Skip to main content

Are FT50 journals really leading? A comment on Fassin


In his recent Scientometrics article, Fassin (2021) asked the following question: Does the FT50 journal list select the best management and economics journals? After collecting, calculating, and analyzing data about nine bibliometric indicators, Fassin responded to that question by stating that “[t]his bibliometric study confirms that the FT50 selection is able to identify the elite journals in economics and general management and most premier journals in the sub-disciplines”. In this Letter to the Editor, the author would like to highlight three major limitations in Fassin’s (2021) study: the first limitation is that the provided general ranking is biased towards journals that publish relatively more review articles. The second limitation is that it ignores Goodhart’s law. The third limitation is related to the very definition of a leading journal.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

Source WoS)


  1. 1.

    More information about the added versus dropped journals from each version of the Financial Times list of journals is available at:

  2. 2.

  3. 3.

  4. 4.

  5. 5.

    None of the FT50 journals is a fully open access journal (Laakso & Björk, 2021).


  1. Aksnes, D. W., Langfeldt, L., & Wouters, P. (2019). Citations, citation indicators, and research quality: An overview of basic concepts and theories. SAGE Open, 9(1), 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bar-Ilan, J., & Halevi, G. (2021). Retracted articles–The scientific version of fake news. In R. Greifeneder, M. E. Jaffé, E. J. Newman, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), The psychology of fake news: Accepting, sharing, and correcting misinformation (pp. 47–70). Routledge.

  3. Clarivate Analytics (2021)

  4. Currid-Halkett, E., & Stolarick, K. (2011). The great divide: Economic development theory versus practice-a survey of the current landscape. Economic Development Quarterly, 25(2), 143–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Fassin, Y. (2021). Does the financial times FT50 journal list select the best management and economics journals? Scientometrics.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Hamet, J., Maurer, F. (2017). Is management research visible outside the academic community?. M@n@gement, 20(5), 492–516.

  7. Humphrey, C., Kiseleva, O., & Schleicher, T. (2019). A time-series analysis of the scale of coercive journal self-citation and its effect on impact factors and journal rankings. European Accounting Review, 28(2), 335–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Kriz, A., Nailer, C., Jansen, K., & Potocnjak-Oxman, C. (2021). Teaching-practice as a critical bridge for narrowing the research-practice gap. Industrial Marketing Management, 92, 254–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Laakso, M., & Björk, B. C. (2021). Open access journal publishing in the business disciplines: A closer look at the low uptake and discipline-specific considerations. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Lehmann, D. R., & Winer, R. S. (2019). The role and impact of reviewers on the marketing discipline. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45(5), 587–592.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Lei, L., & Sun, Y. (2020). Should highly cited items be excluded in impact factor calculation? The effect of review articles on journal impact factor. Scientometrics, 122(3), 1697–1706.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Linacre, S. (2021). Cabells launches new SDG Impact Intensity journal rating system in partnership with Saint Joseph’s University’s Haub School of Business. The Source. Available at:

  13. Martin, B. R. (2016). Editors’ JIF-boosting stratagems–Which are appropriate and which not? Research Policy, 45(1), 1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Miranda, R., & Garcia-Carpintero, E. (2018). Overcitation and overrepresentation of review papers in the most cited papers. Journal of Informetrics, 12(4), 1015–1030.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Setti, G. (2013). Bibliometric indicators: Why do we need more than one? IEEE Access, 1, 232–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Strathern, M. (1997). ‘Improving ratings’: Audit in the British University system. European Review, 5(3), 305–321.;2-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Tucker, B., & Parker, L. (2014). In our ivory towers? The research-practice gap in management accounting. Accounting and Business Research, 44(2), 104–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Valderrama, Á., Jiménez-Contreras, E., Valderrama, P., Escabias, M., & Baca, P. (2019). Is the trend to publish reviews and clinical trials related to the journal impact factor? Analysis in dentistry field. Accountability in Research, 26(7), 427–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Wilhite, A. W., & Fong, E. A. (2012). Coercive citation in academic publishing. Science, 335(6068), 542–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Wilhite, A., Fong, E. A., & Wilhite, S. (2019). The influence of editorial decisions and the academic network on self-citations and journal impact factors. Research Policy, 48(6), 1513–1522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


The author received no financial support for this paper.

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Salim Moussa.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical statement

This paper has not been published elsewhere in any form. It has not been submitted simultaneously to any other publication outlet.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Moussa, S. Are FT50 journals really leading? A comment on Fassin. Scientometrics (2021).

Download citation


  • FT50
  • Ranking; Review articles
  • Citation-based metrics
  • Critique