Discussion: View Thread

  • 1.  7/50 Target Journal Validity

    Posted 04-22-2008 15:11
    IMD Colleagues,

    Many business schools facing accreditation have moved towards a specified
    list of target journals for their faculty to publish in to maintain their AQ
    status. As our school goes through the process (with 7 "A" and 50 "B"
    journals, I have wondered what kind of quantitative evidence supports the
    practice. From a HR performance management perspective (and as the results
    of the publications impact tenure/retention, etc.) you would anticipate a
    validity study of the practice. Many schools have had the practice in effect
    for years, but I have not found any studies in the literature. If you have
    any related studies, I would appreciate you passing them on to me, providing
    the citations or a synopsis of your unpublished results.

    Thank you in advance,

    Dan

    Daniel E. Martin, Ph.D.
    Assistant Professor
    Department of Management
    California State University, East Bay
    (510) 885-2060



    Vice President
    Alinea Group
    SF, CA-Washington, DC
    (800) 590-8095


  • 2.  7/50 Target Journal Validity

    Posted 04-22-2008 18:21
    In my view, creating "A" lists is pathological. When schools read vitas rather
    than papers, they have no sense of research quality of their faculty members.

    This has several extremely negative consequences: (1) little shared
    understanding of the research of faculty member within a school, (2) Type 1
    promotion errors that reward people who have published incremental research in
    so-called "A" journals, (3) Type 2 promotion errors that penalise people who
    have published strong exploratory research or important field research that
    does not fit the "A" list .

    I am not aware of studies, but I would love to see studies that tested the
    following hypotheses:

    H1. "The more a school relies on journal lists to manage its promotion
    decisions, the less cohesive its faculty will be" (yes, I realise that the
    direction of causality can work both ways in this prediction)

    H2. "The more a school relies on journal lists to manage its promotion
    decisions, the more trivial research its faculty members will publish"

    H3. "The more a school relies on journal lists to manage its promotion
    decisions, the more likely it will lose faculty members who publish research
    that explores the boundaries of their fields"

    Any guesses about whether a paper that tested these hypotheses, even robustly,
    would find a home in an "A" journal?

    The bottom line for me is that there is no substitute for actually reading
    papers, indeed reading a body of work to understand its aggregate
    contribution.

    will



    Quoting Daniel Martin <dmartin@ALINEAGROUP.COM>:

    > IMD Colleagues,
    >
    > Many business schools facing accreditation have moved towards a specified
    > list of target journals for their faculty to publish in to maintain their AQ
    > status. As our school goes through the process (with 7 "A" and 50 "B"
    > journals, I have wondered what kind of quantitative evidence supports the
    > practice. From a HR performance management perspective (and as the results
    > of the publications impact tenure/retention, etc.) you would anticipate a
    > validity study of the practice. Many schools have had the practice in effect
    > for years, but I have not found any studies in the literature. If you have
    > any related studies, I would appreciate you passing them on to me, providing
    > the citations or a synopsis of your unpublished results.
    >
    > Thank you in advance,
    >
    > Dan
    >
    > Daniel E. Martin, Ph.D.
    > Assistant Professor
    > Department of Management
    > California State University, East Bay
    > (510) 885-2060
    >
    >
    >
    > Vice President
    > Alinea Group
    > SF, CA-Washington, DC
    > (800) 590-8095
    >



    --
    J. Rex Fuqua Professor of International Management
    Duke University, Durham, NC 27708-0120
    Fax: 919.681.6244, Email: Will.Mitchell@duke.edu
    Home site: www.willmitchell.org


  • 3.  7/50 Target Journal Validity

    Posted 04-22-2008 18:30
    Will,

    Thanks, I couldn't agree with you more, and aim to find the studies that 1)
    address your hypotheses, and 2) address the criterion validity of the
    aforementioned lists as performance appraisal criterion.

    Best,

    Dan

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Will Mitchell [mailto:will.mitchell@duke.edu]
    Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 3:21 PM
    To: International Management Division Discussion; Daniel Martin
    Cc: IMD-L@AOMLISTS.pace.edu; willm@duke.edu
    Subject: Re: 7/50 Target Journal Validity

    In my view, creating "A" lists is pathological. When schools read vitas
    rather
    than papers, they have no sense of research quality of their faculty
    members.

    This has several extremely negative consequences: (1) little shared
    understanding of the research of faculty member within a school, (2) Type 1
    promotion errors that reward people who have published incremental research
    in
    so-called "A" journals, (3) Type 2 promotion errors that penalise people who
    have published strong exploratory research or important field research that
    does not fit the "A" list .

    I am not aware of studies, but I would love to see studies that tested the
    following hypotheses:

    H1. "The more a school relies on journal lists to manage its promotion
    decisions, the less cohesive its faculty will be" (yes, I realise that the
    direction of causality can work both ways in this prediction)

    H2. "The more a school relies on journal lists to manage its promotion
    decisions, the more trivial research its faculty members will publish"

    H3. "The more a school relies on journal lists to manage its promotion
    decisions, the more likely it will lose faculty members who publish research
    that explores the boundaries of their fields"

    Any guesses about whether a paper that tested these hypotheses, even
    robustly,
    would find a home in an "A" journal?

    The bottom line for me is that there is no substitute for actually reading
    papers, indeed reading a body of work to understand its aggregate
    contribution.

    will



    Quoting Daniel Martin <dmartin@ALINEAGROUP.COM>:

    > IMD Colleagues,
    >
    > Many business schools facing accreditation have moved towards a specified
    > list of target journals for their faculty to publish in to maintain their
    AQ
    > status. As our school goes through the process (with 7 "A" and 50 "B"
    > journals, I have wondered what kind of quantitative evidence supports the
    > practice. From a HR performance management perspective (and as the results
    > of the publications impact tenure/retention, etc.) you would anticipate a
    > validity study of the practice. Many schools have had the practice in
    effect
    > for years, but I have not found any studies in the literature. If you have
    > any related studies, I would appreciate you passing them on to me,
    providing
    > the citations or a synopsis of your unpublished results.
    >
    > Thank you in advance,
    >
    > Dan
    >
    > Daniel E. Martin, Ph.D.
    > Assistant Professor
    > Department of Management
    > California State University, East Bay
    > (510) 885-2060
    >
    >
    >
    > Vice President
    > Alinea Group
    > SF, CA-Washington, DC
    > (800) 590-8095
    >



    --
    J. Rex Fuqua Professor of International Management
    Duke University, Durham, NC 27708-0120
    Fax: 919.681.6244, Email: Will.Mitchell@duke.edu
    Home site: www.willmitchell.org


  • 4.  7/50 Target Journal Validity

    Posted 04-22-2008 18:46
    Dan:

    One can always look at the ISI Thomson journal impact for an
    objective indicator. One issue is how broad-narrow the lists are. Some
    schools only count a very few number of journals as A, which is a mistake
    since journals tend to specialize in particular
    approaches/methods/questions. If your work is very methodologically
    rigorous, but not very theoretical, you won't be in AMJ, even if that work
    wins the Nobel Prize, for example.

    Paul E. Spector
    Department of Psychology
    University of South Florida
    Tampa, FL 33620
    (813) 974-0357 Voice
    (813) 974-4617 Fax
    spector@shell.cas.usf.edu
    website http://shell.cas.usf.edu/~spector

    On Tue, 22 Apr 2008, Daniel Martin wrote:

    > IMD Colleagues,
    >
    > Many business schools facing accreditation have moved towards a specified
    > list of target journals for their faculty to publish in to maintain their AQ
    > status. As our school goes through the process (with 7 "A" and 50 "B"
    > journals, I have wondered what kind of quantitative evidence supports the
    > practice. From a HR performance management perspective (and as the results
    > of the publications impact tenure/retention, etc.) you would anticipate a
    > validity study of the practice. Many schools have had the practice in effect
    > for years, but I have not found any studies in the literature. If you have
    > any related studies, I would appreciate you passing them on to me, providing
    > the citations or a synopsis of your unpublished results.
    >
    > Thank you in advance,
    >
    > Dan
    >
    > Daniel E. Martin, Ph.D.
    > Assistant Professor
    > Department of Management
    > California State University, East Bay
    > (510) 885-2060
    >
    >
    >
    > Vice President
    > Alinea Group
    > SF, CA-Washington, DC
    > (800) 590-8095
    >


  • 5.  7/50 Target Journal Validity

    Posted 04-22-2008 18:47
    An article somewhat germane to Will Mitchell's point is Van Fleet, D.D.,
    McWilliams, A. & Siegel, D.S. 2000. "A theoretical and empirical
    analysis of journal rankings: The case of formal lists", Journal of
    Management, 26: 839-861. A quote from this article gives a sense of
    their findings: "We also find that the quality of a department is
    inversely related to the probability of adopting a list, which is
    consistent with our expectations. It seems that lower quality schools
    may have a stronger need to make research standards explicit" (p 851).

    Regards, JimG.


    *****************************************
    James P. Guthrie, Ph.D.
    William & Judy Docking Professor of Business
    School of Business PH: 785-864-7546
    University of Kansas FAX: 785-864-5328
    Lawrence, KS 66045 E-Mail: jguthrie@ku.edu
    http://www.business.ku.edu/facultyProfiles-6449H
    *****************************************

    -----Original Message-----
    From: International Management Division Discussion
    [mailto:IMD-L@AOMLISTS.pace.edu] On Behalf Of Will Mitchell
    Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 5:21 PM
    To: IMD-L@AOMLISTS.pace.edu
    Subject: Re: 7/50 Target Journal Validity

    In my view, creating "A" lists is pathological. When schools read vitas
    rather than papers, they have no sense of research quality of their
    faculty members.

    This has several extremely negative consequences: (1) little shared
    understanding of the research of faculty member within a school, (2)
    Type 1 promotion errors that reward people who have published
    incremental research in so-called "A" journals, (3) Type 2 promotion
    errors that penalise people who have published strong exploratory
    research or important field research that does not fit the "A" list .

    I am not aware of studies, but I would love to see studies that tested
    the following hypotheses:

    H1. "The more a school relies on journal lists to manage its promotion
    decisions, the less cohesive its faculty will be" (yes, I realise that
    the direction of causality can work both ways in this prediction)

    H2. "The more a school relies on journal lists to manage its promotion
    decisions, the more trivial research its faculty members will publish"

    H3. "The more a school relies on journal lists to manage its promotion
    decisions, the more likely it will lose faculty members who publish
    research that explores the boundaries of their fields"

    Any guesses about whether a paper that tested these hypotheses, even
    robustly, would find a home in an "A" journal?

    The bottom line for me is that there is no substitute for actually
    reading papers, indeed reading a body of work to understand its
    aggregate contribution.

    will



    Quoting Daniel Martin <dmartin@ALINEAGROUP.COM>:

    > IMD Colleagues,
    >
    > Many business schools facing accreditation have moved towards a
    > specified list of target journals for their faculty to publish in to
    > maintain their AQ status. As our school goes through the process (with
    7 "A" and 50 "B"
    > journals, I have wondered what kind of quantitative evidence supports
    > the practice. From a HR performance management perspective (and as the

    > results of the publications impact tenure/retention, etc.) you would
    > anticipate a validity study of the practice. Many schools have had the

    > practice in effect for years, but I have not found any studies in the
    > literature. If you have any related studies, I would appreciate you
    > passing them on to me, providing the citations or a synopsis of your
    unpublished results.
    >
    > Thank you in advance,
    >
    > Dan
    >
    > Daniel E. Martin, Ph.D.
    > Assistant Professor
    > Department of Management
    > California State University, East Bay
    > (510) 885-2060
    >
    >
    >
    > Vice President
    > Alinea Group
    > SF, CA-Washington, DC
    > (800) 590-8095
    >



    --
    J. Rex Fuqua Professor of International Management Duke University,
    Durham, NC 27708-0120
    Fax: 919.681.6244, Email: Will.Mitchell@duke.edu Home site:
    www.willmitchell.org


  • 6.  7/50 Target Journal Validity

    Posted 04-22-2008 18:48

    Dan & Will,
    The article shown below tested some of the hypotheses listed below (albeit in a limited way).
    Regards,

    --Herman.

    ******************************************

    Herman Aguinis, Ph.D.

    Mehalchin Term Professor of Management

    The Business School, University of Colorado Denver

    http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~haguinis

    Past Editor, Organizational Research Methods

    http://orm.sagepub.com

    ******************************************

     

    Journal of Management, Vol. 26, No. 5, 839-861 (2000)

     

    A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis of Journal Rankings: The Case of Formal Lists

    David D. Van Fleet, Abagail McWilliams, & Donald S. Siegel

     

    Abstract

    This study examines the use of formal rankings of journals by management departments for personnel decision purposes. We posit that the probability of adopting a list of formal rankings is related to a set of characteristics of the department. Few schools have formal lists of journals. Our empirical findings imply that the probability of adopting a list is positively correlated with department size and is inversely correlated with the perceived quality of the department. Considerable variation exists across such lists and across different institutions in the perceptions of the quality of journals. This suggests that, although lists may reduce the level of uncertainty regarding the assessment of research quality by providing explicit targets, lists may also induce faculty members to develop institution-specific human capital. This could reduce faculty mobility and impede career development.

     

     

     

    > -----Original Message-----

    > From: International Management Division Discussion [mailto:IMD-

    > L@AOMLISTS.pace.edu] On Behalf Of Daniel Martin

    > Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 4:30 PM

    > To: IMD-L@AOMLISTS.pace.edu

    > Subject: Re: 7/50 Target Journal Validity

    >

    > Will,

    >

    > Thanks, I couldn't agree with you more, and aim to find the studies that

    > 1)

    > address your hypotheses, and 2) address the criterion validity of the

    > aforementioned lists as performance appraisal criterion.

    >

    > Best,

    >

    > Dan

    >

    > -----Original Message-----

    > From: Will Mitchell [mailto:will.mitchell@duke.edu]

    > Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 3:21 PM

    > To: International Management Division Discussion; Daniel Martin

    > Cc: IMD-L@AOMLISTS.pace.edu; willm@duke.edu

    > Subject: Re: 7/50 Target Journal Validity

    >

    > In my view, creating "A" lists is pathological. When schools read vitas

    > rather

    > than papers, they have no sense of research quality of their faculty

    > members.

    >

    > This has several extremely negative consequences: (1) little shared

    > understanding of the research of faculty member within a school, (2) Type

    > 1

    > promotion errors that reward people who have published incremental

    > research

    > in

    > so-called "A" journals, (3) Type 2 promotion errors that penalise people

    > who

    > have published strong exploratory research or important field research

    > that

    > does not fit the "A" list .

    >

    > I am not aware of studies, but I would love to see studies that tested the

    > following hypotheses:

    >

    > H1. "The more a school relies on journal lists to manage its promotion

    > decisions, the less cohesive its faculty will be" (yes, I realise that the

    > direction of causality can work both ways in this prediction)

    >

    > H2. "The more a school relies on journal lists to manage its promotion

    > decisions, the more trivial research its faculty members will publish"

    >

    > H3. "The more a school relies on journal lists to manage its promotion

    > decisions, the more likely it will lose faculty members who publish

    > research

    > that explores the boundaries of their fields"

    >

    > Any guesses about whether a paper that tested these hypotheses, even

    > robustly,

    > would find a home in an "A" journal?

    >

    > The bottom line for me is that there is no substitute for actually reading

    > papers, indeed reading a body of work to understand its aggregate

    > contribution.

    >

    > will

    >

    >

    >

    > Quoting Daniel Martin <dmartin@ALINEAGROUP.COM>:

    >

    > > IMD Colleagues,

    > >

    > > Many business schools facing accreditation have moved towards a

    > specified

    > > list of target journals for their faculty to publish in to maintain

    > their

    > AQ

    > > status. As our school goes through the process (with 7 "A" and 50 "B"

    > > journals, I have wondered what kind of quantitative evidence supports

    > the

    > > practice. From a HR performance management perspective (and as the

    > results

    > > of the publications impact tenure/retention, etc.) you would anticipate

    > a

    > > validity study of the practice. Many schools have had the practice in

    > effect

    > > for years, but I have not found any studies in the literature. If you

    > have

    > > any related studies, I would appreciate you passing them on to me,

    > providing

    > > the citations or a synopsis of your unpublished results.

    > >

    > > Thank you in advance,

    > >

    > > Dan

    > >

    > > Daniel E. Martin, Ph.D.

    > > Assistant Professor

    > > Department of Management

    > > California State University, East Bay

    > > (510) 885-2060

    > >

    > >

    > >

    > > Vice President

    > > Alinea Group

    > > SF, CA-Washington, DC

    > > (800) 590-8095

    > >

    >

    >

    >

    > --

    > J. Rex Fuqua Professor of International Management

    > Duke University, Durham, NC 27708-0120

    > Fax: 919.681.6244, Email: Will.Mitchell@duke.edu

    > Home site: www.willmitchell.org



  • 7.  7/50 Target Journal Validity

    Posted 04-23-2008 03:15
    Dear Will, and everyone feeling shortchanged by A-lists Journals,

    You might want to explore career opportunities in the Nordic countries
    (Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Norway). There, appointments and promotions are
    based on external evaluator reports, where evaluators are expected to
    actually read the candidates submitted 'best 10' publications. While there
    is a tendency to increasingly consider the status of the journal, this is
    only one of the considerations. The drawback is that it is a lot of work to
    write such a report if there are, say, 10 applicants for a chair (I recently
    had to do one for Helsinki School of Economics...).

    This also provides opportunities to test Will's hypotheses, firstly by
    exploiting national differences as proxies for different regimes, and
    secondly by exploiting variations in practice among institutions - some
    institutions in the Nordic countries (notably Norway) recently adopted
    journal lists, though they are typically much longer than those in use in
    US/UK institutions. A challenge for testing H2 and H3 would however be to
    objectively identify and operationalize 'trivial research questions' and
    'research that explores boundaries of the field'.

    BTW, the concerns regarding journal lists and their implications for
    research actually conducted also exists in Asia, notably Hong Kong and
    Singapore - see
    www.springerlink.com/content/w5517806518v5225/?p=4e726f5cc5dc45e287c7dd9969c
    2dd33&pi=0


    Klaus Meyer
    University Bath, UK & Copenhagen Business School, Denmark


    www.klausmeyer.co.uk
    School of Management, University of Bath
    Bath BA2 7AY, U.K.
    Phone: +44 (0)1225 383695


    -----Original Message-----
    From: International Management Division Discussion
    [mailto:IMD-L@AOMLISTS.pace.edu] On Behalf Of Will Mitchell
    Sent: 22 April 2008 23:21
    To: IMD-L@AOMLISTS.pace.edu
    Subject: Re: 7/50 Target Journal Validity

    In my view, creating "A" lists is pathological. When schools read vitas
    rather than papers, they have no sense of research quality of their faculty
    members.

    This has several extremely negative consequences: (1) little shared
    understanding of the research of faculty member within a school, (2) Type 1
    promotion errors that reward people who have published incremental research
    in so-called "A" journals, (3) Type 2 promotion errors that penalise people
    who have published strong exploratory research or important field research
    that does not fit the "A" list .

    I am not aware of studies, but I would love to see studies that tested the
    following hypotheses:

    H1. "The more a school relies on journal lists to manage its promotion
    decisions, the less cohesive its faculty will be" (yes, I realise that the
    direction of causality can work both ways in this prediction)

    H2. "The more a school relies on journal lists to manage its promotion
    decisions, the more trivial research its faculty members will publish"

    H3. "The more a school relies on journal lists to manage its promotion
    decisions, the more likely it will lose faculty members who publish research
    that explores the boundaries of their fields"

    Any guesses about whether a paper that tested these hypotheses, even
    robustly, would find a home in an "A" journal?

    The bottom line for me is that there is no substitute for actually reading
    papers, indeed reading a body of work to understand its aggregate
    contribution.

    will



    Quoting Daniel Martin <dmartin@ALINEAGROUP.COM>:

    > IMD Colleagues,
    >
    > Many business schools facing accreditation have moved towards a
    > specified list of target journals for their faculty to publish in to
    > maintain their AQ status. As our school goes through the process (with 7
    "A" and 50 "B"
    > journals, I have wondered what kind of quantitative evidence supports
    > the practice. From a HR performance management perspective (and as the
    > results of the publications impact tenure/retention, etc.) you would
    > anticipate a validity study of the practice. Many schools have had the
    > practice in effect for years, but I have not found any studies in the
    > literature. If you have any related studies, I would appreciate you
    > passing them on to me, providing the citations or a synopsis of your
    unpublished results.
    >
    > Thank you in advance,
    >
    > Dan
    >
    > Daniel E. Martin, Ph.D.
    > Assistant Professor
    > Department of Management
    > California State University, East Bay
    > (510) 885-2060
    >
    >
    >
    > Vice President
    > Alinea Group
    > SF, CA-Washington, DC
    > (800) 590-8095
    >



    --
    J. Rex Fuqua Professor of International Management Duke University, Durham,
    NC 27708-0120
    Fax: 919.681.6244, Email: Will.Mitchell@duke.edu Home site:
    www.willmitchell.org


  • 8.  7/50 Target Journal Validity

    Posted 04-23-2008 08:56
    Well said, Will. We need more senior colleagues like yourself who are willing to speak up about this issue. Increasingly, we are seeing schools pay little attention to what their faculty do in research, as long as they publish in the so called "A" journals, or those that appear on some lists that rank business schools. This climate has turned many faculty members, particularly those at junior ranks, into "publishers" and not "researchers." We need to reverse this trend before it ruins our profession to the point of no-return.

    Joe Cheng
    University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign



    ---- Original message ----
    >Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 18:21:16 -0400
    >From: Will Mitchell <will.mitchell@DUKE.EDU>
    >Subject: Re: 7/50 Target Journal Validity
    >To: IMD-L@AOMLISTS.pace.edu
    >
    >In my view, creating "A" lists is pathological. When schools read vitas rather
    >than papers, they have no sense of research quality of their faculty members.
    >
    >This has several extremely negative consequences: (1) little shared
    >understanding of the research of faculty member within a school, (2) Type 1
    >promotion errors that reward people who have published incremental research in
    >so-called "A" journals, (3) Type 2 promotion errors that penalise people who
    >have published strong exploratory research or important field research that
    >does not fit the "A" list .
    >
    >I am not aware of studies, but I would love to see studies that tested the
    >following hypotheses:
    >
    >H1. "The more a school relies on journal lists to manage its promotion
    >decisions, the less cohesive its faculty will be" (yes, I realise that the
    >direction of causality can work both ways in this prediction)
    >
    >H2. "The more a school relies on journal lists to manage its promotion
    >decisions, the more trivial research its faculty members will publish"
    >
    >H3. "The more a school relies on journal lists to manage its promotion
    >decisions, the more likely it will lose faculty members who publish research
    >that explores the boundaries of their fields"
    >
    >Any guesses about whether a paper that tested these hypotheses, even robustly,
    >would find a home in an "A" journal?
    >
    >The bottom line for me is that there is no substitute for actually reading
    >papers, indeed reading a body of work to understand its aggregate
    >contribution.
    >
    >will
    >
    >
    >
    >Quoting Daniel Martin <dmartin@ALINEAGROUP.COM>:
    >
    >> IMD Colleagues,
    >>
    >> Many business schools facing accreditation have moved towards a specified
    >> list of target journals for their faculty to publish in to maintain their AQ
    >> status. As our school goes through the process (with 7 "A" and 50 "B"
    >> journals, I have wondered what kind of quantitative evidence supports the
    >> practice. From a HR performance management perspective (and as the results
    >> of the publications impact tenure/retention, etc.) you would anticipate a
    >> validity study of the practice. Many schools have had the practice in effect
    >> for years, but I have not found any studies in the literature. If you have
    >> any related studies, I would appreciate you passing them on to me, providing
    >> the citations or a synopsis of your unpublished results.
    >>
    >> Thank you in advance,
    >>
    >> Dan
    >>
    >> Daniel E. Martin, Ph.D.
    >> Assistant Professor
    >> Department of Management
    >> California State University, East Bay
    >> (510) 885-2060
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Vice President
    >> Alinea Group
    >> SF, CA-Washington, DC
    >> (800) 590-8095
    >>
    >
    >
    >
    >--
    >J. Rex Fuqua Professor of International Management
    >Duke University, Durham, NC 27708-0120
    >Fax: 919.681.6244, Email: Will.Mitchell@duke.edu
    >Home site: www.willmitchell.org


  • 9.  7/50 Target Journal Validity

    Posted 04-25-2008 17:05
    Phil,

    Thanks. I realize there are quite a few metrics for use as an objective
    measure (try Hartzig's Publish or Perish software for more than a few). The
    question is whether or not any list (be it made of objectively assessed
    journals or not) is a useful method of driving faculty quality and
    productivity. I have found no studies that address this issue.

    Best,

    Dan

    -----Original Message-----
    From: International Management Division Discussion
    [mailto:IMD-L@AOMLISTS.pace.edu] On Behalf Of Paul Spector (PSY)
    Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 3:46 PM
    To: IMD-L@AOMLISTS.pace.edu
    Subject: Re: 7/50 Target Journal Validity

    Dan:

    One can always look at the ISI Thomson journal impact for an
    objective indicator. One issue is how broad-narrow the lists are. Some
    schools only count a very few number of journals as A, which is a mistake
    since journals tend to specialize in particular
    approaches/methods/questions. If your work is very methodologically
    rigorous, but not very theoretical, you won't be in AMJ, even if that work
    wins the Nobel Prize, for example.

    Paul E. Spector
    Department of Psychology
    University of South Florida
    Tampa, FL 33620
    (813) 974-0357 Voice
    (813) 974-4617 Fax
    spector@shell.cas.usf.edu
    website http://shell.cas.usf.edu/~spector

    On Tue, 22 Apr 2008, Daniel Martin wrote:

    > IMD Colleagues,
    >
    > Many business schools facing accreditation have moved towards a specified
    > list of target journals for their faculty to publish in to maintain their
    AQ
    > status. As our school goes through the process (with 7 "A" and 50 "B"
    > journals, I have wondered what kind of quantitative evidence supports the
    > practice. From a HR performance management perspective (and as the results
    > of the publications impact tenure/retention, etc.) you would anticipate a
    > validity study of the practice. Many schools have had the practice in
    effect
    > for years, but I have not found any studies in the literature. If you have
    > any related studies, I would appreciate you passing them on to me,
    providing
    > the citations or a synopsis of your unpublished results.
    >
    > Thank you in advance,
    >
    > Dan
    >
    > Daniel E. Martin, Ph.D.
    > Assistant Professor
    > Department of Management
    > California State University, East Bay
    > (510) 885-2060
    >
    >
    >
    > Vice President
    > Alinea Group
    > SF, CA-Washington, DC
    > (800) 590-8095
    >


  • 10.  7/50 Target Journal Validity

    Posted 04-25-2008 19:13
    Intriguing result. We can speculate about all sorts of underlying causality, of course. I suspect that part of the reason is that senior faculty at the schools are less confident about their own ability to assess the quality of research of their colleagues. If so, then the challenge in such cases is to find ways to develop credible confidence.

    Thanks, Jim (and Herman Aguinis in a parallel note) for posting this.

    will

    Guthrie, James P wrote:
    1E3ABD54B1C7AC4692BDD6D7C880533D0635B232@MAILBOXTHREE.home.ku.edu" type="cite">
    An article somewhat germane to Will Mitchell's point is Van Fleet, D.D., McWilliams, A. & Siegel, D.S. 2000. "A theoretical and empirical analysis of journal rankings:  The case of formal lists", Journal of Management, 26: 839-861.  A quote from this article gives a sense of their findings:  "We also find that the quality of a department is inversely related to the probability of adopting a list, which is consistent with our expectations. It seems that lower quality schools may have a stronger need to make research standards explicit" (p 851).  Regards, JimG.   ***************************************** James P. Guthrie, Ph.D. William & Judy Docking Professor of Business School of Business            PH: 785-864-7546 University of Kansas      FAX: 785-864-5328 Lawrence, KS  66045     E-Mail: jguthrie@ku.edu http://www.business.ku.edu/facultyProfiles-6449H *****************************************  -----Original Message----- From: International Management Division Discussion [mailto:IMD-L@AOMLISTS.pace.edu] On Behalf Of Will Mitchell Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 5:21 PM To: IMD-L@AOMLISTS.pace.edu Subject: Re: 7/50 Target Journal Validity  In my view, creating "A" lists is pathological. When schools read vitas rather than papers, they have no sense of research quality of their faculty members.  This has several extremely negative consequences: (1) little shared understanding of the research of faculty member within a school, (2) Type 1 promotion errors that reward people who have published incremental research in so-called "A" journals, (3) Type 2 promotion errors that penalise people who have published strong exploratory research or important field research that does not fit the "A" list .  I am not aware of studies, but I would love to see studies that tested the following hypotheses:  H1. "The more a school relies on journal lists to manage its promotion decisions, the less cohesive its faculty will be" (yes, I realise that the direction of causality can work both ways in this prediction)  H2. "The more a school relies on journal lists to manage its promotion decisions, the more trivial research its faculty members will publish"  H3. "The more a school relies on journal lists to manage its promotion decisions, the more likely it will lose faculty members who publish research that explores the boundaries of their fields"  Any guesses about whether a paper that tested these hypotheses, even robustly, would find a home in an "A" journal?  The bottom line for me is that there is no substitute for actually reading papers, indeed reading a body of work to understand its aggregate contribution.  will    Quoting Daniel Martin <dmartin@ALINEAGROUP.COM>:    
    IMD Colleagues,  Many business schools facing accreditation have moved towards a  specified list of target journals for their faculty to publish in to  maintain their AQ status. As our school goes through the process (with     
     7 "A" and 50 "B"   
    journals, I have wondered what kind of quantitative evidence supports  the practice. From a HR performance management perspective (and as the     
        
    results of the publications impact tenure/retention, etc.) you would  anticipate a validity study of the practice. Many schools have had the     
        
    practice in effect for years, but I have not found any studies in the  literature. If you have any related studies, I would appreciate you  passing them on to me, providing the citations or a synopsis of your     
     unpublished results.   
    Thank you in advance,  Dan  Daniel E. Martin, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Management California State University, East Bay (510) 885-2060    Vice President Alinea Group SF, CA-Washington, DC (800) 590-8095      
        -- J. Rex Fuqua Professor of International Management Duke University, Durham, NC 27708-0120 Fax: 919.681.6244, Email: Will.Mitchell@duke.edu Home site: www.willmitchell.org