DRAFT (This policy has not been approved by the ICTF/Faculty Council)
4/11/2014
CBA Intellectual Contributions Task Force Guidelines for
Ranking/Re-Ranking Journals
1. The policies/procedures outlined here apply to both the initial ranking of a journal
not contained in the CBA journal rankings and the potential re-ranking of any
journal already contained in the rankings. In both cases, except for journals not
associated with a particular department (e.g., cross-disciplinary or business ethics),
the ICTF will solicit a departmental recommendation prior to its decision.
2. When a faculty member publishes a paper in a journal that is not currently ranked,
he/she should send a copy to the Office of Accreditation. The author (or authors)
has (have) the responsibility to provide information useful for determining journal
quality to his/her departmental faculty.
3. Before voting on the ranking/re-ranking of any journal, all faculty should familiarize
themselves with the Faculty Council policy related to the “CBA Definition of
‘Academic Qualification’ ” and, more importantly, the “Intellectual Contribution
Items” specifying the standards for the ranking categories (i.e., Elite, High Quality,
etc.). All faculty should clearly understand the relevant ranking criteria and how
they should be used to rank journals.
4. In classifying journals, faculty should use both quality and impact criteria.
a. Criteria about quality are personal judgments about the academic rigor and
quality of a journal. Qualitative criteria may also include published or
unpublished journal ranking information.
b. Criteria about the impact shall include, but not be limited to, the h-index, g-index,
and SSCI impact factors, if available.
c. To increase the quality of input from faculty, it is recommended that faculty
members be aware of potential biases in the interpretation of impact data.
5. Each department should organize an anonymous voting procedure for ranking/reranking journals. If a faculty member is not sufficiently familiar with a journal, they
should be encouraged to abstain from making a judgment about the appropriate
classification of that journal.
6. Within a week after the secret vote has been completed, the department should be
informed about the result of the vote. The department’s ICTF representative will
then report the results of the anonymous departmental vote (including actual vote
counts) and the department’s recommendation to the ICTF.
7. In the ICTF meeting, a decision will be reached regarding the appropriate
classification of the journal taking into account the department’s recommendation,
the strength of that recommendation and comparative standards established by the
ICTF. The final ranking may or may not be congruent with the department’s view.
8. If a department disagrees with the final ranking/re-ranking of a journal, unless
there is clear evidence that an error was made by the ICTF (e.g., reliance on an
incorrectly computed impact factor), potential re-ranking of the journal may be
brought up for discussion at an ICTF meeting only after 12 months have passed and
new evidence about impact and/or quality has emerged. Such evidence and the
department’s recommendation should be forwarded to the department’s ICTF
representative who will present the new evidence at the ICTF meeting where such
recommendations will be discussed.