression estimation. We observe some interesting changes over the past nine years and also compare the new ASA journal rankings with Scimago's SJR rankings, Thomson Reuters’ JCR rankings and ABS classifications. Responses from active finance scholars in a web survey are used to endogenously rank and classify a broad set of 102 finance journals by quality and importance. Regression estimation with nested random journal-within-tier effects enables journals in the four tier groups (A-D) to be separated into ``upper'', ``middle'' and ``lower'' categories (e.g. A+, A and A-). In addition to citation-based ranking, ASA study results can provide useful information and guidance to authors and editors on active scholar perceptions of journal quality and importance, tenure & promotion committees in assessing research, and university libraries in managing their resources.

Bibliographic measures of top-tier finance and information systems journals

Purpose 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. Design/methodology/approach 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. Findings 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. Research limitations/implications 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. Practical implications 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. Social implications 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. Originality/value 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.

A Comparison of High-Quality Finance Journals and High-Quality Information Systems Journals

Journal reputation is often used as a surrogate for research quality when making decisions on retention, tenure, and promotion. This research adds to the bibliometric literature in the business arena by identifying key journal characteristics that differentiate journal quality by comparing key differences in high-quality finance and information systems journals. The potential impact of discipline-based variation in frequency of issue, journal sustainability over time, total reviewers, county of origin, and journal review process are put forth as potential exogenous factors that may impact the perception of journal quality. To the extent that these factors vary across disciplines, as demonstrated by our investigation of journals with the highest reputation in both disciplines, factors beyond the endogenous quality of the research should be considered when making inferences about research quality.

Publication outlets for healthcare financial research: A study of journal quality perceptions

AbstractPublications in high quality journals often serve to indicate research productivity. However, many top‐rated journals infrequently publish cross‐disciplinary topics such as healthcare financial management (HFM). So, academic administrators and HFM researchers find it challenging to evaluate the quality of the work. Journals open to publishing HFM articles are distributed across multiple disciplines. Each field has its own journal rankings typically focused on their primary subject area. Starting with prior literature, we form a cross‐disciplinary journal list and solicit preliminary input from editors, associated editors, reviewers, and authors. We then solicit confirmatory ranking input from independent researchers in a holdout sample.

The Effect of Age and Size on Reputation of Business Ethics Journals

Business ethics journals have appeared on a few ranked lists that are specific to this niche discipline. As with more traditional academic disciplines, these rankings are used for academic rewards such as faculty tenure and promotion, along with department and school ratings. Journal ranking has been subject to considerable criticism even as its administrative use persists. Among the criticisms are that journal quality is a poor proxy for article quality, citation rate is an imperfect reflection of article influence, and bias may be introduced into rankings by visibility characteristics such as journal age, size, circulation, and experience of the rater with a journal. This research note studies the effect of journal age and size on the rankings of business ethics journals compiled by Beets, Lewis, and Brower, by Albrecht, Thompson, Hoopes, and Rodrigo, and by Serenko and Bontis. Significant correlation was found for journal age with the administratively derived Beets et al. ranking. No significant correlation was found for size in any ranking study. Results were not significant for the Albrecht et al. and the Serenko and Bontis rankings representing the perspectives from surveys of active researchers or citation analysis. Perhaps sometimes a journals reputation precedes it, as perception of journal quality may be biased by journal visibility, either because it has been published and available for a number of years, or because it is well known and likely to be cited.

The Dynamics of Researcher Journal Quality Perception and Ranking Divergence

We explore the drivers of researchers' perceptions around academic journal quality, and how these perceptions converge or diverge with rankings through a large-scale survey of UK business school researchers. Our survey was conducted in advance of the release of the new Academic Journal Guide (AJG) rankings list in early 2018, and resulted in 19,997 individual journal rankings. There is a notable journal quality perception gap in these rankings with 42% of the subjective rankings differing from the AJG 2018 rankings. We find that personal and institutional demographics are major baseline drivers of the presence of such a journal quality perception gap. Of particular additional importance is a researcher's connection to, and investment in, the AJG system of ranking. Individual journal past experiences, such as being a reviewer or having submitted to a journal, are also linked to ranking divergence and especially higher perception of journal quality compared to actual journal rank. Our research thus provides new insights into how researchers interact with journal ranking systems in light of their own perceptions of quality. We propose how the key stakeholders in journal rankings; business schools, journal editors, ranking bodies, and the business and management community can incorporate these findings to ensure coherency between individual, school, and national assessments of research quality.

USING EXPERT JUDGMENTS TO RANK 45 LATIN AMERICAN BUSINESS JOURNALS

ABSTRACT This article presents the results of a study on the perception of quality of Latin American business journals based on the judgment of relevant experts - senior professors with knowledge of Latin American research and journals. Forty-five journals were included in the study. The highest perceived quality scores were given to Academia (CLADEA - Uniandes), RAE (Fundação Getulio Vargas), and Innovar (Universidad Nacional de Colombia). When perceived quality was weighted by awareness, Academia, LABR-Latin American Business Review (University of San Diego - Coppead), and Innovar had the highest scores. Results complement a recent study by Ruiz-Torres, Penkova, and Villafane (2012) that focused on management journals published in Spanish. Analysis of results suggests that language and branding have an effect on the perception of journal quality. Implications for editors/publishers, tenure, promotion, research grant committees, and authors are provided.

The Effect of Age and Size on Reputation of Business Ethics Journals

Business ethics journals have appeared on a few ranked lists that are specific to this niche discipline. As with more traditional academic disciplines, these rankings are used for academic rewards such as faculty tenure and promotion, along with department and school ratings. Journal ranking has been subject to considerable criticism even as its administrative use persists. Among the criticisms are that journal quality is a poor proxy for article quality, citation rate is an imperfect reflection of article influence, and bias may be introduced into rankings by visibility characteristics such as journal age, size, circulation, and experience of the rater with a journal. This research note studies the effect of journal age and size on the rankings of business ethics journals compiled by Beets, Lewis, and Brower, by Albrecht, Thompson, Hoopes, and Rodrigo, and by Serenko and Bontis. Significant correlation was found for journal age with the administratively derived Beets et al. ranking. No significant correlation was found for size in any ranking study. Results were not significant for the Albrecht et al. and the Serenko and Bontis rankings representing the perspectives from surveys of active researchers or citation analysis. Perhaps sometimes a journal’s reputation precedes it, as perception of journal quality may be biased by journal visibility, either because it has been published and available for a number of years, or because it is well known and likely to be cited.

Using Expert Judgements to Rank 45 Latin American Business Journals

This article presents the results of a study of quality perceptions of Latin American Business Journals, based on the judgements of relevant experts - senior professors knowledgeable of Latin American research and journals. 45 journals were included in this study. The highest perceived quality scores were obtained by: Academia (Cladea-Uniandes), RAE (FGV) and Innovar (Univ. Nac. Colombia). When perceived quality is weighed by awareness, Academia, LABR (Coppead-U. San Diego), and Innovar had the highest scores. Results complement recent research by Ruiz-Torres and colleagues (2012) focusing on management journals published in Spanish. Results are analyzed suggesting the presence of language and branding effects in journal quality perceptions. Implications for editors/publishers; tenure and promotion and research grant committees, and for authors are provided.

Physical Education Pedagogy Faculty Perceptions of Journal Quality

This study examined perceived journal quality by physical education pedagogy faculty members. Participants (N = 273) were identified in three ways and recruited through e-mail. Based on research in other fields investigating journal quality and on publication patterns in physical education, a web-based survey was used to examine (a) whether participants knew a journal and viewed it as scholarly, (b) ratings of journal quality, (c) what factors influenced their ratings, and (d) demographic and scholarly productivity measures. There was a wide range of journals known by the participants and clear indicators of which journals had higher and lower perceived quality. There were differences in ratings between those employed at master’s and doctoral institutions and relationships between scholarly productivity and the number of journals known. The results provide strong indications of journal quality for those who have reasons to evaluate journals in physical education.

Factors Influencing Chinese Authors' Perceptions of Journal Quality: A Comparison Between Two Academic Fields

Numerous studies published in the academic literature address the issue of journal quality assessment. However, little has been done to compare the factors that influence the perceptions of journal quality in different disciplines. From Chinese authors' viewpoint, this study explored the factors influencing author quality perceptions of journals in computer science and technology as well as in library and information science. Our empirical findings indicate that author-perceived journal quality in these two fields is significantly positively correlated with impact factors and not statistically significantly correlated with technical delay and immediacy index. Slightly different results are also found between the two fields in terms of the effects of editor service, editorial delay and acceptance rates.

Factors Influencing Chinese Authors' Perceptions of Journal Quality: A Comparison Between Two Academic Fields

Numerous studies published in the academic literature address the issue of journal quality assessment. However, little has been done to compare the factors that influence the perceptions of journal quality in different disciplines. From Chinese authors' viewpoint, this study explored the factors influencing author quality perceptions of journals in computer science and technology as well as in library and information science. Our empirical findings indicate that author-perceived journal quality in these two fields is significantly positively correlated with impact factors and not statistically significantly correlated with technical delay and immediacy index. Slightly different results are also found between the two fields in terms of the effects of editor service, editorial delay and acceptance rates.

The Impact of Submission Experiences on Perceptions of Journal Quality and Editorial Support: The Viewpoint of Chinese Authors

This study examines differences in perceptions of journal quality and editorial support among three categories of Chinese authors those whose manuscripts were accepted without revision, those whose manuscripts were accepted after revision, and those whose manuscripts were rejected. An analysis of online reviews of journal quality and editorial support in six disciplines revealed the existence of biases caused by authors’ submission experiences. The results show that a Chinese author will rate the quality of a journal and its editorial support higher if his or her manuscript was accepted by the journal regardless of whether he or she was required to make revisions. The results also indicate that no major variations exist in perceptions of journal quality and editorial support between authors whose manuscripts were accepted without revision and authors whose manuscripts were accepted after revision.

The Impact of Submission Experiences on Perceptions of Journal Quality and Editorial Support: The Viewpoint of Chinese Authors

This study examines differences in perceptions of journal quality and editorial support among three categories of Chinese authors: those whose manuscripts were accepted without revision, those whose manuscripts were accepted after revision, and those whose manuscripts were rejected. An analysis of online reviews of journal quality and editorial support in six disciplines revealed the existence of biases caused by authors' submission experiences. The results show that a Chinese author will rate the quality of a journal and its editorial support higher if his or her manuscript was accepted by the journal regardless of whether he or she was required to make revisions. The results also indicate that no major variations exist in perceptions of journal quality and editorial support between authors whose manuscripts were accepted without revision and authors whose manuscripts were accepted after revision.

Common Acceptance Rate Calculation Methods in Communication Journals: Developing Best Practices

Acceptance rates of journals can influence faculty tenure and promotion decisions as well as perception of journal quality and intention to submit manuscripts to a given journal. Variation exists in how acceptance rates are calculated across journals and editors, with different methods resulting in potentially misleading comparisons. Because differing calculation methods potentially affect tenure decisions, a normative standard should be developed. A survey of editors is used to reveal commonly practiced calculation methods. Two formulas are articulated for future use: (1) the Submission Acceptance Rate formula and (2) the Final Decision Acceptance Rate formula.

The perceived quality of real estate journals: does your affiliation matter?

PurposeThis 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.Design/methodology/approachOver 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.FindingsIn 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.Research limitations/implicationsRespondents were conference attendees and predominantly US‐based. Therefore, results may be somewhat biased against publications from other regions of the world.Originality/valueThis 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.

Producing Spaces for Academic Discourse: The Impact of Research Assessment Exercises and Journal Quality Rankings

This study examines the impact of national research assessment exercises (NRAEs) and associated journal quality rankings on the development, scope and sustainability of the academic journals in which accounting research is disseminated. The reported exploratory study focused on the United Kingdom (UK), Australia and New Zealand as three countries in which NRAEs are well developed or imminent. Data were collected via a survey of authors, interviews with journal editors, and feedback from publishers responsible for producing academic accounting journals. The findings suggest that, despite cynicism around the reliability of published journal quality rankings, the entrenchment of NRAE ‘rules’ and journal quality perceptions has changed authors’ submission choices and left lower ranked journals struggling with a diminished quantity and quality of submissions. A clear perception is that NRAEs have done little to improve the overall quality of the accounting literature, but are impeding the diversity, originality and practical relevance of accounting research. Although strategies are suggested for meeting these challenges, they require strategic partnerships with publishers to enhance the profile and distribution of emerging journals, and depend on the willingness of accounting researchers to form supportive communities around journals that facilitate their research interests. The alternative may be a withering of the spaces for academic discourse, a stifling of innovation and a further entrenchment of current perceptions of what counts as ‘quality’ research.

Accounting journals and the ABS quality ratings

This study aims to look behind the quality ratings for accounting journals, listed in the ABS Academic Journal Quality Guide ( Kelly, Morris, Rowlinson and Harvey, 2009). Significant variations exist in the perceptions of journal quality across the six UK business schools that contribute ratings to the ABS guide, with the most optimistic perceptions tending to come from those schools whose ratings are more highly correlated with quality scores for critical and interpretive research, as reported in Lowe and Locke's (2005) article in Accounting, Organizations and Society (30:1, 81–98). Pessimistic perceptions are more likely to exist in those schools whose ratings are more highly correlated with Lowe & Locke's scores for functional and capital markets research paradigms. There are also notable variations in journal ratings across time. Given that perceptions vary so much across schools, paradigms and time, how much credence can be given to any single rating system for journal quality? This study concludes that if the ABS guide is to be used by university decision-makers or heads of school then the ABS ratings for any given year need to be treated with extreme caution and with an appropriate recognition of their intrinsic limitations.