Perceptual Differences of Marketing Journals: A Worldwide Perspective
Purchase on Springer.com
$39.95 / €34.95 / £29.95*
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.
The practice of evaluating faculty and business schools based on their journal publications has increased the emphasis on research output in peer reviewed journals. Since journal standings are a frequently debated issue, this study seeks to examine the perceptual differences of journals between different segments of marketing academics. Based on a worldwide online survey, journals are assessed in terms of four subjective quality metrics: journal familiarity, average rank position, percent of respondents who classify a journal as top tier, and readership. It is demonstrated that an individual's geographic origin, research interests or journal affiliation can have a significant impact on journal rankings.
- Asia Inc. (1999). “Asia's Top 25 MBA Programs,” October.
- Bakir, Aysen, Scott J. Vitell, and Gregory M. Rose. (2000). “Publications in Major Marketing Journals: An Analysis of Scholars and Marketing Departments,” Journal of Marketing Education, 22(2), 99–107.
- Bradshaw, Della. (2000). “FT MBA 2000,” Financial Times, January 24.
- Brown, Lawrence D., and Ronald J. Huefner. (1994). “The Familiarity with the Perceived Quality of Accounting Journals: Views of Senior Accounting Faculty in Leading U.S. MBA Programs,” Contemporary Accounting Research, 11(1), 223–250.
- Browne, William G., and Boris W. Becker. (1985). “Perceptions of Marketing Journals: Awareness and Quality Evaluations.” In 1985 AMA Educators' Proceedings, Chicago, American Marketing Association.
- Business Week. (1998). “The Best Business Schools,” October 19.
- Canadian Business. (1999). “MBA Programs Compared,” October 22.
- Fry, Elaine, Glen Walters, and Lawrence Scheuermann. (1985). “Perceived Quality of Fifty Selected Journals: Academicians and Practitioners,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 13(1), 352–361.
- Gordon, Peter J., and Kenneth A. Heischmidt. (1992). “Evaluation of Marketing Publications: Some New Findings.” In 1992 American Marketing Association Educators' Proceedings: Enhancing Knowledge Development in Marketing, Chicago, American Marketing Association.
- HEFCE. (1996). 1996 Research Assessment Exercise: The Outcome. Bristol: HEFCE.
- Hult, G. Tomas M., William T. Neese, and R. Edward Bashaw. (1997). “Faculty Perceptions of Marketing Journals,” Journal of Marketing Education, 19(Spring), 37–52.
- Jobber, David, and Paul Simpson. (1988). “A Citation Analysis of Selected Marketing Journals,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 5(2), 137–142.
- Luke, Robert H., and E. Reed Doke. (1987). “Marketing Journal Hierarchies: Faculty Perceptions, 1986–87,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 15(1), 74–77.
- Luukhonen, Terttu. (1992). “Is Scientists' Behaviour Reward-Seeking?,” Scientometrics, 24(2), 297–319.
- Oltheten, Elisabeth, Vasilis Theoharakis, and Nickolaos Travlos. (2002). “Worldwide Perceptions and Readership Patterns of Finance Journals,” Working Paper.
- Pierce, Barbara, and Garnet Garven. (1995). “Publishing International Business Research: A Survey of Leading Journals,” Journal of International Business Studies, 69–89.
- Pieters, Rik, Hans Baumgartner, Jeroen Vermunt, and Tammo Bijmolt. (1999). “Importance and Similarity in the Evolving Citation Network of the International Journal of Research in Marketing,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 16, 113–127.
- Polonsky, Michael Jay, Gary Jones, and Megan J. Kearsley. (1999). “Accessibility: An Alternative Method of Ranking Marketing Journals?,” Journal of Marketing Education, 21(3), 181–193.
- Tellis, Gerard J., Rajesh K. Chandy, and David S. Ackerman. (1999). “In Search of Diversity: The Record of Major Marketing Journals,” Journal of Marketing Research, 36(1), 120–131.
- Times, The. (1998). The Times Good University Guide. London: Times Books.
- Todorov, R., and W. Glanzel. (1988). “Journal Citation Measures: A Concise Review,” Journal of Information Science, 14(1), 47–56.
- U.S. News & World Report (2000). “Top Business Schools,” www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/beyond/bcbiz.htm.
- Verlag, K.H. Bock, and Bad Honnef. (1995). Weiterfuhrende Studienangebote an den Hochschulen in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Aufbaustudien, Zusatzstudien, Erganzungsstudien, Weiterbildende Studien. German Universities Association.
- Perceptual Differences of Marketing Journals: A Worldwide Perspective
Volume 13, Issue 4 , pp 389-402
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Kluwer Academic Publishers
- Additional Links
- peer review
- journal ranking
- journal perceptions
- Industry Sectors