Journal of Marketing Education
http://jmd.sagepub.com
A Comprehensive Analysis of Marketing Journal Rankings
Michelle D. Steward and Bruce R. Lewis
Journal of Marketing Education 2010; 32; 75 originally published online Sep 21, 2009;
DOI: 10.1177/0273475309344804
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://jmd.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/32/1/75
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Marketing Educators Association
Additional services and information for Journal of Marketing Education can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://jmd.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://jmd.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations http://jmd.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/32/1/75
Downloaded from http://jmd.sagepub.com at WAKE FOREST UNIV on March 23, 2010
A Comprehensive Analysis of Marketing
Journal Rankings
Journal of Marketing Education
Volume 32 Number 1
April 2010 75-92
© 2010 Sage Publications
10.1177/0273475309344804
http://jmd.sagepub.com
hosted at
http://online.sagepub.com
Michelle D. Steward
Bruce R. Lewis
Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, North Carolina
The purpose of this study is to offer a comprehensive assessment of journal standings in Marketing from two perspectives. The
discipline perspective of rankings is obtained from a collection of published journal ranking studies during the past 15 years.
The studies in the published ranking stream are assessed for reliability by examining internal correlations within the set. Aggregate
rankings are presented from the published ranking stream, as well as from the two predominant ranking approaches used in these
studies (opinion surveys and citation analyses). A new data source for journal rankings is introduced—the actual in-house target
journal lists used by a sample of Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB)-accredited schools to evaluate
faculty research, representing an institutional perspective. The aggregate journal rankings from these lists are presented, as well
as the rankings in two subsegments of the sample (US/non-US and doctoral/nondoctoral). The publications from the discipline
perspective are compared to data from the in-house target journal lists actually used by AACSB-accredited schools. A full set of
rankings across both data sets (school lists and the published article stream) is presented and differences are discussed.
Keywords: journal rankings; journal perceptions; AACSB-accredited schools; discipline; institutional perspective
A
cross-discipline tenure and promotion committee
reviews the publication records of assistant professors.
A senior faculty member competes with colleagues for a
university-wide scholarship award. A university compares
its research productivity with peer institutions. Each of
these scenarios invariably involves judgments concerning
scholarly output.
At universities where the expectation is for research to
be published only in the top four or five journals, the quality is assumed and journal rankings are not necessarily
needed. On the other hand, more than 250 journals are
listed by Cabell’s Directory of Publishing Opportunities in
Marketing. For publications in journals outside of those
commonly accepted as the premier outlets, evaluation of
the quality of this faculty scholarship must still be made
using some source, whether personal judgment, peer school
comparison, published journal assessments, etc.
In these appraisals, journal standing is frequently used as a
surrogate for the quality of a scholar’s work because of the
challenges of evaluating research outside of one’s area of
specialization (McAlister, 2005; Swanson, 2004). As such,
assessments of journal stature should be supported by data,
preferably from multiple sources (Lewis, 2008). The purpose
of this study is to provide a basis for these data, derived from
a comprehensive analysis of journal rankings in Marketing.
This aim is addressed from two primary viewpoints, the
discipline view and the institutional view. The discipline view
is drawn from published studies of journal rankings. The
institutional view refers to the perspective captured from
school target journal lists that depict how journal stature is
actually applied in universities for decision making.
Earlier studies provided the groundwork for this research.
For example, Hawes and Keillor (2002) present the individual, nonaggregated rankings of studies from 1980 to
2001 and offer a narrative description of the different
methods used to rank journals. Polonsky and Whitelaw
(2006) focus on four ranking studies and find that journals
outside of the top four do not consistently receive the same
ranking across the different studies. Furthermore, the
perspectives of journal ranking criteria used by faculty
members and the criteria that faculty members perceive
their institutions use have been found to differ (Polonsky &
Whitelaw, 2006), suggesting that differences could emerge
in the actual rankings of journals. To date, the vast majority
of published ranking studies in Marketing have relied on
data collected from either the opinions of individuals in
the field or citation analyses of the discipline’s journals.
In addition to using the findings from these published
articles, this study introduces a new data source, in-house
journal lists used for evaluating faculty research from a
sample of Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of
Business (AACSB)-accredited schools.
Downloaded from http://jmd.sagepub.com at WAKE FOREST UNIV on March 23, 2010
75
76 Journal of Marketing Education
No collective assessment of published Marketing journal
ranking studies has been made to date, nor have evaluations
of Marketing journals been based on how journal stature is
actually applied in university decisions. By doing so, generalizable results can be offered from the analysis of the
aggregate and directions for future research offered. In analyzing these sources, this study offers a “one-stop shopping” approach to Marketing journal appraisal in that a
variety of rankings are presented within a single study
determined from different bases.
In the following sections, Marketing journal rankings from
both the discipline and institutional views are presented. First,
the results from published Marketing journal ranking articles
from the past 15 years are assessed for reliability, and aggregate rankings from these studies are reported. In addition to
overall rankings, rankings within both main methods used in
this stream (opinion studies and citation analyses) are presented. Next, the rankings derived by aggregating data from
the target journal lists from a sample of AACSB-accredited
universities, including overall rankings and rankings within
key demographic categories of the schools, are presented. A
comparison of these two viewpoints is then offered. In the
conclusion, the relevancy and implications of the findings are
discussed, in addition to the limitations of the study and future
directions for research on journal rankings.
Discipline View
The discipline view of journal ratings provides a perspective on how journal quality is addressed in the literature of a field. The importance of journals lies in their
influence on the visibility and prestige afforded all discipline stakeholders (Lewis, Templeton, & Luo, 2007).
Consequently, the identity of a discipline is largely established by journals that publish in the field (Lowry, Romans,
& Curtis, 2004). Studies that rank journals are an empirical
means to determine the relative value of publications in the
field and the Marketing literature is replete with these
efforts. However, no single study has provided a collective
outlook at this stream of research.
Sample—Published Journal Ranking Studies
In total, there were 13 articles that reported rankings of
Marketing journals published over the past 15 years (see
Table 1). This set of studies is robust in the diversity of both
method and source used to create the rankings. Seven of
these studies reported journal rankings from opinion surveys, four based their analysis on citation data, and two
used other sources—library holdings and data from the
Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) in the United
Kingdom. The current study employed the rankings and
measures from these 13 studies shown in Table 1.
Analysis—Metric From the Published Stream
To assess the psychometric soundness of this stream of
published Marketing ranking studies, a reliability analysis
was conducted. In general, reliability is concerned with the
dependability, or consistency, of a measure over successive
trials and in different contexts (Cronbach, 1951). Reliability
can be evaluated by various methods. Each approach at
some level correlates scores from one source with scores
from another source. High correlations illustrate a degree of
consistency across the sources, systematic variance, and
thus a degree of reliability (for a discussion of reliability,
see Peter, 1979).
The analysis in this study examined the dependability of
the collection of measures from Marketing journal ranking
studies published during the past 15 years by appraising
how consistent they were in relation to each other. To perform this reliability assessment the ratings of all possible
pairings of the 13 studies listed in Table 1 were correlated.
Because of the ordinal nature of much of the data and the
small number of journals in common between some of the
studies, the nonparametric Spearman’s rho correlation coefficient was used. The results of this reliability appraisal are
reported in Table 2.
Of the 78 Spearman correlation coefficients shown in
Table 2, 63 are statistically significant at the .05 level, with
the vast majority of these significant beyond the .01 level.
The magnitude of the statistically significant correlation
coefficients ranged from .366 to .972, and in more than
three-fifths of these parings greater than 50% of the variance in the relationship was explained. The 12 correlations
from the Easton and Easton (2003) study, which used data
from the U.K. research assessment exercise, were not statistically significant. In addition, although all but one of the
reliability correlations for the Polonsky, Jones, and Kearsley
(1999) study, which was based on Australian library holdings, were statistically significant at the .05 level, the magnitudes of most of these coefficients depicted only moderate
correlation at best. Thus the results from these two studies
do not exhibit adequate reliability. However, the other studies, based on opinion surveys and citations, exhibited
strong consistency, both within the study type (opinion or
citation) and between the two different types. The predominantly strong correlations for these studies provide
confirmation that the studies based on citation and opinion
data in the Marketing journal ranking stream exhibit acceptable reliability.
Because the ratings based on opinion surveys and citation data in the published stream were deemed to be reliable, these were the only rankings used to derive the journal
standing metric for the set of published studies. The rankings from the opinion and citation articles were combined
by producing a weighted average across the study rankings
and then ranking these weighted composites.
Downloaded from http://jmd.sagepub.com at WAKE FOREST UNIV on March 23, 2010
Steward and Lewis / Analysis of Marketing Journal Rankings 77 Table 1
Studies in the Published Marketing Journal Ranking Stream Included in This Research
Published study
Heischmidt & Gordon (1993)
Polonsky & Waller (1993)
Hult, Neese, & Bashaw (1997)
Koojaroenprasit, Weinstein,
Johnson, & Remington (1998)
Polonsky, Jones, & Kearsley (1999)
Zinkhan & Leigh (1999)
Theoharakis & Hirst (2002)
Baumgartner & Pieters (2003)
Easton & Easton (2003)
Guidry, Guidry Hollier,
Johnson, Tanner, & Veltsos (2004)
Mort, McColl-Kennedy,
Kiel, & Soutar (2004)
Bauerly & Johnson (2005)
Polonsky & Whitelaw (2006)
Method used in the published study
Perception ratings (relative to JMR on a
100-point scale) from Marketing department heads
Perception ratings (on dichotomous
scales on three criteria) from Asia-Pacific academics
Perception ranking from faculty members,
listed their top 10 journals
Perception ratings (on a 5-point scale) from
AACSB Marketing chairpersons
Library holdings in Australian universities
Citation index (SSCI current impact score)
from 1993 to 1997
Perception ratings (top two tiers listed
by respondents) from Marketing faculty
Citation index (influence index based
on citings) from 1996 to 1997
Cumulative sum difference score (implied journal quality)
from the 2001 U.K. Research Assessment Exercise (RAE)
Citation index (number of citings) in a set of
six Marketing journals from 1997 to 2001
Perception ratings (on a 5-point scale) from
Marketing school heads in Australia & New Zealand
Citation index (number of citings) from
Marketing doctoral program seminar syllabi
Perception ratings (on 7-point scales on four criteria)
from an online survey of U.S. and Canadian academics
These composite scores actually represented a doubleweighted calculation. First, the rank for a given journal in
a study was divided by the number of journals in the basket
for that study. Then the mean of these basket-size-adjusted
ranks for that journal was computed across studies and
divided by the number of studies in which the journal
appeared. This final double-weighted average was the
determinant of the journal’s overall rank; the smaller the
double-weighted average, the higher was the final rank.
The underlying premise of this double weighting was, first,
to take into account the journal basket sizes of the studies
(i.e., a journal that ranked number 10 in a study of 250
journals should get a better ranking than a journal that
ranked 10 in a study of 20 journals). Second, this approach
factored in the number of times a journal showed up in the
studies in the stream (i.e., a journal that was included in 12
studies presumably has more visibility and impact than one
that was present in only 2 studies). The double weighting
approach accommodated this reasoning, thus justifying its
use for the final rankings to represent the discipline view.
Data used in the current study
Table 1—mean rating
(reported on 47 journals)
Table 6—overall rank
(reported on 18 journals)
Table 2—rank
(reported on 41 journals)
Table 1—mean rating
(reported on 20 journals)
Appendix—percentage of libraries
holding the Journal
(reported on 84 journals)
Table 2—mean impact score
(reported on 11 journals)
Table 1—worldwide score
(reported on 40 journals)
Table 3—share percentage
(reported on 49 journals)
Table 5—cumulative sum index
(reported on 53 Journals)
Table 5—number of times cited
(reported on 27 journals)
Table 1—mean rating
(reported on 73 journals)
Table 6—number of citations
(reported on 57 journals
with at least 10 citations)
Table 2 and appendix—weighted score
(reported on 64 journals)
Results—Published Stream Aggregate Rankings
The individual rankings from studies that used opinion
studies and those that used citation analysis are presented in
Table 3. The rankings for the top 50 journals in Marketing
from these studies, derived from the double weighting
approach, are reported in Table 4.
A hypothetical scenario illustrates the results of applying
the rankings across the citation and opinion study rankings.
Consider “Professor X,” a faculty member applying for a
university research award that is offered every 2 years at his
or her school. The decision for the award is largely based on
the quality of the scholarship, which in part is determined
from the journal rankings provided by the candidate.
Professor X has five papers that have been published in
journals over the past 2 years. This productivity is the result
of a dry spell in years past in which several papers were
rejected and then reworked, resubmitted, and now accepted.
Professor X’s five articles appear in Journal of Business
Research, Journal of International Marketing, Journal of
(text continues on page 9)
Downloaded from http://jmd.sagepub.com at WAKE FOREST UNIV on March 23, 2010
78
Downloaded from http://jmd.sagepub.com at WAKE FOREST UNIV on March 23, 2010
Polonsky &
Waller (1993)
Hult
et al. (1997)
Koojaroenprasit
et al. (1998)
Polonsky
et al. (1999)
Zinkhan &
Leigh (1999)
Theoharakis &
Hirst (2002)
Baumgartner &
Pieters (2003)
Mort
et al. (2004)
Guidry
et al. (2004)
Bauerly &
Johnson (2005)
Polonsky &
Whitelaw
(2006)
Easton &
Easton (2003)
Study
.551 (11), .039
.775 (7), .020
.579 (13), .019
.714 (6), .055
.627 (12), .015
.819 (12), .001
.579 (10), .040
.663 (10), .018
.567 (9), .058
.636 (9), .033
1.00 (2), .500
.834 (24), .001
.947 (15), .001
.686 (34),.001
.800 (9), .005
.820 (21), .001
.756 (26), .001
.777 (24), .001
.885 (17), .001
.761 (15), .001
.856 (20), .001
.410 (5), .246
.802 (11), .001
Heischmidt & Polonsky &
Gordon (1993) Waller (1993)
.336 (9), .188
.804 (26), .001
.701 (23), .001
.685 (20), .001
.776 (29), .001
.804 (40), .001
.559 (31), .001
.612 (10), .030
.541 (41), .001
.948 (15), .001
Hult, et al.
(1997)
.500 (3), .333
.906 (17), .001
.875 (10), .001
.972 (14), .001
.961 18), .001
.945 (16), .001
.959 (13), .001
.879 (10), .001
.523 (17), .016
.042 (9), .457
.560 (36), .001
.367 (25), .035
.366 (23), .043
.539 (40), .001
.659 (44), .001
.366 (35), .015
.255 (11), .224
Koojaroenprasit
Polonsky,
et al. (1998)
et al. (1999)
1.00 (3), .400
.933 (9), .001
.893 (7), .003
.800 (11), .002
.874 (9), .001
.671 (11), .012
.648 (10), .021
Zinkhan &
Leigh (1999)
.252 (8), .274
.803 (24), .001
.750 (24), .001
.928 (22), .001
.876 (26), .001
.727 (32), .001
.328 (9), .195
.743 (26), .001
.761 (23), .001
.765 (21), .001
.872 (29), .001
Theoharakis & Baumgartner &
Hirst (2002) Pieters (2003)
Spearman correlation coefficient (number of journals), p value
.563 (8), .073
.703 (49), .001
.874 (15), .001
.904 (22), .001
Mort et al.
(2004)
Table 2
Reliability Analysis: Correlations Between Published Study Journal Rankings
.564 (5), .161
.887 (20), .001
.852 (13), .001
Guidry et al.
(2004)
.400 (5), .252
.705 (14), .002
Bauerly &
Johnson
(2005)
.036 (7), .470
Polonsky &
Whitelaw
(2006)
Downloaded from http://jmd.sagepub.com at WAKE FOREST UNIV on March 23, 2010
79 International Journal of Market Research
International Journal of Research in Marketing
International Journal of Retail and Distribution
Management
International Journal of Retailing
International Marketing Review
Journal of Advertising
Journal of Advertising Research
Journal of Applied Business Research
Journal of Applied Psychology
Journal of Brand Management
Journal of Business
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Journal of Business Ethics
American Sociological Review
Australasian Marketing Journal
Business Horizons
California Management Review
Consumption, Markets & Culture
Decision Sciences
Direct Marketing: An International Journal
Educational and Psychological Measurement
European Journal of Marketing
Harvard Business Review
Industrial Marketing Management
International Journal of Advertising
International Journal of Bank Marketing
Academy of Management Journal
Academy of Management Review
Academy of Marketing Science Review
Administrative Science Quarterly
Advances in Consumer Research
Advances in International Marketing
American Journal of Sociology
American Marketing Association Proceedings
Journal
Heischmidt &
Gordon (1993),
opinion study
16
5
29
10
7
13
8
25
17
14
5
3
Polonsky &
Waller (1993),
opinion study
22
27
4
23
31
35
26
37
Hult
et al. (1997),
opinion study
Koojaroenprasit
et al. (1998),
opinion study
18
35
38
9
10
26
30
7
20
10
19
8
7
7
9
20
40
15
13
6
14
7
21
38
26
33
12
Zinkhan &
Leigh (1999),
citation study
33
22
17
Theoharakis &
Hirst (2002),
opinion study
23
22
28
13
Baumgartner &
Pieters (2003),
citation study
26
39
23
15
11
22
17
4
9
37
36
20
19
27
6
Guidry
et al. (2004),
citation study
24
12
10
9
17
18
Mort
et al. (2004),
opinion study
45
34
23
9
13
38
28
8
16
28
54
11
72
34
21
18
40
33
15
10
43
54
43
43
36
29
17
22
25
14
Bauerly &
Johnson (2005),
citation study
Ranks From Studies in the Published Marketing Journal Ranking Stream Since 1993 (in Journal Name Order)
Table 3
(continued)
24
53
46
25
8
10
62
31
12
13
34
61
16
54
39
57
18
59
20
Polonsky &
Whitelaw
(2006),
opinion study
80
Downloaded from http://jmd.sagepub.com at WAKE FOREST UNIV on March 23, 2010
Journal of Business Logistics
Journal of Business Research
Journal of Business Strategy
Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing
Journal of Consumer Affairs
Journal of Consumer Behaviour
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Journal of Consumer Psychology
Journal of Consumer Research
Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction &
Complaining Behavior
Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising
Journal of Database Marketing & Customer Strategy
Management
Journal of Euromarketing
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory
and Cognition
Journal of Global Marketing
Journal of Health Care Marketing
Journal of Interactive Marketing
Journal of International Business Studies
Journal of International Consumer Marketing
Journal of International Marketing
Journal of Macromarketing
Journal of Market-Focused Management
Journal of Marketing
Journal of Marketing Channels
Journal of Marketing Communications
Journal of Marketing Education
Journal of Marketing Education Review
Journal of Marketing Management
Journal of Marketing Management
Journal of Marketing Research
Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice
Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing
Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Journal of Product and Brand Management
Journal of Product Innovation Management
Journal of Professional Services Marketing
Journal of Public Policy & Marketing
Journal of Retailing
Journal
Heischmidt &
Gordon (1993),
opinion study
Polonsky &
Waller (1993),
opinion study
33
14
6
9
14
4
35
12
2
28
1
21
31
24
2
15
19
9
5
11
3
16
2
1
2
6
8
4
3
27
8
19
32
16
1
29
39
2
30
23
16
41
21
9
2
48
49
18
34
24
1
42
13
24
31
35
40
3
16
6
11
15
1
26
2
20
25
13
3
27
47
30
19
1
2
36
10
3
7
Guidry et al.
(2004),
citation study
44
12
45
33
13
1
18
11
Theoharakis &
Hirst (2002),
opinion study
12
Baumgartner &
Pieters (2003),
citation study
37
31
20
27
3
17
10
1
4
Hult et al.
1997),
opinion study
40
8
Koojaroenprasit
et al. (1998),
opinion study
15
16
3
18
11
12
Zinkhan &
Leigh (1999),
citation study
Table 3 (continued)
Mort et al.
(2004),
opinion study
45
13
4
34
3
42
58
28
16
36
20
7
3
1
32
13
(continued)
49
7
5
28
58
22
36
55
1
44
33
17
31
46
35
2
30
52
11
50
42
45
50
54
45
45
7
58
23
19
28
2
38
42
28
37
67
40
48
19
9
3
38
26
54
25
2
53
27
Bauerly &
Johnson (2005),
citation study
54
23
38
21
1
50
11
Polonsky &
Whitelaw
(2006),
opinion study
Downloaded from http://jmd.sagepub.com at WAKE FOREST UNIV on March 23, 2010
81 Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services
Journal of Service Research
Journal of Services Marketing
Journal of Services Research
Journal of Small Business Management
Journal of Strategic Marketing
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science
Journal of the Market Research Society
Management Science
Marketing Education Review
Marketing Letters
Marketing Management
Marketing News
Marketing Research: A Magazine of Management and
Applications
Marketing Science
Marketing Theory
Multivariate Behavioral Research
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
Psychological Bulletin
Psychological Methods
Psychological Science
Psychology & Marketing
Psychometrika
Public Opinion Quarterly
Sloan Management Review
Strategic Management Journal
Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary
Journal
Journal
Heischmidt &
Gordon (1993),
opinion study
7
12
48
5
10
13
Polonsky &
Waller (1993),
opinion study
9
20
Hult et al.
(1997),
opinion study
17
16
6
11
40
34
38
5
25
Koojaroenprasit
et al. (1998),
opinion study
4
20
5
14
5
Zinkhan &
Leigh (1999),
citation study
Table 3 (continued)
Theoharakis &
Hirst (2002),
opinion study
18
23
25
4
11
9
35
5
34
37
Baumgartner &
Pieters (2003),
citation study
14
29
7
8
38
5
46
25
28
31
Guidry et al.
(2004),
citation study
14
4
21
8
5
23
Mort et al.
(2004),
opinion study
16
4
27
58
64
10
45
65
19
4
28
13
34
Bauerly &
Johnson (2005),
citation study
18
47
36
40
9
54
47
8
47
40
4
23
6
5
24
35
15
4
26
14
41
6
23
21
43
Polonsky &
Whitelaw
(2006),
opinion study
82 Journal of Marketing Education
Table 4
Summary of the Published Marketing Journal Ranking Stream: Weighted Composite Ranks
for the Top 50 Journals (in Rank Order)
Both opinion and
citation studies
Journal
Journal of Marketing
Journal of Marketing Research
Journal of Consumer Research
Marketing Science
Journal of Retailing
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science
Harvard Business Review
Journal of Advertising Research
Management Science
Journal of Advertising
Journal of Business Research
International Journal of Research in Marketing
Journal of Public Policy & Marketing
Psychological Bulletin
Advances in Consumer Research
Marketing Letters
Industrial Marketing Management
European Journal of Marketing
Journal of International Business Studies
Sloan Management Review
Journal of Consumer Psychology
Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management
Academy of Management Review
Journal of Business
Psychology & Marketing
Journal of Services Marketing
Journal of Macromarketing
Administrative Science Quarterly
Journal of Marketing Education
Journal of Product Innovation Management
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Journal of Marketing Management
Business Horizons
Journal of Services Research
Journal of International Marketing
Academy of Management Journal
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
International Marketing Review
Strategic Management Journal
American Marketing Association Proceedings
Decision Sciences
California Management Review
International Journal of Advertising
Journal of Health Care Marketing
American Journal of Sociology
Public Opinion Quarterly
Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice
Journal of Business Ethics
Opinion studies only
Rank
% of studies in
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
47
49
50
100.00
100.00
100.00
90.91
100.00
90.91
54.55
100.00
36.36
90.91
63.64
81.82
90.91
9.09
45.45
63.64
81.82
72.73
45.45
45.45
63.64
72.73
9.09
45.45
54.55
72.73
45.45
9.09
54.55
45.45
72.73
9.09
18.18
54.55
45.45
18.18
45.45
9.09
54.55
45.45
18.18
36.36
36.36
27.27
36.36
36.36
9.09
9.09
36.36
27.27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
18
9
11
10
13
21
17
14
12
28
20
15
16
25
19
29
27
22
50
23
65
24
36
51
26
30
31
78
69
56
39
32
34
33
55
Downloaded from http://jmd.sagepub.com at WAKE FOREST UNIV on March 23, 2010
% of studies in
100.00
100.00
100.00
85.71
100.00
100.00
57.14
100.00
28.57
100.00
57.14
85.71
85.71
0.00
42.86
57.14
85.71
85.71
42.86
42.86
57.14
85.71
0.00
42.86
57.14
71.43
57.14
0.00
71.43
28.57
85.71
0.00
14.29
71.43
42.86
14.29
57.14
0.00
71.43
57.14
14.29
28.57
28.57
28.57
57.14
42.86
0.00
0.00
42.86
28.57
Citation studies only
Rank
1
2
3
5
11
10
6
14
7
24
16
20
19
8
12
22
26
48
18
25
33
46
13
32
50
39
27
15
54
21
52
17
4
58
31
28
65
23
63
67
9
36
47
51
57
29
29
72
53
% of studies in
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
75.00
50.00
100.00
50.00
75.00
75.00
75.00
100.00
25.00
50.00
75.00
75.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
75.00
50.00
25.00
50.00
50.00
75.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
75.00
50.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
50.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
50.00
50.00
25.00
0.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
Steward and Lewis / Analysis of Marketing Journal Rankings 83 Table 5
Hypothetical Scenario of Professor X From the Discipline View:
Ranks Based on Published Marketing Journal Studies
Journal
Aggregate rank
11
37
49
70
16
36.6
Journal of Business Research
Journal of International Marketing
Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Marketing Letters
Average Ranking
Marketing Theory and Practice, Journal of Product &
Brand Management, and Marketing Letters. Table 5 illustrates the rankings of the portfolio based on aggregated data
from the published journal articles. In addition, Table 5
presents the rankings based on opinion studies and those
from the citation rankings for the hypothetical portfolio.
The average ranking of Professor X’s portfolio across segments of the published journal article ranking stream differs
substantially. The average rank for the hypothetical portfolio from the opinion study rankings is 11 positions higher
than the aggregate and nearly 20 positions better than using
citation rankings alone. This is not particularly surprising
because the sources of data for opinion-based and citationbased rankings are very different. However, it should be
noted that there are a number of criticisms of citation
analyses that provide perspective on the use of this source
for journal rankings (see Leydesdorff, 2008; Mingers,
2005; Nisonger, 2004).
Institutional View
Target journal lists used for faculty evaluation at AACSBaccredited schools are the new data source introduced in this
study to analyze the institutional view. The institutional view
of journal ratings presents how journal quality is actually
judged and used in universities. These journal assessments are
regularly an integral part of some of the most important decisions made in academia. Van Fleet, McWilliams, and Siegal
(2000, p. 340) note that “a list provides an explicit measure of
how a department values research outlets.” As such, basing
rankings on data from institutional lists reflects the state of
journal standing used in academic practice.
Sample—AACSB-Accredited Schools
Target journal lists that are formally used at universities
holding AACSB accreditation were collected via an e-mail
Opinion rank
11
26
33
42
17
25.8
Citation rank
16
65
72
–
22
43.75
Best ranking
11
26
33
42
16
25.6
survey. Each AACSB-accredited institution was asked to
submit the official journal list used for evaluating faculty
publications at their school, if such a list was used. The
initial call was sent in November 2006, with two follow-up
requests, in December 2006 and January 2007.
At the time of the third call for responses to the survey,
545 institutions held AACSB accreditation; 206 (38%) of
these responded to the request. The demographics of the
responding schools are reported in Table 6. The majority of
the schools are located in the United States. These sample
demographics were compared to those of the population of
all AACSB-accredited schools to determine the representativeness of the sample (see Table 6). One-sample chi-square
tests were used on the categorical demographic measures
(affiliation, geographic region, degree level offered, and
mission priority). Only one of these tests, on public and
private affiliation, was significant at the .05 level, and only
marginally so. For the continuous variables, which essentially relate to school size, one-sample t tests were used; no
significant differences were found at the .05 level. The conclusion to be drawn from these tests is that the sample
exhibits demographic characteristics that are similar to the
population.
Of the responding schools, 83 (40%) provided their formal
target journal lists. Sixty-five of these schools specifically
classified Marketing journals on their tiered lists; the demographics of these 65 schools are reported in Table 7. The
remainder of the respondents included 89 schools that indicated they did not have internally generated lists, 12 that stated
they used external lists, such as the Financial Times, and 22
that used Cabell’s Directory of Publishing Opportunities.
Analysis—Metrics From AACSB School Lists
For a journal to be called a “Marketing” journal in this
study, the journal had to be listed on at least one of the
submitted AACSB-accredited school lists designated for
use in evaluating research in Marketing. When in-house
lists are used by universities, journals are often categorized
Downloaded from http://jmd.sagepub.com at WAKE FOREST UNIV on March 23, 2010
84 Journal of Marketing Education
Table 6
AACSB Schools: Demographics of the Sample and Population
Sample
Demographic characteristic
n
Affiliation
Private
Public
Geographic region
North America
Europe
Other
Degree level offered
Undergraduate only
Graduate only
Both
Mission orientation—top priority
Teaching
Research
Teaching and research equal
Teaching, research, and service equal
Size
Full-time equivalent faculty
Undergraduate enrollment—full-time
Graduate enrollment—full-time
Undergraduate degrees conferred
Graduate degrees conferred
%
Size
Full-time equivalent faculty
Full-time undergraduate enrollment
Full-time graduate enrollment
Undergraduate degrees conferred
Graduate degrees conferred
%
25.37
74.63
169
362
31.83
68.17
187
13
5
91.22
6.34
2.44
446
23
25
90.28
4.66
5.06
19
7
168
9.79
3.61
86.60
37
35
415
7.60
7.19
85.22
103
21
63
7
53.09
10.82
32.47
3.61
250
59
157
21
51.33
12.11
32.24
4.31
M
SD
72.5
1818.2
243.5
413.7
178.9
44.12
1472.16
429.29
333.65
207.73
Marketing subsample
Affiliation
Private
Public
Geographic region
North America
Europe
Other
Degree level offered
Undergraduate only
Graduate only
Both
Mission orientation—top priority
Teaching
Research
Teaching and research equal
Teaching, research, and service equal
n
One-sample test
51
150
Table 7
Demographics of the Schools in the Sample With
Tiered Lists Containing Marketing Journals
Demographic characteristic
Population
n
%
12
51
19.05
80.95
54
8
3
83.08
12.31
4.61
1
2
55
1.72
3.45
94.83
16
12
26
4
27.59
20.69
44.83
6.89
M
SD
274.4
2584.9
343.6
637.3
343.4
242.63
1723.44
512.70
392.38
388.67
M
76.7
1811.3
262.2
420.7
208.1
SD
51.19
1459.56
404.87
355.53
282.13
χ2 Statistic
p
3.86
.049
4.05
.132
4.73
.094
0.611
.894
t statistic
1.32
0.064
0.574
0.286
1.86
p
.188
.949
.566
.776
.064
in tiers based on their apparent quality. These school lists
depict how journals are actually considered in practice at
universities for decisions on tenure and promotion,
research awards, salary improvements, etc. Given that
journals are generally categorized at individual schools by
their perceived value (Van Fleet et al., 2000), the metrics
derived from the school lists serve as a reasonable depiction of journal standing from an operational standpoint.
Using the 65 tiered school lists for Marketing journals
from the survey of AACSB-accredited schools, four
scores for each journal were computed: (a) the percentage
of times the journal was listed in the top tier across
schools, (b) the percentage of times the journal was listed
in the top two tiers across schools, and (c) the percentage
of times the journal was listed in any tier across schools,
and (d) the weighted average mean percentile for the journal. The first three of these four scores are percentages
based on simple frequency counts. However, because the
number of graded tiers differed among the schools in the
sample, a mean percentile score was also computed for
each journal at each school based on its assignment in the
school’s graded tiers. This score took into account the
number of tiers at the school, the total number of journals
in that school’s tiers, and the tier placement of the given
journal. All journals in the same tier at a given school
were given the same mean percentile score for that school.
Downloaded from http://jmd.sagepub.com at WAKE FOREST UNIV on March 23, 2010
Steward and Lewis / Analysis of Marketing Journal Rankings 85 Table 8
Summary of the School Marketing Journal Lists: Weighted Composite Ranks for the Top 50 Journals
(in Journal Name Order)
Journal
Rank
Advances in Consumer Research
Advances in International Marketing
European Journal of Marketing
Industrial Marketing Management
International Journal of Advertising
International Journal of Market Research
International Journal of Research in Marketing
International Marketing Review
Journal of Advertising
Journal of Advertising Research
Journal of Brand Management
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Journal of Business Research
Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing
Journal of Consumer Affairs
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Journal of Consumer Psychology
Journal of Consumer Research
Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising
Journal of Euromarketing
Journal of Global Marketing
Journal of Interactive Marketing
Journal of International Consumer Marketing
Journal of International Marketing
Journal of Macromarketing
Journal of Marketing
Journal of Marketing Channels
Journal of Marketing Communications
Journal of Marketing Education
Journal of Marketing Management
Journal of Marketing Research
Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice
Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Journal of Product Innovation Management
Journal of Public Policy & Marketing
Journal of Retailing
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services
Journal of Service Research
Journal of Services Marketing
Journal of Strategic Marketing
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science
Journal of the Market Research Society
Marketing Education Review
Marketing Health Services
Marketing Letters
Marketing Management
Marketing Science
Marketing Theory
Psychology & Marketing
These mean percentile scores were then aggregated across
the schools in the sample by creating an average of the
mean percentiles for each journal. The final weighted
average mean percentile score was calculated by multiplying
33
46
17
13
30
44
11
29
7
8
49
28
18
32
24
23
9
3
34
47
31
25
43
16
22
2
40
50
21
26
1
27
15
36
19
10
6
42
35
20
38
5
41
45
48
12
37
4
39
14
% of times in
the top tier
1.54
3.08
1.54
9.23
0.00
0.00
18.46
1.54
21.54
15.38
0.00
3.08
9.23
1.54
1.54
6.15
13.85
93.85
3.08
0.00
4.62
1.54
1.54
10.77
7.69
98.46
0.00
0.00
9.23
1.54
100.00
4.62
10.77
3.08
7.69
16.92
38.46
3.08
3.08
6.15
0.00
47.69
0.00
1.54
0.00
9.23
3.08
80.00
1.54
9.23
% of times in
the top two tiers
3.08
6.15
30.77
49.23
7.69
7.69
53.85
9.23
66.15
61.54
3.08
13.85
36.92
13.85
16.92
21.54
63.08
95.38
13.85
4.62
12.31
18.46
7.69
38.46
23.08
100.00
7.69
6.15
26.15
13.85
100.00
18.46
44.62
7.69
38.46
50.77
83.08
6.15
13.85
27.69
6.15
84.62
6.15
7.69
6.15
52.31
10.77
86.15
6.15
43.08
% of times in
any tier
26.15
16.92
50.77
61.54
30.77
16.92
56.92
30.77
80.00
70.77
16.92
38.46
49.23
27.69
43.08
43.08
67.69
95.38
26.15
18.46
30.77
41.54
20.00
55.38
49.23
100.00
21.54
16.92
44.62
38.46
100.00
38.46
58.46
24.62
46.15
63.08
83.08
18.46
21.54
47.69
23.08
84.62
21.54
21.54
18.46
60.00
26.15
87.69
21.54
61.54
the average mean percentile by the number of schools listing that journal in one of their tiers. This group of four
school-list metrics reflects how journals are actually judged
and used in practice.
Downloaded from http://jmd.sagepub.com at WAKE FOREST UNIV on March 23, 2010
86 Journal of Marketing Education
Table 9
Summary of the School Marketing Journal Lists: Weighted Composite Ranks for the Top 50 Journals in
Demographic Subsets (in Rank Order)
All schools
Overall
%
Rank Listing
Journal
Journal of Marketing Research
Journal of Marketing
Journal of Consumer Research
Marketing Science
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science
Journal of Retailing
Journal of Advertising
Journal of Advertising Research
Journal of Consumer Psychology
Journal of Public Policy & Marketing
International Journal of Research in Marketing
Marketing Letters
Industrial Marketing Management
Psychology & Marketing
Journal of Personal Selling & Sales
Management
Journal of International Marketing
European Journal of Marketing
Journal of Business Research
Journal of Product Innovation Management
Journal of Services Marketing
Journal of Marketing Education
Journal of Macromarketing
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Journal of Consumer Affairs
Journal of Interactive Marketing
Journal of Marketing Management
Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
International Marketing Review
International Journal of Advertising
Journal of Global Marketing
Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing
Advances in Consumer Research
Journal of Current Issues & Research in
Advertising
Journal of Service Research
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Marketing Management
Journal of Strategic Marketing
Marketing Theory
Journal of Marketing Channels
Journal of the Market Research Society
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services
Journal of International Consumer Marketing
International Journal of Market Research
Marketing Education Review
Advances in International Marketing
Journal of Euromarketing
Marketing Health Services
Journal of Brand Management
Journal of Marketing Communications
U.S. schools
Non-U.S. schools
Doctoral
Nondoctoral
Rank
%
Listing
Rank
%
Listing
Rank
%
Listing
Rank
%
Listing
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
100.00
100.00
95.38
87.69
84.62
83.08
80.00
70.77
67.69
63.08
56.92
60.00
61.54
61.54
58.46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
10
8
9
17
15
12
13
11
100.00
100.00
94.12
84.31
82.35
78.43
74.51
64.71
66.67
66.67
47.06
50.98
54.90
56.86
58.82
1
1
1
4
7
5
9
10
13
22
6
8
12
14
17
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
92.86
100.00
100.00
92.86
71.43
50.00
92.86
92.86
85.71
78.57
57.14
1
1
3
4
5
6
7
9
11
12
10
8
14
16
15
100.00
100.00
97.14
88.57
80.00
74.29
68.57
57.14
51.43
51.43
54.29
60.00
48.57
45.71
45.71
1
2
3
7
5
4
6
8
9
10
17
21
13
11
12
100.00
100.00
91.30
82.61
91.30
91.30
91.30
86.96
82.61
78.26
56.52
52.17
73.91
78.26
78.26
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
55.38
50.77
49.23
46.15
47.69
44.62
49.23
43.08
43.08
41.54
38.46
38.46
38.46
30.77
30.77
30.77
27.69
26.15
26.15
14
23
16
20
19
18
21
22
24
26
30
25
27
34
33
29
31
48
28
50.98
41.18
50.98
41.18
49.02
47.06
47.06
43.14
43.14
35.29
31.37
41.18
35.29
21.57
25.49
27.45
25.49
15.69
27.45
15
11
23
16
26
34
25
31
32
19
18
45
30
21
28
39
38
20
61
71.43
85.71
42.86
64.29
42.86
35.71
57.14
42.86
42.86
64.29
64.29
28.57
50.00
64.29
50.00
42.86
35.71
64.29
21.43
13
17
18
19
29
22
20
25
27
21
26
31
23
30
28
37
24
32
36
48.57
42.86
40.00
37.14
25.71
31.43
40.00
28.57
28.57
34.29
28.57
25.71
31.43
25.71
25.71
20.00
28.57
25.71
17.14
16
20
19
22
15
14
25
18
23
27
28
24
29
34
32
26
37
55
31
69.57
56.52
56.52
52.17
73.91
69.57
60.87
65.22
60.87
47.83
52.17
60.87
47.83
30.43
34.78
47.83
26.09
17.39
34.78
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
21.54
24.62
26.15
23.08
21.54
21.54
21.54
18.46
20.00
16.92
21.54
16.92
18.46
18.46
16.92
16.92
39
40
32
60
35
37
45
43
44
53
36
46
56
38
69
54
15.69
17.65
29.41
15.69
19.61
19.61
17.65
15.69
15.69
11.76
21.57
13.73
13.73
19.61
9.80
13.73
27
29
73
24
46
44
40
42
41
35
67
47
37
78
33
43
42.86
50.00
14.29
50.00
28.57
28.57
35.71
28.57
35.71
35.71
21.43
28.57
35.71
14.29
42.86
28.57
35
34
70
33
43
41
53
72
45
39
62
59
52
49
50
40
17.14
20.00
8.57
20.00
17.14
14.29
11.43
8.57
14.29
14.29
8.57
8.57
11.43
11.43
11.43
14.29
43
42
30
63
38
39
40
35
44
53
33
36
57
41
62
61
21.74
26.09
52.17
21.74
26.09
30.43
30.43
26.09
21.74
17.39
39.13
26.09
21.74
30.43
17.39
17.39
Downloaded from http://jmd.sagepub.com at WAKE FOREST UNIV on March 23, 2010
Steward and Lewis / Analysis of Marketing Journal Rankings 87 Table 10
Hypothetical Scenario of Professor X From the Institutional View: Ranks Based on
School Marketing Journal Lists
Journal
Journal of Business Research
Journal of International Marketing
Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Marketing Letters
Average Ranking
All schools
U.S.
Non-U.S.
Doctoral
Nondoctoral
Best ranking
18
16
27
36
12
21.8
16
14
25
40
15
22.0
23
15
45
29
8
24.0
18
13
31
34
8
20.8
19
16
24
42
21
24.4
16
13
24
29
8
18.0
Results—School List Aggregate Rankings
The weighted average mean percentile is the most nuanced
of the four metrics derived from the school lists, in that it
takes into consideration not only a given journal’s tier placement at each school but also the number of tiers at the school
and the number of journals graded by the school. Furthermore,
in this metric each journal’s score is weighted by the number
of schools that graded that journal. This is the best of the
metrics available in this study for actual journal standing, in
that it is based on the most information. Table 8 presents
the aggregate rankings of journals from the AACSB data,
based on the weighted average mean percentile scores. The
other scores (percentages of tier inclusion) are also shown in
Table 8. Rankings were also developed for four different segments of the data: U.S. versus non-U.S. schools, and schools
with doctoral programs versus those without. The rankings
for each of these segments are presented in Table 9.
Returning to the hypothetical scenario featuring Professor
X, the faculty member with five publications applying for a
university research award, Table 10 illustrates the rankings of
Professor X’s portfolio using the data collected from the
AACSB-accredited schools, and the rankings in each
of two subsegments (U.S. vs. non-U.S. and doctoral vs. nondoctoral). From this example, several points can be noted.
First, unlike the discipline perspective results, although in
some cases the rankings for individual journals differ somewhat across segments, the average ranking in Professor X’s
publication portfolio remains roughly the same across segments, ranging from an average ranking of the five journals of
21 to 24. A second point to note is that although the average
ranking of the portfolio in this hypothetical case remains
roughly consistent across segments, there are differences
in rankings of individual journals that are of interest. For
example, if Professor X works for a school outside of the
United States, two of the publications fare far better in these
rankings. Each of these journals (Journal of Product & Brand
Management and Marketing Letters) are published by companies headquartered outside of the United States. The patterns
of journals ranked higher by schools with doctoral programs
versus those without doctoral programs are less clear. A final
point to note is that if Professor X selects the ranking for each
publication to report with the award application that places
each publication in the best light (see the final column in
Table 10), the average ranking of the portfolio improves by
a range of 3 to 6 rankings overall, to an average ranking of
18. This suggests that evaluators of research may want to
consider the implications of using multiple-segment rankings
that may or may not match their institution’s goals against
preferences to place their faculty research in the best light.
Comparison of the Two Perspectives
The ratings from the 13 studies in the published set from
the past 15 years were compared with metrics calculated
from the data collected from journal lists used at AACSB
schools. To standardize the set of journals used for both
perspectives in this project, journals in the published studies were included only if they were also listed on at least
one of the submitted AACSB-accredited school lists designated for use in evaluating research in Marketing.
The ratings from published journal ranking articles offer
proxy measures for journal standing, whereas the metrics
derived from the school lists portray the value of the journals in practice. These measures were correlated to compare to the published journal ratings. Again, because of the
ordinal nature of much of the data and the small number of
journals in common between some of the studies and the
school lists, the nonparametric Spearman’s rho correlation
coefficient was used. The Spearman correlations between
the published journal ratings and the metrics of journal use
in academic practice are reported in Table 11. The vast
majority of these correlations (41 of 52) are statistically
significant at the .05 level, and in fact most of these
approach the .001 level. All of the correlations for 10 of the
13 studies are statistically significant and demonstrate moderate to strong correlations ranging in magnitude from .399
to .941; in more than half of these relationships at least 50%
of the variance is explained.
The measures of journal standing from three of the studies in the group do not relate well to the metrics from the
school lists. The rankings from the two studies that had
less-used sources, library holdings (Polonsky et al., 1999),
and the U.K. research assessment data (Easton & Easton,
Downloaded from http://jmd.sagepub.com at WAKE FOREST UNIV on March 23, 2010
88 Journal of Marketing Education
Table 11
Correlations Between Published Study Journal Rankings and School List Metrics
Spearman correlation coefficient (number of journals), p value
Weighted average mean
percentile
Study
Heischmidt & Gordon (1993)
Polonsky & Waller (1993)
Hult et al. (1997)
Koojaroenprasit et al. (1998)
Polonsky et al. (1999)
Zinkhan & Leigh (1999)
Theoharakis & Hirst (2002)
Baumgartner & Pieters (2003)
Easton & Easton (2003)
Guidry et al. (2004)
Mort et al. (2004)
Bauerly & Johnson (2005)
Polonsky & Whitelaw (2006)
.725 (38), .001
.407 (13), .084
.497 (41), .001
.924 (20), .001
.089 (74), .226
.718 (11), .006
.514 (40), .001
.417 (46), .002
–.047 (13), .440
.865 (25), .001
.800 (72), .001
.477 (43), .001
.856 (62), .001
2003), do not show statistically significant correlations
with the school list metrics. Furthermore, the results from
these two studies also failed the reliability tests. These studies, though, may have other uses when considered individually. The Polonsky and Waller (1993) study, which was
based on an opinion survey, is likewise bereft of statistically significant correlations at the .05 level. However, all
four of the correlations from the ratings in this study and
the school list metrics are of moderate size and are significant at the .10 level.
Compared to the overall ranking (the weighted average
mean percentile) from the AACSB-accredited school sample, all of the published ratings based on opinion surveys
and citation data exhibit moderate to strong correlations.
Hence, there is a manifest relationship between these measures from the studies of Marketing journal rankings and
how the stature of these journals is assessed in academic
practice, as captured in the school list metrics. This finding
provides support that the measures based on opinion surveys and citation indices compare favorably with the school
lists used to evaluate research. Likewise, this result indicates that the two viewpoints, discipline and institutional,
are generally in synch overall.
Conclusions
A comparison of the overall journal rankings from the
AACSB-accredited school data and the aggregate rankings
from the published studies for the top 50 journals is presented in Table 12. Several points are apparent from this
table. The first is that there is minimal dissimilarity between
the two views with respect to the premier journals in
Marketing; rankings based on both sources of data indicate
Listed in top tier
Listed in top two tiers
Listed in any tier
.778 (38), .001
.436 (13), .068
.645 (41), .001
.925 (20), .001
.360 (74), .001
.745 (11), .004
.668 (40), .001
.545 (46), .001
.020 (13), .475
.882 (25), .001
.727 (72), .001
.482 (43), .001
.812 (62), .001
.730 (38), .001
.466 (13), .054
.488 (41), .001
.927 (20), .001
.175 (74), .068
.729 (11), .005
.574 (40), .001
.431 (46), .001
–.088 (13), .388
.888 (25), .001
.783 (72), .001
.479 (43), .001
.848 (62), .001
.701 (38), .001
.400 (13), .088
.497 (41), .001
.941 (20), .001
.060 (74), .307
.729 (11), .005
.469 (40), .001
.399 (46), .003
–.101 (13), .372
.833 (25), .001
.781 (72), .001
.450 (43), .001
.852 (62), .001
the same six journals are at the top of the list. However,
below these top six journals, rankings from the two views
begin to diverge. One of the reasons for this incongruity can
be attributed to the fact that the sets of journals used in the
published studies incorporated journals that were not considered “pure” Marketing venues in the institutional view.
Examples of these journals (with their associated aggregated ranking from the published studies) include Harvard
Business Review (no. 7), Management Science (no. 9), the
Psychological Bulletin (no. 14), and the Academy of
Management Review (no. 23). With these journals in the
mix, mainstream Marketing journals are ranked lower.
This is clearly illustrated in the hypothetical scenario of
Professor X. Table 13 compares the portfolio of Professor
X across the institutional and discipline views. In all but
one case, the journals that Professor X published in are
ranked higher by the school lists than by the article stream.
The one case in which the article stream ranks a journal in
the hypothetical portfolio higher is the only cross-disciplinary journal in the portfolio. As alluded to above, this begs
the question, Should journal rankings consider only
Marketing-centric journals? Or should journals in allied
fields, like Psychology and Management, be included in
Marketing ranking studies? Other fields such as Information
Systems (cf. Peffers & Tang, 2003) have suggested that
disciplines may benefit from ranking discipline-centric
journals separately from those in related fields. An advantage of doing so is that the rankings of some disciplinecentric journals may be enhanced when not in competition
with allied-field journals.
Many academics would agree that publications are the
coin of the realm in academic pursuits because it is through
these venues that the results of scholarly efforts in a discipline
are disseminated. As such, the issue of quality is pertinent
Downloaded from http://jmd.sagepub.com at WAKE FOREST UNIV on March 23, 2010
Steward and Lewis / Analysis of Marketing Journal Rankings 89 Table 12
Comparison of the Summary Rankings From School Marketing Journal Lists With the Summary Rankings From
the Published Marketing Journal Ranking Stream
Journal
School lists rank
Top 50 Journals Based on School List Data
Journal of Marketing Research
Journal of Marketing
Journal of Consumer Research
Marketing Science
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science
Journal of Retailing
Journal of Advertising
Journal of Advertising Research
Journal of Consumer Psychology
Journal of Public Policy & Marketing
International Journal of Research in Marketing
Marketing Letters
Industrial Marketing Management
Psychology & Marketing
Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management
Journal of International Marketing
European Journal of Marketing
Journal of Business Research
Journal of Product Innovation Management
Journal of Services Marketing
Journal of Marketing Education
Journal of Macromarketing
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Journal of Consumer Affairs
Journal of Interactive Marketing
Journal of Marketing Management
Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
International Marketing Review
International Journal of Advertising
Journal of Global Marketing
Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing
Advances in Consumer Research
Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising
Journal of Service Research
Journal of Product and Brand Management
Marketing Management
Journal of Strategic Marketing
Marketing Theory
Journal of Marketing Channels
Journal of the Market Research Society
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services
Journal of International Consumer Marketing
International Journal of Market Research
Marketing Education Review
Advances in International Marketing
Journal of Euromarketing
Marketing Health Services
Journal of Brand Management
Journal of Marketing Communications
Top 50 Journals Based on Published Article Data
Journal of Marketing
Journal of Marketing Research
Journal of Consumer Research
Marketing Science
Journal of Retailing
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science
Published articles rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
2
1
3
4
6
5
10
8
21
13
12
16
17
25
22
37
18
11
30
26
29
27
31
59
88
34
49
39
40
45
56
78
15
64
73
70
72
60
53
81
63
75
95
62
86
79
89
2
1
3
4
6
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
83
80
(continued)
Downloaded from http://jmd.sagepub.com at WAKE FOREST UNIV on March 23, 2010
90 Journal of Marketing Education
Table 12 (continued)
Journal
School lists rank
Harvard Business Review
Journal of Advertising Research
Management Science
Journal of Advertising
Journal of Business Research
International Journal of Research in Marketing
Journal of Public Policy & Marketing
Psychological Bulletin
Advances in Consumer Research
Marketing Letters
Industrial Marketing Management
European Journal of Marketing
Journal of International Business Studies
Sloan Management Review
Journal of Consumer Psychology
Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management
Academy of Management Review
Journal of Business
Psychology & Marketing
Journal of Services Marketing
Journal of Macromarketing
Administrative Science Quarterly
Journal of Marketing Education
Journal of Product Innovation Management
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Journal of Marketing Management
Business Horizons
Journal of Services Research
Journal of International Marketing
Academy of Management Journal
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
International Marketing Review
Strategic Management Journal
American Marketing Association Proceedings
Decision Sciences
California Management Review
International Journal of Advertising
Journal of Health Care Marketing
Public Opinion Quarterly
American Journal of Sociology
Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice
Journal of Business Ethics
when considering the journals that communicate this
research. Providing comprehensive information about the
stature of journals in Marketing is the primary goal and contribution of this study. By presenting rankings from two perspectives, each based on different data, and in multiple
subsegments from each view, this study aims to provide a
“one-stop shopping” resource.
Hunt (1993, p. 88) suggests that “communities producing knowledge that will be (and can be) relied on by others
must have a set of norms to maintain quality control over
assertion.” One accepted norm in the social sciences is to
examine proposed measures. This appraisal of the published stream of Marketing journal ranking studies is a
secondary goal and contribution of this study. The results of
69
8
83
7
18
11
10
210
33
12
13
17
56
73
9
15
161
78
14
20
22
210
21
19
23
323
59
26
109
65
16
161
28
29
120
127
61
88
30
68
128
169
27
57
Published articles rank
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
47
49
50
the analyses indicate that the two predominant types of
published journal rankings in Marketing—opinion survey–
based studies and citation-based studies—are reliable and
in general relate to reality (as captured in the institutional
metrics). This assessment of the collection of Marketing
journal ranking studies is especially relevant given the
number of schools that do not use internal lists to guide
decisions. The findings from this study provide reassurance, for those who use journal rankings in faculty research
assessments, that the majority of the studies in the stream
of published rankings are psychometrically sound. In addition, the findings offer additional data for schools that wish
to include multiple perspectives when evaluating faculty
research.
Downloaded from http://jmd.sagepub.com at WAKE FOREST UNIV on March 23, 2010
Steward and Lewis / Analysis of Marketing Journal Rankings 91 Table 13
Hypothetical Scenario of Professor X: Comparison of Ranks From the Institutional and Discipline Views
Journal
Journal of Business Research
Journal of International Marketing
Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Marketing Letters
Average Ranking
Institutional view
Discipline view
Best ranking
18
16
27
36
12
21.8
11
37
49
70
16
36.6
11
16
27
36
12
20.4
Limitations
The purpose of this study is to offer information about
only one of the measures, journal rankings, used in the field
for the evaluation of scholarship. However, there are several limitations that should be considered when making use
of these results. First, published Marketing journal ranking
studies only for the past 15 years were considered. Although
this allowed the study to be bound by more contemporary
evaluations, historical trends in journal standings may not
have been captured. Second, the focus was not to compare
journals across disciplines. Although other studies do rank
multiple disciples within business (see Doyle & Arthurs,
1995; Geary, Marriott, & Rowlinson, 2004; Hustad, 1997;
Walstrom, 2001), the focus in this study was on journal
rankings in Marketing. Third, the in-practice lists came
from AACSB-accredited schools that were primarily in the
United States. These schools may have a different focus
than schools without AACSB-accreditation and/or international schools. In addition, although the formal lists were
specifically designated by universities as the vehicles by
which faculty research is evaluated, there may be additional
factors actually considered in the evaluation process.
Furthermore, only AACSB-accredited schools were considered. Non–AACSB-accredited schools potentially may
produce different types of evaluation metrics.
A specific caution is suggested that journal ranking
measures of any type do not provide all the information
needed to make decisions about where to publish and how to
completely evaluate a scholar’s research. The use of journal
rankings alone to evaluate faculty research productivity may
not provide the whole picture. Furthermore, and perhaps
more important, reliance only on journal ranking lists may
eliminate reading and thinking about a scholar’s research as
part of an evaluation of his or her research portfolio. Although
use of journal rankings as the sole heuristic for assessing
research quality may seem a time-saving device for administrators with a large, diverse faculty, lost in the process may
be a rich understanding of the idea generation and dissemination that is at the heart of a university.
Future Directions
There are other ways that have not been commonly
used to measure journal quality that might be as good as or
better than ranking studies. Efforts aimed at creating
new perspectives on appraising the quality of journals in
Marketing should be encouraged. One approach might
be to assess the quality of editorial boards and/or reviewers.
In addition, perceptions of the journal review process itself
could be assessed. Future research might explore the efficacy of citation immediacy scores to capture the changing
stature of journals that are on an upward trajectory. Such
perspectives could be instrumental in the development of
surrogate measures of journal quality, which might be especially useful in the evaluation of new journals.
Ultimately, each journal in Marketing is appraised by
members of the Marketing research community at some
point. As a result, journal ranking studies in Marketing will
undoubtedly continue to benefit the Marketing discipline.
Given the addition of new journals to the field, the comparison of journal ranking measures should be reestablished
periodically. At a minimum, new studies should report correlations between the results of their study and previous
ranking measures to verify consistency. These efforts
strengthen the scientific integrity of the Marketing discipline and specifically provide the bona fides for an important resource in the Marketing field.
Acknowledgment
The support of the Association to Advance Collegiate
Schools of Business (AACSB) during the data collection
stage of this study is greatly appreciated.
Downloaded from http://jmd.sagepub.com at WAKE FOREST UNIV on March 23, 2010
92 Journal of Marketing Education
References
Bauerly, R. J., & Johnson, D. T. (2005). An evaluation of journals used in
doctoral marketing programs. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 33, 313-329.
Baumgartner, H., & Pieters, R. (2003). The structural influence of marketing journals: A citation analysis of the discipline and its subareas
over time. Journal of Marketing, 67, 123-139.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of
tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297-334.
Doyle, J. R., & Arthurs, A. J. (1995). Judging the quality of research in
business schools: The UK as a case study. Omega, 23, 235-344.
Easton, G., & Easton, D. M. (2003). Marketing journals and the research
assessment exercise. Journal of Marketing Management, 19(1/2), 5-24.
Geary, J., Marriott, L., & Rowlinson, M. (2004). Journal rankings in
business and management and the 2001 research assessment exercise
in the UK. British Journal of Management, 15, 95-141.
Guidry, J. A., Guidry Hollier, B. N., Johnson, L., Tanner, J. R., & Veltsos,
C. (2004). Surveying the cites: A ranking of marketing journals using
citation analysis. Marketing Education Review, 14, 45-59.
Hawes, J. M., & Keillor, B. (2002). Assessing marketing journals:
A mission-based approach. Journal of the Academy of Business
Education, 3, 70-86.
Heischmidt, K. A., & Gordon, P. (1993). Rating marketing publications:
Impact of accreditation and publication history. Journal of Education
for Business, 68, 152-158.
Hult, G. T. M., Neese, W. T., & Bashaw, R. E. (1997). Faculty perceptions
of marketing journals. Journal of Marketing Education, 19, 37-52.
Hunt, S. D. (1993). Objectivity in marketing theory and research. Journal
of Marketing, 57, 76-91.
Hustad, T. (1997). From the editor. Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 14, 157-237.
Koojaroenprasit, N., Weinstein, A., Johnson, W. C., & Remington, D. O.
(1998). Marketing journal rankings revisited: Research findings and
academic implications. Marketing Education Review, 8, 95-102.
Lewis, B. R (2008, November/December). Judging the journals. BizEd,
pp. 42-45.
Lewis, B. R., Templeton, G. F., & Luo, X. (2007). A scientometric investigation into the validity of IS journal quality measures. Journal of the
Association for Information Systems, 8, 619-633.
Leydesdorff, L. (2008). Caveats for the use of citation indicators in
research and journal evaluations. Journal of the American Society for
Information Science and Technology, 59, 278-287.
Lowry, P. B., Romans, D., & Curtis, A. (2004). Global journal prestige and supporting disciplines: A scientometric study of Information Systems journals.
Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 5(2), 29-76.
McAlister, L. (2005). Unleashing potential. Journal of Marketing, 69(4), 16-17.
Mingers, J. (2005). Quality of journals difficult to measure. OR/MS
Today, 32(3), 20.
Mort, G. S., McColl-Kennedy, J. R., Kiel, G., & Soutar, G. N. (2004).
Perceptions of marketing journals by senior academics in Australia
and New Zealand. Australasian Marketing Journal, 12(2), 51-61.
Nisonger, T. E. (2004). The benefits and drawbacks of impact factor for
journal collection management in libraries. The Serials Librarian,
47(1/2), 57-75.
Peffers, K., & Tang, Y. (2003). Identifying and evaluating the universe of
outlets for information systems research: Ranking the journals. Journal of
Information Technology Theory and Application, 5, 63-84.
Peter, J. P. (1979). Reliability: A review of psychometric basics and recent
marketing practices. Journal of Marketing Research, 16, 6-17.
Polonsky, M. J., Jones, G., & Kearsley, M. J. (1999). Accessibility:
An alternative method of ranking marketing journals? Journal of
Marketing Education, 21, 181-193.
Polonsky, M. J., & Waller, D. S. (1993). Marketing journals and Asia
Pacific marketing academics: An exploratory study. Asia-Australia
Marketing Journal, 1, 61-69.
Polonsky, M. J., & Whitelaw, P. (2006). A multi-dimensional examination
of marketing journal rankings by North American academics.
Marketing Education Review, 16(3), 59-72.
Swanson, E. P. (2004). Publishing in the majors: A comparison of
accounting, finance, management and marketing. Contemporary
Accounting Research, 21, 223-255.
Theoharakis, V., & Hirst, A. (2002). Perceptual differences of marketing
journals: A worldwide perspective. Marketing Letters, 13, 389-402.
Van Fleet, D. D., McWilliams, A., & Siegal, D. S. (2000). A theoretical
and empirical analysis of journal rankings: The case of formal lists.
Journal of Management, 26, 839-861.
Walstrom, K. A. (2001). A review of relative prestige of business research
journals. The Serials Librarian, 41, 85-99.
Zinkhan, G. M., & Leigh, T. (1999). Assessing the quality ranking of the
Journal of Advertising. Journal of Advertising, 28(2), 51-70.
Downloaded from http://jmd.sagepub.com at WAKE FOREST UNIV on March 23, 2010