A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis of Journal Rankings: The Case of Formal Lists

152 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Globalizing human resource management (2004, background): “To date there has been limited empirical work on the role played by professional associations (Greenwood et al., 2002; Van Hoy, 1993), particularly in relation to personnel management or HRM.”
The Assessment of Research Quality in UK Universities: Peer Review or Metrics? (2011, unknown): “Geary et al. (2004), for example, estimate the quality of journals implied by the decisions made by the RAE business and management panel in the 2001 exercise.”
Global ranking of knowledge management and intellectual capital academic journals (2009, background): “In fact, many institutions rely on various ranking lists for internal decision making ( van Fleet et al., 2000 ).”
Are Articles in “Top” Management Journals Necessarily of Higher Quality? (2007, background): “1. Van Fleet, McWilliams, and Siegel (2000) report that some management departments assign different numbers of points for articles published in different journal groups (e.g., 10 points for publishing in top journals and fewer points for lower ranked journals).”