Redesigning Management Education and Research

Redesigning Management Education and Research

Challenging Proposals from European Scholars

Edited by Stephanie Dameron and Thomas Durand

The field of management education and research has become an industry of its own – an industry with fierce international competition in a global arena. Here, the authors argue that a series of mechanisms has led to mimicking and thus strategic convergence among business schools. The authors further argue that this has resulted in a loss of relevance and diversity of the management knowledge produced and taught in a multipolar world. They view this as counterproductive to business schools, students, firms, societies and other stakeholders, including scholars themselves.

Chapter 12: Journals and Journal Rankings

Pierre-Jean Benghozi

Subjects: business and management, management education, management and universities, research methods in business and management, education, management and universities, management education, research methods, research methods in business and management

Extract

Pierre-Jean Benghozi1 12.1 EIGHT PROPOSALS OF THE SFM2 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● Proposal 1: Avoid a one-size-fits-all ranking list by promoting diverse journal rankings that are adapted to the scientific policies of each institution. Proposal 2: Contact all research institutions in order to collate and make public all journal ranking lists currently in use in France, and contact European partner associations for similar lists. Proposal 3: Include systematically online journals in journal rankings rather than restrict these to printed journals. Proposal 4: Encourage all institutions involved in producing journal rankings to publish them systematically with a guide for assessors – and authors – presenting the institution’s scientific policy regarding rankings: range of criteria for activity evaluation, rules applying to publications other than journals (books, journals in other disciplines, and so on), concrete assessment methods, and incentive policies. Proposal 5: Draw up a scoring card for each journal with the editors involved, making public their characteristics, editorial lines and general organisation such as: circulation and readership rates, scope of the field, types of articles accepted, acceptance rates, publication delays, assessment grids, relevance of published articles for practitioners, and degree of internationalisation. Proposal 6: Promote the professionalisation of reviewers and characterise the tasks involved, competencies required, methods of distribution of articles submitted for review, and response delays. This entails the need for institutional recognition of the work of reviewers (on the local level as well as the national and European one) and the improvement of the qualitative and quantitative evaluation of such work. Proposal 7: Beyond the question...

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.

Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

Further information