| Submission declined on 9 June 2023 by Turnagra (talk). This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
Where to get help
How to improve a draft
You can also browse Wikipedia:Featured articles and Wikipedia:Good articles to find examples of Wikipedia's best writing on topics similar to your proposed article. Improving your odds of a speedy review To improve your odds of a faster review, tag your draft with relevant WikiProject tags using the button below. This will let reviewers know a new draft has been submitted in their area of interest. For instance, if you wrote about a female astronomer, you would want to add the Biography, Astronomy, and Women scientists tags. Editor resources
|  |
Comment: Entire sections of this draft currently don't have sources - the referencing would need to be improved before this could be considered, and I'd suggest further demonstrating the notability of the guide as well. Turnagra (talk) 22:03, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
The Academic Journal Guide (AJG; formerly the Academic Journal Quality Guide), often colloquially referred to as the ABS list, is an influential rating of business journals published by the British Chartered Association of Business Schools. It has been published at irregular intervals, most recently in 2010, 2015, 2018 and 2021.
Discourse edit
The Academic Journal Guide has faced some harsh criticism over the years. A 2019 survey of UK researchers found both positive and negative effects of using the AJG: on the one hand, the majority of respondents agreed that the AJG helps researchers to assess the quality of research carried out by a researcher both (a) within and (b) outside their field. On the other hand, a majority agreed with statements that it (a) rewards journals that seek to mimic a US-oriented model of scholarship, (b) diverts research efforts away from debates to which researchers would like to contribute, (c) encourages a research monoculture, (d) encourages researchers to focus on topics of interest only to other academics and not to practitioners/policymakers, and (e) encourages a risk-averse type of research.[1] The British Academy of Management said in 2015 that they are particularly concerned about any league table that disregards real-world research and knowledge and instead aims to get to the top of the table. Business research must seek to have a positive impact on academic knowledge and the real world.[2] The ABS list has been criticised for being dominated by US journals with functionalist and positivist perspectives that take the status quo for granted, with few critical journals asking questions about business practice and largely ignoring the most important issues facing business and society.[3] Researchers have reported detrimental effects of the list on research in their disciplines and criticised an over-fixation on journal star ratings.[4] It has been argued that a journal's Impact Factor can be strongly influenced by the subject area (e.g. marketing, accounting) to which it is assigned in the Academic Journal Guide; however, journals are only assigned to one of these subject areas.[5] It has been shown that this ranking is not suitable for predicting the success of UK academics in the Research Excellence Framework.[6]
References edit
- ^ Walker, J. T., Fenton, E., Salter, A., & Salandra, R. (2019). What influences business academics’ use of the Association of Business Schools (ABS) list? Evidence from a survey of UK academics. British Journal of Management, 30(3), 730–747.
- ^ British Academy of Management (BAM) (February 26th, 2015). Press Release: The Association of Business Schools list of ‘elite’ journals.
- ^ Tourish, D. (2015). Rank irrelevance. Times Higher Education, 19 March, 32.
- ^ McKinnon, A.C. (2013), “Starry-eyed: journal rankings and the future of logistics research”, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 6–17.
- ^ Hussain, S. (2015), “Journal list fetishism and the ‘sign of 4’ in the ABS guide: a question of trust”, Organisation, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 119–138.
- ^ Tourish, D. and Willmott, H. (2015), “In defiance of folly: journal rankings, mindless measures and the ABS guide”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 26, pp. 37–46.