This paper extends the journal ranking debate by developing weighted multi-dimensional perceptual rankings based on respondents' evaluation of a journals' prestige, contribution to theory, contribution to practice and contribution to teaching. Spearman correlations indicate that journal rankings based on each of the evaluative criteria are statistically significantly correlated for all pairs of criteria, other than teaching and theory. The multi-dimensional evaluation is also statistically significantly correlated to all individual criteria, other than the teaching dimension. A cluster analysis of the journals using the four evaluative criteria identified that there are three groupings of journals: A, B, and C. In most cases, A journals are evaluated as performing better than B journals on each of evaluative criteria other than for the contribution to teaching where there are no difference in perceptions between groups. B journals are viewed to perform better than C journals on prestige, contribution to practice and contribution to teaching, but not based on their prestige of weighted evaluation. This suggests that there are differences in how academics view each group of journals, although these differences do seem to vary based on the grouping being considered (i.e., A, B, or C).
Field of Research
150503 Marketing Management (incl Strategy and Customer Relations)