The ABS Journal Quality Guide: Version 4. The Impact of Business and Management Research. Aidan Kelly, Charles Harvey, Huw Morris, Michael Rowlinson. Rating research quality Reasons Methods Types of journal quality list The ABS 2010 Methodology Rating scale The list Changes since 2009
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
The Impact of Business and
Aidan Kelly, Charles Harvey, Huw Morris, Michael Rowlinson
Peer surveys. Assessments of peers in a field or sub-field (e.g. McKercher, 2005; Neil, 2006; Jamal, Smith and Watson, 2008; Peters, Daniels, Hodgkinson and Haslam, 2009 ).
Citation studies. Judgements made on the basis of the number of times an average article in a journal is cited by the authors of articles in related journals (e.g. Institute of Scientific Information Scopus).
Derived lists.Extrapolated from ratings awarded in assessment or audit activities (e.g. Geary, Marriot and Rowlinson, 2004).
Hybrid lists. A combination of two or more of the methods listed above (c.f. ABS, 2009).Types of Journal Quality List
Collection of ISI JCR data including Journal Impact Factor for 2008 and Five-Year mean Journal Impact Factor.
With RAE 2008 profile and sub-profile data, calculation of mean for each journal in RAE 2008 of the Grade Point Average, for outputs and overall, of institutions citing journal in submissions.
Comparison with institutional lists e.g. Aston (2008), Cranfield (2009), Kent (2007).
Initial editorial panel review and specification of ratings.The ABS Methodology 2010
Second editorial panel review and consideration in several cases of the following factors:
Years and frequency of publication
Status of editor and editorial board
Quality of articles in three recent issue.
8. Final review by editors.
ABS Research Conference release
Consultation with the business and management community online and request for feedback.The ABS Methodology 2010
Financial Times list (2009)
University of Queensland (2007)
Australian Business Deans Council (2008)
Monash University, Melbourne (2007)
ESSEC Business School Paris (2005)
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (2008)
Wirtschaftsuniversität Wien (2008)
Dutch Business Administration academics (1999)
University of Groningen School of Management (undated)
University of Texas Dallas (undated)
Greater attention to field centrality
Recognition of World elite status
Reduction in the ratings awarded to several journals
Journals put on warning
Encouragement to journal editors to apply for Thomson ISI listing and possibly other citation databases
Summary of Changes since 2009
HEFCE bibliometrics consultation (March 2007)
HEFCE suggests individual citation (Sept 2007)
CNRS produce journal rating lists (Sept 2007)
UUK suggest citation is a bad idea (Oct 2007)
Australian Deans produce journal ranking list (Nov 2007)
HEFCE REF Consultation (2009)
HEFCE follow RCUK to encourage greater focus on impact (2009)
EFMD decides not to formally adopt a journal list (2009)
Conservatives suggest REF will be delayed until 2015 (2010)
QR funding changes announced (2010)
AACSB consider research measures that are not wholly focused on journals (2010)Recent developments: which may affect the development of the guide in future
Next ABS Journal Guide scheduled for 2012.
Degree of mechanisation versus peer review in ratings.
How to deal with practitioner focused outputs.
Inclusion of Elsevier Scopus and other citation databases – should we continue to privilege ISI Thomson.
What account to be taken of circulation and readership in assessing journals and other outputs.
Will guides and lists be superseded by measures of individual citation and individual ratings.