Marketing Letters

, Volume 13, Issue 4, pp 389–402

Perceptual Differences of Marketing Journals: A Worldwide Perspective

  • Vasilis Theoharakis
  • Andrew Hirst
Article

Abstract

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.

marketing peer review journal ranking journal perceptions 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Asia Inc. (1999). “Asia's Top 25 MBA Programs,” October.Google Scholar
  2. 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.Google Scholar
  3. Bradshaw, Della. (2000). “FT MBA 2000,” Financial Times, January 24.Google Scholar
  4. 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.Google Scholar
  5. 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.Google Scholar
  6. Business Week. (1998). “The Best Business Schools,” October 19.Google Scholar
  7. Canadian Business. (1999). “MBA Programs Compared,” October 22.Google Scholar
  8. 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.Google Scholar
  9. 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.Google Scholar
  10. HEFCE. (1996). 1996 Research Assessment Exercise: The Outcome. Bristol: HEFCE.Google Scholar
  11. 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.Google Scholar
  12. Jobber, David, and Paul Simpson. (1988). “A Citation Analysis of Selected Marketing Journals,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 5(2), 137–142.Google Scholar
  13. 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.Google Scholar
  14. Luukhonen, Terttu. (1992). “Is Scientists' Behaviour Reward-Seeking?,” Scientometrics, 24(2), 297–319.Google Scholar
  15. Oltheten, Elisabeth, Vasilis Theoharakis, and Nickolaos Travlos. (2002). “Worldwide Perceptions and Readership Patterns of Finance Journals,” Working Paper.Google Scholar
  16. Pierce, Barbara, and Garnet Garven. (1995). “Publishing International Business Research: A Survey of Leading Journals,” Journal of International Business Studies, 69–89.Google Scholar
  17. 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.Google Scholar
  18. 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.Google Scholar
  19. 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.Google Scholar
  20. Times, The. (1998). The Times Good University Guide. London: Times Books.Google Scholar
  21. Todorov, R., and W. Glanzel. (1988). “Journal Citation Measures: A Concise Review,” Journal of Information Science, 14(1), 47–56.Google Scholar
  22. U.S. News & World Report (2000). “Top Business Schools,” www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/beyond/bcbiz.htm.Google Scholar
  23. 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.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vasilis Theoharakis
    • 1
  • Andrew Hirst
    • 2
  1. 1.Athens Laboratory of Business Administration (ALBA)Vouliagmeni, AthensGreece
  2. 2.Loughborough University Business SchoolLoughborough UniversityLoughboroughUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations