ALSBTALK:

At UNO CBA, at my urging, we have wrestled with the process of ranking journals
as A, B, or C.  To date we have not adopted that methodology of evaluating the
quality of faculty research productivity.

During 2000, I believe, there was an economics journal article (in the Am. Econ.
Rev.?)  reviewing the processes used by various articles that contained
attempted rankings of economics departments.  One of its key findings was a
cultural bias by each of the persons who designed a ranking.  There are
multiple, defensible methodologies and each author of a ranking article had
(unconsciously?) selected the methodology which maximized the relative ranking
of the author's then home institution.  What I take that mean is, even in an
explicitly "objective" ranking, an unavoidable bias towards the preferences of
the person doing the ranking.  This is apropos given the bias of the publication
outlets themselves.

I would suggest you do --not-- provide a static list of journals, but rather
define the characteristics of rank A versus rank B versus rank C journals.  For
example, for a wide spread between A and C could be to require rank A journals
to have less than a 10% acceptance rate -and- a double blind review by academics
(e.g., ABLJ & JLSE) while a rank C journal could predominately publish articles
targeted at practitioners as measured by the editorial board's make-up.  Since
everyone always craves greater detail, I would provide no more than three
examples of journals that --currently-- satisfy the criteria for ranking as A,
B, or C.

If you do pursue a definitive list of journals (i.e., any journal not on the
list is irrefutably less than a rank C journal), then I suggest you also set a
maximum ratio between the ranks.  For example, each department is free to place
between 1 and 10 journals in rank A; however, rank B --must-- contain 2 journals
for every rank A journal --and-- rank C --must-- contain three journals for
every rank A journal.  Such a ranking system is effective in simultaneously [1]
recognizing a faculty member's academic freedom right to publish on a topic of
choice and publish in an outlet of choice and [2] allowing the College to select
a focus for its collective intellectual contributions efforts.  The Accounting
Department may claim there are only 6 quality journals (i.e., 1 + 2 + 3) while
the Law department may claim there are 60 quality journals (10 + 20 + 30).  Each
department's evaluation of quality may be driven both by absolute standards of
academic rigor as well as the specificity of focus that department wishes to
impose on its members.  Any ratio will do, but 1-2-3 has an intuitive appeal.

There is an advantage (albeit belatedly realized) of specifying fewer outlets
and a disadvantage (immediately recognized).  The faculty support structure
reasonably necessary to publish the single rank A journal can be identified and
used to support requests for funding augmentation above existing levels.
However, since funding augmentation is belated, expect those approaching a
tenure decision to experience adverse consequences under a newly establish
review scheme.

I have heard of ranking systems where a rank A article "counted" for 2 points, a
rank B article counted for 1 point, and a rank C article counted for -minus- 2
points (below rank C is beyond the pale).  This is done to express an
unambiguous preference for excellence achieved and displeasure with mediocrity
camouflaged.

Michael

Michael J. O'Hara, J.D., Ph.D.
Finance, Banking, and Law Department
College of Business Administration
University of Nebraska at Omaha
Omaha  NE  68182
[log in to unmask]