Problematising the construction of journal quality:an engagement with the mainstream

Journal ranking studies have generally adopted citation techniques or academic perceptions as the basis for assessing journal quality. They have traditionally been a source of information about potential research outlets, new journals, and an aid to developing a consensus about the relative merit of publications for promotion decisions. The aim of our research is to address specific shortcomings in the conventional literature and construct an alternative view of how we might more appropriately assess journal ‘quality’. We attempt to engage with the conventional literature by applying an approach that does not privilege either citation techniques or academic perceptions. We have adopted from Zeff (1996) an objective measure of academic journal library holdings, which Zeff describes as a ‘market test’. Our construct provides evidence of an important difference in journal holdings for the Australasian region that could significantly influence further research on journal quality. The method itself is entirely mundane but may be considered to reflect a complex of historic and more contemporary variables which impact on academic and administrative decisions, influencing the makeup of academic library holdings and providing a proxy for journal ‘quality’.

A paradigm sensitive perspective on the ranking of accounting journals:a web-based survey approach

This paper reports the results of a web-based study of the perceptions of accounting journals in Australasia. Journal ranking studies have generally adopted citation techniques or used academics’ perceptions as the basis for assessing journal quality. Our research contributes to the existing literature by conducting a survey of academics in Australasia using a web-based instrument. The analysis indicates that the perceptions of the so-called “elite” accounting journals have become unsettled. The research highlights the emergence of more recent, alternative paradigm journals (CPA and AAAJ) as both highly ranking.

Brief reflections

Purpose – The purpose of this editorial is to explicitly recognise the first issue of EJM completely made up of submissions received under the new editorial team of Lee and Greenley, operating since January 2008. The authors also seek to make some broader points about academic review, and journal ranking. Design/methodology/approach – The authors provide some conceptual thinking regarding journal review, and academic ranking of journals. Findings – The authors propose that it is potentially dangerous to restrict the perception of top quality work to only that published in a limited selection of journals, and that research needs to be judged on its own merits. Research limitations/implications – These thoughts are preliminary and intended to spark thinking and debate, not to represent editorial policy. Owing to space constraints, the coverage of many issues is necessarily brief. Practical Implications – Marketing researchers should find these thoughts at the very least stimulating, and may wish to investigate these issues further. Originality/value – The editorial should provide some interesting food for thought for marketing researchers.

Perceptions of journal quality and research paradigm:results of a web-based survey of British accounting academics

This paper reports the results of a web-based perception study of the ranking of peer reviewed accounting journals by UK academics. The design of the survey instrument allows an interactive selection of journals to be scored. The webbased format is unique in that it also includes a step in which respondents classify the journals according to methodological perspective (paradigm). This is depicted graphically in the paper in a bubble diagram that shows the "positioning" of journals according to perceptions of both paradigm and quality.

Constructing an 'efficient frontier' of accounting journal quality

This paper reports the construction of an 'efficient frontier' of the perceived quality attributes of academic accounting journals. The analysis is based on perception data from two web-based surveys of Australasian and British academics. The research reported here contributes to the existing literature by augmenting the commonly supported single dimension of quality with an additional measure indicating the variation of perceptions of journal quality. The result of combining these factors is depicted diagrammatically in a manner that reflects the risk and return trade-off as conceptualised in the capital market model of an efficient frontier of investment opportunities. This conceptualisation of a 'market' for accounting research provides a context in which to highlight the complex issues facing academics in their roles as editors, researchers and authors. The analysis indicates that the perceptions of the so-called 'elite' US accounting journals have become unsettled particularly in Australasia, showing high levels of variability in perceived quality, while other traditionally highly ranked journals (ABR, AOS, CAR) have a more 'efficient' combination of high-quality ranking and lower dispersion of perceptions. The implications of these results for accounting academics in the context of what is often seen as a market for accounting research are discussed. © 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

University ranking as social exclusion

In this article we explore the dual role of global university rankings in the creation of a new, knowledge-identified, transnational capitalist class and in facilitating new forms of social exclusion.We examine how and why the practice of ranking universities has become widely defined by national and international organisations as an important instrument of political and economic policy. We consider how the development of university rankings into a global business combining social research, marketing and public relations, as a tangible policy tool that narrowly redefines the social purposes of higher education itself. Finally, it looks at how the influence of rankings on national funding for teaching and research constrains wider public debate about the meaning of ‘good’ and meaningful education in the UK and other national contexts, particularly by shifting the debate away from democratic publics upward into the elite networked institutions of global capital. We conclude by arguing that, rather than regarding world university rankings as a means to establish criteria of educational value, the practice may be understood as an exclusionary one that furthers the alignment of higher education with neoliberal rationalities at both national and global levels.

Exploiting heterogeneous scientific literature networks to combat ranking bias:evidence from the computational linguistics area

It is important to help researchers find valuable papers from a large literature collection. To this end, many graph-based ranking algorithms have been proposed. However, most of these algorithms suffer from the problem of ranking bias. Ranking bias hurts the usefulness of a ranking algorithm because it returns a ranking list with an undesirable time distribution. This paper is a focused study on how to alleviate ranking bias by leveraging the heterogeneous network structure of the literature collection. We propose a new graph-based ranking algorithm, MutualRank, that integrates mutual reinforcement relationships among networks of papers, researchers, and venues to achieve a more synthetic, accurate, and less-biased ranking than previous methods. MutualRank provides a unified model that involves both intra- and inter-network information for ranking papers, researchers, and venues simultaneously. We use the ACL Anthology Network as the benchmark data set and construct the gold standard from computer linguistics course websites of well-known universities and two well-known textbooks. The experimental results show that MutualRank greatly outperforms the state-of-the-art competitors, including PageRank, HITS, CoRank, Future Rank, and P-Rank, in ranking papers in both improving ranking effectiveness and alleviating ranking bias. Rankings of researchers and venues by MutualRank are also quite reasonable.