Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2561477982> ?p ?o ?g. }
- W2561477982 endingPage "28" @default.
- W2561477982 startingPage "1" @default.
- W2561477982 abstract "1. IntroductionIn their quest to attract the best and the brightest future business leaders who are seeking relevant and up-to-date program contents, business schools particularly those accredited by AACSB or aspired to gain such a status, are aggressively competing to attract and retain faculty members who are expected not only to conduct relevant and up-to-date research in their respective fields, but also ensure that their research findings are appropriately assessed and published for dissemination in peer-reviewed perceived to be of good quality (Armstrong & Fukami, 2009; Schmidt-Wilk & Fukami, 2010).Publishing in discipline-related refereed has long been perceived as an indication of a noteworthy research accomplishment (Pan & Chen, 2011). It is seen as a strong evidence of faculty competency in research and scholarship (Hawes & Keiller 2002), a requirement for a favorable promotion decision outcome (Holden, Rosenberg & Barker, 2005) and a source of attraction for potential students (Bakir, Vitell, & Rose, 2000; Cheng, Chan & Chan, 2003; Haddad, Singh, Sciglimpaglia, & Chan, 2014). It is argued that a journal's perceived importance and reputation are earned by a selection process that discriminates against the continuous stream flow of high quality scholarly papers (McKinnon, 2013), creating a strong partnership between the contributing authors and their highly regarded publishing outlets. Once gain such high quality status and reputation, interested stakeholders can then leverage this distinction for important decisions regarding salary evaluations, teaching loads, research funding, promotion and tenure, manuscript submissions, and others (Borgman & Furner, 2002; Baumgartner & Pieters, 2003). As a result, potential authors and readers who are seeking quality either for publication and/or reading purposes are likely to make more informed decision as to which to target (Bergh, Perry & Hanke, 2006).2. Need for the StudyThe number of business schools around the world emulating the American educational style has increased markedly, causing a corresponding increase in the number of refereed business and management produced by and for these schools. This recent proliferation of refereed continues to draw sharp debates about the perceived quality of many of these journals, and how to appropriately address such a challenge (Brown, 2003; Law; Van der Veen, 2008).Although most researchers acknowledge the positive relationship between the perceived value of an academic discipline and the perceived quality of its related (Lewis, Templeton, & Luo, 2007), no agreement exists as to which approach would be most effective in assessing such quality (Adler & Harzing, 2009). This makes the acceptance of a uniform and agreed upon approach by all relevant stakeholders to be somehow impossible. Unfortunately, the lack of consensus on journal quality assessment approach propelled some academics to promote their own based on power, influence, status, and affiliations rather than merits, effectiveness, and commitments to advancing the field (Brown, 2003). This has resulted in undermining the quality of research scholarship (Peng & Dess, 2010).The emergence of journal quality ranking lists over the past few years seems to have provided a convenient solution out of this research assessment dilemma. These lists are increasingly being used by business school deans and research manager who became fixated on whether the publication records of current staff and new applicants include the requisite number of hits in the best ranked journals (Hussein, 2015, p.1). Hence, given the vitality of this issue, it is expected that academics would invest time and effort in deciding the publications outlets that would yield the highest impact for their research contributions while their administrators will concentrate their efforts on either searching for or devising robust research assessment approaches to determine the quality of their faculty members' research. …" @default.
- W2561477982 created "2017-01-06" @default.
- W2561477982 creator A5011839010 @default.
- W2561477982 creator A5039503744 @default.
- W2561477982 date "2015-01-01" @default.
- W2561477982 modified "2023-10-18" @default.
- W2561477982 title "Assessing the Validity of Business and Management Journals Ranking List: An Alternative Approach for Determining Journal Quality" @default.
- W2561477982 cites W1514806425 @default.
- W2561477982 cites W1575605140 @default.
- W2561477982 cites W1579856237 @default.
- W2561477982 cites W1834892272 @default.
- W2561477982 cites W195419418 @default.
- W2561477982 cites W1958739611 @default.
- W2561477982 cites W1970913835 @default.
- W2561477982 cites W1979115167 @default.
- W2561477982 cites W1984250866 @default.
- W2561477982 cites W1987191136 @default.
- W2561477982 cites W1993001003 @default.
- W2561477982 cites W1994333330 @default.
- W2561477982 cites W2010795477 @default.
- W2561477982 cites W2011120550 @default.
- W2561477982 cites W2019142989 @default.
- W2561477982 cites W2019147893 @default.
- W2561477982 cites W2024289364 @default.
- W2561477982 cites W2034085520 @default.
- W2561477982 cites W2046301960 @default.
- W2561477982 cites W2049076011 @default.
- W2561477982 cites W2053549370 @default.
- W2561477982 cites W2054518963 @default.
- W2561477982 cites W2054988762 @default.
- W2561477982 cites W2068016743 @default.
- W2561477982 cites W2069613886 @default.
- W2561477982 cites W2069656088 @default.
- W2561477982 cites W2069956632 @default.
- W2561477982 cites W2070242399 @default.
- W2561477982 cites W2080630898 @default.
- W2561477982 cites W2092924057 @default.
- W2561477982 cites W2107315142 @default.
- W2561477982 cites W2110967597 @default.
- W2561477982 cites W2112705380 @default.
- W2561477982 cites W2113010811 @default.
- W2561477982 cites W2121493052 @default.
- W2561477982 cites W2123235074 @default.
- W2561477982 cites W2128438887 @default.
- W2561477982 cites W2130103054 @default.
- W2561477982 cites W2132631086 @default.
- W2561477982 cites W2135547856 @default.
- W2561477982 cites W2136851496 @default.
- W2561477982 cites W2139037578 @default.
- W2561477982 cites W2141967394 @default.
- W2561477982 cites W2144204289 @default.
- W2561477982 cites W2151866568 @default.
- W2561477982 cites W2160500356 @default.
- W2561477982 cites W2161171886 @default.
- W2561477982 cites W2182280416 @default.
- W2561477982 cites W2243271686 @default.
- W2561477982 cites W2314588731 @default.
- W2561477982 cites W2317056810 @default.
- W2561477982 cites W2317765138 @default.
- W2561477982 cites W2481309650 @default.
- W2561477982 cites W3122702830 @default.
- W2561477982 cites W3124548656 @default.
- W2561477982 cites W3125992421 @default.
- W2561477982 doi "https://doi.org/10.24048/ams4.no2.2015-1" @default.
- W2561477982 hasPublicationYear "2015" @default.
- W2561477982 type Work @default.
- W2561477982 sameAs 2561477982 @default.
- W2561477982 citedByCount "7" @default.
- W2561477982 countsByYear W25614779822018 @default.
- W2561477982 countsByYear W25614779822019 @default.
- W2561477982 countsByYear W25614779822020 @default.
- W2561477982 countsByYear W25614779822021 @default.
- W2561477982 countsByYear W25614779822022 @default.
- W2561477982 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
- W2561477982 hasAuthorship W2561477982A5011839010 @default.
- W2561477982 hasAuthorship W2561477982A5039503744 @default.
- W2561477982 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
- W2561477982 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
- W2561477982 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
- W2561477982 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
- W2561477982 hasConcept C189430467 @default.
- W2561477982 hasConcept C23123220 @default.
- W2561477982 hasConcept C2522767166 @default.
- W2561477982 hasConcept C2779530757 @default.
- W2561477982 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
- W2561477982 hasConcept C539667460 @default.
- W2561477982 hasConceptScore W2561477982C111472728 @default.
- W2561477982 hasConceptScore W2561477982C127413603 @default.
- W2561477982 hasConceptScore W2561477982C138885662 @default.
- W2561477982 hasConceptScore W2561477982C144133560 @default.
- W2561477982 hasConceptScore W2561477982C189430467 @default.
- W2561477982 hasConceptScore W2561477982C23123220 @default.
- W2561477982 hasConceptScore W2561477982C2522767166 @default.
- W2561477982 hasConceptScore W2561477982C2779530757 @default.
- W2561477982 hasConceptScore W2561477982C41008148 @default.
- W2561477982 hasConceptScore W2561477982C539667460 @default.
- W2561477982 hasIssue "2" @default.
- W2561477982 hasLocation W25614779821 @default.