Taylorizing business school research: On the ‘one best way’ performative effects of journal ranking lists

Mingers, John; Willmott, Hugh

doi:10.1177/0018726712467048

Cited by 205 publications

(237 citation statements)

References 74 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

223

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The adverse impact of this "audit culture" is well documented (see e.g. Adler & Harzing, 2009;Mingers & Willmott, 2013). However, since the reversal of this trend is unlikely, research into fairer and more inclusive ways of measuring research performance is gaining more and more momentum.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: a longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article aims to provide a systematic and comprehensive comparison of the coverage of the three major bibliometric databases: Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science. Based on a sample of 146 senior academics in five broad disciplinary areas, we therefore provide both a longitudinal and a cross-disciplinary comparison of the three databases.Our longitudinal comparison of eight data points between 2013 and 2015 shows a consistent and reasonably stable quarterly growth for both publications and citations across the three databases. This suggests that all three databases provide sufficient stability of coverage to be used for more detailed cross-disciplinary comparisons.Our cross-disciplinary comparison of the three databases includes four key research metrics (publications, citations, h-index, and hI,annual, an annualised individual h-index) and five major disciplines (Humanities, Social Sciences, Engineering, Sciences and Life Sciences). We show that both the data source and the specific metrics used change the conclusions that can be drawn from cross-disciplinary comparisons. 2Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: A longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: a longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In comprehensive journal ranking studies that include journals from various disciplines (e.g., general business journal rankings), the "one-size-fits-all" ranking approach fails the specialist journals (Milne, 2000;Mingers & Willmott, 2013). The key issue with these types of rankings stems from a smaller size of the research community that works in a highly specialized, niche area.…”

Section: Academic Journal Rankingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Global Ranking of Management- and Clinical-Centered eHealth Journals

Serenko¹,

Dohan²,

Tan³

2017

CAIS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:This study presents a ranking list of 35 management-and 28 clinical-centered e-health academic journals developed based on a survey of 398 active researchers from 46 countries. Among the management-centered journals, the researchers ranked Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association and Journal of Medical Internet Research as A+ journals; among the clinical-focused journals, they ranked BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making and IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics as A+ journals. We found that journal longevity (years in print) had an effect on ranking scores such that longer standing journals had an advantage over their more recent counterparts, but this effect was only moderately significant and did not guarantee a favorable ranking position. Various stakeholders may use this list to advance the state of the e-health discipline. There are both similarities and differences between the present ranking and the one developed earlier in 2010.

show abstract

“…The situation concerning the perceived benefits of journal ranking lists is somewhat clearer. As articulated by Mingers & Willmott (2013), those who use journal ranking lists managerially believe that compared to reading and reflecting upon a piece of research, journal ranking lists are a superior means of evaluating research. They have been claimed to be more objective than personal judgments and to be accurate predictors of research assessment exercise outcomes, yet neither of these claims has ever actually been satisfactorily or conclusively demonstrated to be the case.…”

Section: Where Have We Got To Now?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…They have been claimed to be more objective than personal judgments and to be accurate predictors of research assessment exercise outcomes, yet neither of these claims has ever actually been satisfactorily or conclusively demonstrated to be the case. Furthermore, the benefits claimed ignore the impact of the managerial use of journal ranking lists on research, on individuals, and on research communities: "the journal list has become a potent instrument of managerial decision-making whose use, we will argue, has the performative effect of homogenizing, in addition to commodifying and individualizing, research activity" (Mingers & Willmott, 2013, p. 1053.…”

Section: Where Have We Got To Now?mentioning

confidence: 99%

You Cannot Judge a Book by Its Cover: The Problems with Journal Rankings

Sangster

2015

Accounting Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Article (Accepted Version) http://sro.sussex.ac.uk Sangster, Alan (2015) You cannot judge a book by its cover: the problems with journal rankings. Accounting Education, 24 (3). pp. [175][176][177][178][179][180][181][182][183][184][185][186] This version is available from Sussex Research Online: http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/61858/ This document is made available in accordance with publisher policies and may differ from the published version or from the version of record. If you wish to cite this item you are advised to consult the publisher's version. Please see the URL above for details on accessing the published version. Copyright and reuse:Sussex Research Online is a digital repository of the research output of the University.Copyright and all moral rights to the version of the paper presented here belong to the individual author(s) and/or other copyright owners. To the extent reasonable and practicable, the material made available in SRO has been checked for eligibility before being made available.Copies of full text items generally can be reproduced, displayed or performed and given to third parties in any format or medium for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-profit purposes without prior permission or charge, provided that the authors, title and full bibliographic details are credited, a hyperlink and/or URL is given for the original metadata page and the content is not changed in any way. 1 You cannot judge a book by its cover: the problems with journal rankingsAlan Sangster (a.j.a.sangster@btinternet.com) Griffith University, Australia AbstractJournal rankings lists have impacted and are impacting accounting educators and accounting education researchers around the world. Nowhere is the impact positive. It ranges from slight constraints on academic freedom to admonition, censure, reduced research allowances, non-promotion, non-short-listing for jobs, increased teaching loads, and redesignation as a non-researcher, all because the chosen research specialism of someone who was vocationally motivated to become a teacher of accounting is, ironically, accounting education. University managers believe that these journal ranking lists show that accounting faculty publish top quality research on accounting regulation, financial markets, business finance, auditing, international accounting, management accounting, taxation, accounting in society, and more, but not on what they do in their 'day job' -teaching accounting. These same managers also believe that the journal ranking lists indicate that accounting faculty do not publish top quality research in accounting history and accounting systems. And they also believe that journal ranking lists show that accounting faculty write top quality research in education, history, and systems, but only if they publish it in specialist journals that do not have the word 'accounting' in their title, or in mainstream journals that do. Tarring everyone with the same brush because of the journal in which they publish is inequitable. We would not allow it in other ...

show abstract

Taylorizing business school research: On the ‘one best way’ performative effects of journal ranking lists

Cited by 205 publications

References 74 publications

Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: a longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison

Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: a longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison

Global Ranking of Management- and Clinical-Centered eHealth Journals

You Cannot Judge a Book by Its Cover: The Problems with Journal Rankings

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About