Top-25-Business-School Professors Rate Journals in Operations Management and Related Fields

Abstract

I obtained quality ratings and rankings of 39 journals in operations management and related disciplines through surveys of faculty members at top-25 US business schools in 2000 and in 2002. I also computed five-year impact factors for 29 of these journals and developed a ranking based on these impact factors. I found evidence of some change in journal quality ratings over the two-year period. Ratings also differed by research area but not by professorial level. In addition, I ranked the journals based on the number of academics who rated their quality, calling this a visibility measure. Finally, I compared my ratings to ratings in earlier survey and citation studies. The quality ratings were more consistent than the citation ratings.

Measuring the attractiveness of academic journals: A direct influence aggregation model

“…This study confirms that Impact Factor, despite its prominence, fails to demonstrate favorable consistency. It also shows that rankings derived from the direct influence aggregation model and the PageRank index [10] are the most consistent with the opinion-based ranking done by Olson [12]. However, and contrary to the PageRank method, the direct influence aggregation model does not need any calibration and, as such, it ignores any subjective influence.…”

“…As a ranking should ideally correlate the perception of experts and academicians, the DIA model is assessed on a set of 25 out of 39 OR/MS journals ranked by Olson [12] through two surveys of faculty members from the top-25 US business schools in 2000 and 2002. Table 1 shows the titles and the abbreviations of the 25 journals under consideration.…”

Computing a journal meta-ranking using paired comparisons and adaptive lasso estimators

“…Academic research relying on survey-based quality assessment of OR/MS/POM journals has been conducted by Barman et al (1991Barman et al ( , 2001) (20 selected journals are ranked based on a questionnaire survey of the Decision Sciences Institute members) and Olson (2005), who surveyed faculty members of 25 business schools in the US in 2000 and 2002. One of the main advantages of the survey-based approach is that a journal's ranking position reflects a cumulative opinion of a representative group of its readers and contributors (Serenko and Dohan, 2011).…”

Research Productivity in Management Schools of India: A Directional Benefit-of-Doubt Model Analysis

“…The former is usually judged by an author's total number of published papers [18][19][20], h-index 2 [18,[20][21][22], and the number of citations of that author's publications [18]. The quality of journals is often judged by its h-index 3 [22], tiering 4 , and impact factor (IF) 5 [23][24][25][26][27]. Each such indicator taken in isolation has its own strengths and weaknesses in gauging the overall scholarly contribution of a researcher (see.…”