slide1 n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
The Impact of Business and Management Research PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
The Impact of Business and Management Research

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 18

The Impact of Business and Management Research - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 88 Views
  • Uploaded on

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

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'The Impact of Business and Management Research' - nolcha


Download Now An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

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.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
slide1

The ABS Journal Quality Guide:

Version 4

The Impact of Business and

Management Research

Aidan Kelly, Charles Harvey, Huw Morris, Michael Rowlinson

outline
Rating research quality

Reasons

Methods

Types of journal quality list

The ABS 2010 Methodology

Rating scale

The list

Changes since 2009

Recent developments

Outline
rating research quality reasons
Staff selection and development

Promotion, pay and related decisions

Assessing departments for development

Funding by government and agencies

Library purchase decisions

Developing understanding of the field

Rating Research Quality: Reasons
rating research quality methods
Author

Peer comment

Individual citation

Individual readership

Peer rating

Article

Peer review

Article citation

Article readership

Online rating feedback

Rating Research Quality: Methods
  • Journal
  • Journal impact factor
  • Journal quality list
  • Co-citation
types of journal quality list
Institutional lists. based on the views of researchers within a department (e.g. Aston, 2010; Cranfield, 2008; ESSEC, UTD, ).

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
the abs methodology 2010
Started with a list of all journals from which two or more articles were submitted to the RAE 2008.

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
the abs methodology 20101
Calculation of World Elite Rating by reference to journal ratings from 10 leading international business schools.

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
the abs methodology 2010 world elite rating
The ABS Methodology 2010:World Elite Rating

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)

the abs methodology 2010 outcomes
4* World elite 22 (2.7%)

Top journal in its field 71 (8.7%)

3 Highly regarded journal 230 (28%)

Well regarded journal 295 (35.9%)

1 Recognised journal 203 (24.7%)

The ABS Methodology 2010:Outcomes
slide16
Reduction in the number of journals

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

recent developments which may affect the development of the guide in future
HEFCE suggest move to bibliometrics (Dec 2006)

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
issues to consider for next time
Issues to consider for next time?

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.