The quality of research papers in business and management is frequently assessed in an automated fashion according to the rating of the journals in which they are published. Using a very large sample of research spanning all fields in business and management studies, we examine the extent to which the prevalence of country-specific journal ratings lists leads authors to focus on ratings, potentially at the expense of the academic influence and article fit of the resulting publication. We find that authors based in the UK or Australia publish disproportionately frequently in journals that have low impact factors within ratings categories measured using their country’s journal lists. We argue that such outcomes could have arisen in contexts where measured research performance is prioritised alongside publication in less competitive outlets. We show that this success is on average achieved at the expense of both fit to the journal and citations, which are sacrificed by publishing in lower-impact, higher-rated journals. We find no evidence, however, that work by Australian or UK authors who publish away from their core fields appears in higher rated journals. • Authors tend to publish in low-impact journals favoured by national rating lists. • Early-career researchers are more influenced by national journal lists. • Achieving high ratings on relevant national lists reduces fit and citations. • Higher-rated publications are not achieved by going outside authors’ home fields.
Brooks et al. (Mon,) studied this question.