Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
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.
Steward et al. (Mon,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: