Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Stakeholder perspectives on citation and peer-based rankings of higher education journals

  • Published:
Tertiary Education and Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to identify and discuss the possible uses of higher education journal rankings, and the associated advantages and disadvantages of using them. The research involved 40 individuals - lecturers, university managers, journal editors and publishers - who represented a range of stakeholders involved with research into higher education. The respondents completed an online questionnaire that consisted mainly of open questions. Although clear support for or opposition to journal rankings was split about equally, over two-thirds of the respondents reported having used or referred to a journal ranking during the previous 12 months. This suggests wide acceptance of the use of journal rankings, despite the downsides and problematic nature of these rankings being clearly recognised. It raises the question why the very diverse field of higher education does not show more resistance against the rather homogenising instrument of journal rankings.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aguillo, I. F. (1996). Increasing the between-year stability of the impact factor in the Science Citation Index. Scientometrics, 35, 279–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnes, C. (2014). The emperor’s new clothes: The h-index as a guide to resource allocation in higher education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 36, 456–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloch, S., & Walter, G. (2001). The impact factor: Time for change. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 35, 563–568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bray, N. J., & Major, C. H. (2011). Status of journals in the field of higher education. The Journal of Higher Education, 82, 479–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brinn, T., Jones, M. J., & Pendlebury, M. (2000). Measuring research quality: Peer review 1, citation indices 0. Omega, 28, 237–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butler, L., & McAllister, I. (2009). Metrics or peer review? Evaluating the 2001 UK Research Assessment Exercise in Political Science. Political Studies Review, 7, 3–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campanario, J. M. (1998). Peer review for journals as it stands today - Part 1. Science Communication, 19, 181–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, D. E., & Astin, H. S. (1987). Reputational standing in academe. The Journal of Higher Education, 58, 261–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deem, R. (2001). Globalisation, new managerialism, academic capitalism and entrepreneurialism in universities: Is the local dimension still important? Comparative Education, 37, 7–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2011). The Sage handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dobson, I. R. (2014). Using data and experts to make the wrong decision: The rise and fall of journal ranking in Australia. In M. E. Menon, D. G. Terkla, & P. Gibbs (Eds.), Using data to improve higher education: Research, policy and practice (pp. 229–242). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodyear, R. K., Brewer, D. J., Gallagher, K. S., Tracey, T. J. G., Claiborn, C. D., Lichtenberg, J. W., & Wampold, B. E. (2009). The intellectual foundations of education: Core journals and their impacts on scholarship and practice. Educational Researcher, 38, 700–706.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hardy, I., Heimans, S., & Lingard, B. (2011). Journal rankings: Positioning the field of educational research and educational academics. Power and Education, 3, 4–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hudson, J. (2013). Ranking journals. The Economic Journal, 123, F202–F222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huisman, J., & Tight, M. (Eds.). (2013). Theory and method in higher education research, International perspectives in higher education research series, Vol. 9. Bingley: Emerald.

  • Huisman, J., & Tight, M. (Eds.). (2014). Theory and method in higher education research, International perspectives in higher education research series, Vol. 10. Bingley: Emerald.

  • Hutchinson, S. R., & Lovell, C. D. (2004). A review of methodological characteristics of research published in key journals in higher education: Implications for graduate research training. Research in Higher Education, 45, 383–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, D. (Ed.). (2004). The Sage handbook of quantitative methodology for the social sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moed, H. F., Luwel, M., & Nederhof, A. J. (2002). Towards research performance in the humanities. Library Trends, 50, 498–520.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nedeva, M., Boden, R., & Nugroho, Y. (2012). Rank and file: Managing individual performance in university research. Higher Education Policy, 25, 335–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, T. M., Buss, A. R., & Katzko, M. (1983). Rating of scholarly journals by chairpersons in the social sciences. Research in Higher Education, 19, 469–497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nkomo, S. M. (2009). The seductive power of academic journal rankings: Challenges of searching for the otherwise. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 8, 106–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill, G. P., & Sachis, P. N. (1994). The importance of refereed publications in tenure and promotion decisions: A Canadian study. Higher Education, 28, 427–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oswald, A. J. (2007). An examination of the reliability of prestigious scholarly journals: Evidence and implications for decision-makers. Economica, 74, 21–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Özbilgin, M. F. (2009). From journal rankings to making sense of the world. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 8, 113–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pontille, D., & Torny, D. (2010). The controversial policies of journal ratings: Evaluating social sciences and humanities. Research Evaluation, 19, 347–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rafols, I., Leydesdorff, L., O’Hare, A., Nightingale, P., & Stirling, A. (2012). How journal rankings can suppress interdisciplinary research: A comparison between Innovation Studies and Business & Management. Research Policy, 41, 1262–1282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • RAND Corporation. (2014). Standards for high-quality research and analysis. Retrieved September 18, 2014, from https://doi.org/www.rand.org/standards/standards_high.html

    Google Scholar 

  • Rumbley, L. E., Stanfield, D. A., & de Gayardon, A. (2014). From inventory to insight: Making sense of the global landscape of higher education research, training, and publication. Studies in Higher Education, 39(8), 1293–1305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seglen, P. O. (1997). Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. British Medical Journal, 314, 498–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tight, M. (2007). Bridging the divide: A comparative analysis of articles in higher education journals published inside and outside North America. Higher Education, 53, 235–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tight, M. (2009). The structure of academic research: What can citation studies tell us? In A. Brew & L. Lucas (Eds.), Academic research and researchers (pp. 54–65). Maidenhead: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tight, M. (2012a). Levels of analysis in higher education research. Tertiary Education and Management, 18, 271–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tight, M. (2012b). Researching higher education. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Togia, A., & Tsigilis, D. (2006). Impact factor and education journals: A critical examination and analysis. International Journal of Educational Research, 45, 362–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wells, P. (2010). The ABS rankings of journal quality: An exercise in delusion (Working Paper). Cardiff: Centre for Business Relationships Accountability, Sustainability and Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willmott, H. (1995). Managing the academics: Commodification and control in the development of university education in the U.K. Human Relations, 48, 993–1027.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willmott, H. (2011). Journal list fetishism and the perversion of scholarship: Reactivity and the ABS list. Organization, 18, 429–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Graduate School of Management, Plymouth University, Plymouth, UK

    Stephen Wilkins

  2. Department of Sociology, Faculty of Political and Social Sciences, University of Ghent, Ghent, Belgium

    Jeroen Huisman

Authors
  1. Stephen Wilkins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jeroen Huisman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephen Wilkins.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wilkins, S., Huisman, J. Stakeholder perspectives on citation and peer-based rankings of higher education journals. Tert Educ Manag 21, 1–15 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1080/13583883.2014.987313

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13583883.2014.987313

Keywords

Search

Navigation