METHODOLOGY

June 2021

charteredabs.org
 UK business schools and international student recruitment: Trends, challenges and the case for change
Academic Journal Guide 2021 Page 1
Page 1

CONTENTS
page
Acknowledgements................................................................................................................................. 2
Introduction................................................................................................................................................... 6
The Aims of the 2021 AJG................................................................................................................... 8
The Process...................................................................................................................................................... 9
The Four Impact Factors Relating to Citation Information................................. 10
Rating Definitions.................................................................................................................................. 12
Outcomes....................................................................................................................................................... 14
Conclusion.................................................................................................................................................... 15
References..................................................................................................................................................... 17
Appendix 1................................................................................................................................................... 18
Appendix 2................................................................................................................................................... 19
 UK business schools and international student recruitment: Trends, challenges and the case for change
Academic Journal Guide 2021 Page 2
Page 2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
To produce the Academic Journal Guide requires great effort, care and attention from a
considerable number of people. We are hugely grateful to the Editors, Methodologists, Chair
of the Scientific Committee, members of the Scientific Committee and members of the
Management Committee. We are also thankful to Clarivate and Elsevier for the use of their
journal metrics. Finally, we thank Dr Grigory Pishchulov at Alliance Manchester Business School,
University of Manchester for his careful reviewing of the Guide.

Academic Journal Guide Co-Editors in Chief

Management Committee Professor James Walker,
Professor Angus Laing, Henley Business School, UK
Dean, Lancaster University Management School, Professor Geoffrey Wood,
UK (Committee Chair) Western University, Canada
Professor Eric Chang,
Shanghai Advanced Institute of Finance, Shanghai
Jiao Tong University, China Chief Methodologists
Professor Robert Galliers, Professor Marc Goergen,
The University Distinguished Professor Emeritus, IE Business School, Spain
Bentley University, USA and Professor Emeritus,
Warwick Business School, University of Warwick, UK Professor Andrew Simpson,
Sheffield University Management School, UK
Professor Kamil Omoteso,
Pro Vice-Chancellor and Dean of College of
Business, Law and Social Sciences at University
of Derby, UK Methodologist
Barney Roe, Professor Neil Kellard,
Director of Communications & External Relations, Essex Business School, UK
Chartered Association of Business Schools, UK
Professor Donald Siegel,
Arizona State University, School of Public Affairs, Chair of the Scientific
USA Committee
Professor Barbara Sporn, Professor Heinz Tüselmann,
Head of Institute for Higher Education Manchester Metropolitan University Business
Management, WU Vienna University of Economics School, UK
& Business, Austria
Professor Robina Xavier,
Executive Dean, QUT Business School, Australia AJG Project Manager for
Chartered ABS
Ramin Bokaian,
Research Manager, Chartered Association of
Business Schools, UK
 UK business schools and international student recruitment: Trends, challenges and the case for change
Academic Journal Guide 2021 Page 3
Page 3

Scientific Committee

Field Member
Accounting Prof. Marcia Annisette,
York University, Seymour Schulich School of Business, Canada
Prof. Mark Clatworthy,
University of Bristol, School of Economics, Finance and Management, UK
Prof. Christine Cooper,
Edinburgh University Business School, UK
Business and Economic Prof. Mark Casson,
History University of Reading, UK
Prof. Geoffrey G. Jones, Harvard Business School, USA
Economics, Econometrics Prof. Jerry Coakley,
and Statistics Essex Business School, UK
Prof. Robert Taylor,
Essex Business School, UK
Prof. Tim Worrall,
University of Edinburgh School of Economics, UK
Entrepreneurship and Small Prof. Susan Marlow,
Business Management Nottingham University Business School, UK
Prof. Becky Reuber,
University of Toronto, Rotman School of Management, Canada
Finance Prof. Marco Pagano,
University of Naples Federico II, Italy
Prof. Nick Taylor,
University of Bristol, School of Economics, Finance and Management, UK
Prof. John Wilson,
University of St. Andrews, School of Management, UK
Prof. Steve Foerster,
Ivey Business School, Western University, Canada
General Management, Prof. Peter Bamberger,
Ethics, Gender and Tel Aviv University, Coller School of Management, Israel
Social Responsibility
Prof. Caroline Gatrell,
University of Liverpool Management School, UK
Prof. Susanna Khavul,
San Jose State University/London School of Economics, USA/UK
Prof. Henk Volberda,
University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Business School, Holland
 UK business schools and international student recruitment: Trends, challenges and the case for change
Academic Journal Guide 2021 Page 4
Page 4

Field Member
Human Resource Prof. Pawan Budwar,
Management and Aston Business School, UK
Employment Studies
Prof. Fang Lee Cooke,
Monash Business School, Australia
Prof. Adrian Wilkinson,
Griffith Business School/University of Sheffield, Australia/UK
Information Systems Prof. Joe Nandhakumar,
Warwick Business School, UK
Prof. Cathy Urquhart,
Manchester Metropolitan University Business School, UK
Innovation Prof. Silvia Massini,
University of Manchester, Alliance Manchester Business School and
Manchester Institute of Innovation Research, UK
Prof. Nola Hewitt-Dundas,
Queen’s Management School, Queen’s University Belfast, UK
International Business Prof. Heinz Tüselmann,
and Area Studies Manchester Metropolitan University Business School, UK
Prof. Jedrzej George Frynas,
Open University, UK
Management Development Prof. David Collings,
and Education Dublin City University Business School, Ireland
Prof. Ken Starkey,
Nottingham University Business School, UK
Marketing Prof. Adam Lindgreen,
Copenhagen Business School, Denmark
Prof. Paurav Shukla,
Southampton Business School, UK
Operations and Technology Prof. Cipriano Forza,
Management University of Padua, Italy
Prof. Christine Harland,
Politecnico di Milano, Italy
Prof. Ian McCarthy,
Simon Fraser University, Beedie School of Business, Canada
Operations Research and Prof. David Lane,
Management Science Henley Business School, UK
Prof. Maria Paola Scaparra,
Kent Business School, UK
 UK business schools and international student recruitment: Trends, challenges and the case for change
Academic Journal Guide 2021 Page 5
Page 5

Field Member
Organisational Studies Prof. Nic Beech,
Middlesex University, UK
Dr. Amanda Shantz,
Trinity College Dublin, Trinity Business School, Ireland
Psychology (General) Prof. Julie Aitken Schermer,
University of Western Ontario, Canada
Prof. Barbara Summers,
Leeds University Business School, UK
Psychology (Organisational) Dr. Julie Gore,
University of Bath, UK
Prof. David Guest,
King’s Business School, King’s College London, UK
Prof. Karoline Strauss,
ESSEC Business School Paris, France
Public Sector and Prof. Rhys Andrews,
Health Care Cardiff Business School, UK
Dr. Ian Elliot,
University of Northumbria, Newcastle Business School, UK
Regional Studies, Planning Prof. Gary Cook,
and Environment Leeds University Business School, UK
Prof. Phillip McCann,
Sheffield University Management School, UK
Sports, Leisure, Tourism Prof. Peter McKiernan,
and Sector Studies Strathclyde Business School, UK
Prof. Stephen Page,
Hertfordshire Business School, University of Hertfordshire, UK
Prof. Colin C. Williams,
Sheffield University Management School, UK
Social Sciences Prof. Robert Andersen,
University of Western Ontario, Canada
Strategy Dr. Sotirios Paroutis,
Warwick Business School, UK
Prof. Ram Mudambi,
Fox Business School, Temple University, USA

Sources of Journal Metrics

We are very grateful to Clarivate for the permission to use their Journal Citation Reports™ (JCR) and to
Elsevier for the use of their SNIP, SJR, and CiteScore metrics powered by Scopus.
 UK business schools and international student recruitment: Trends, challenges and the case for change
Academic Journal Guide 2021 Page 6
Page 6

INTRODUCTION
The Purpose of the Academic Journal Guide
Welcome to the 2021 edition of the Chartered Association of Business Schools’ Academic Journal Guide (AJG).
The purpose of the AJG is to assist researchers to make informed judgements about the outlets they may
wish to publish in. It provides details on a wide range of journals, stretching across fields that are either
central or salient to business and management studies; in other words, it aims to encompass a broad set
of journals in which business and management academics may seek to publish their research.

Our guiding principles on how to use the AJG:

• As the name suggests, the AJG is a ‘guide’. It should not be used as a ‘one stop shop’ to decide where to
publish nor to evaluate individuals’ research outputs.
• We advise that users of the guide should also seek advice and recommendations from peers and the
academic community more generally.
• Although the best work is clustered in a limited number of leading journals, good work may be
encountered in a wide range of different places; this highlights the merit of reading work.
• Consider the relevance and quality of journals not listed in the Guide, including new journals, but be
aware of predatory outlets.
• The AJG seeks to encourage good practices in journal publishing. As well as considering a journal’s
rating and relevance, consider other factors such as the composition and diversity of its editorial
board, its fee charging practices, or its acceptance rates.
• It is important that users of the AJG understand the methodology. By reading the methodology you
will understand how a journal rating came about, and how the AJG’s metrics are derived.

Introduction to the methodology and the role of the Scientific Committee

The AJG’s ratings are based upon peer review, editorial and expert judgements following the evaluation of
many hundreds of publications and is informed by statistical information relating to citation.
The AJG is distinctive in that, unlike other journal ratings, it is not based purely on a weighted average
of journal metrics. Rather, the AJG is informed by metrics. The ratings of journals reflect the outcomes
of consultations carried out by the subject experts of the Scientific Committee with expert peers and
scholarly associations as to the relative standing of journals in each subject area. As well as being experts
in their respective fields, members of the Scientific Committee are eminent scholars who typically work
across multiple fields and thus are well qualified to evaluate journals outside their scholarly field.
Business and Management is made up of an umbrella of disciplines whose boundaries are fluid and
have changed as the AJG has evolved. It has also altered the boundaries and number of fields it
evaluates, bringing in new specialised expertise within fields in order to better ensure topics of societal
importance are being captured. An example of this is the inclusion of Subject Experts within the ‘General
Management, Ethics, Gender and Social Responsibility’ field with specific expertise in gender studies and
gender related issues in management.
While a broad range of metric-based information is made available to the Scientific Committee, the
AJG seeks to supplement this through peer opinion and review. The AJG builds upon the external
consultations of Scientific Committee members and appreciates there are nuances in different fields
based upon how the contours of their disciplines have developed, as well as the relative ability of journals
to enable scholars in those fields to disseminate their work.
 UK business schools and international student recruitment: Trends, challenges and the case for change
Academic Journal Guide 2021 Page 7
Page 7

It is also the case that some specialised areas have a relatively small number of outlets because a large
proportion of their output is published in general management journals.
Journal Impact Factors do not capture the nuances imparted by the often substantial differences in
the volume of articles within journals, acceptance rates, nor within any specific rating. They also do
not capture the nuances of the differences between short opinion pieces (which count towards the
numerator, but not the denominator of citation calculations), or citation behaviours within different fields.
On occasion, the ratings of some journals, if based purely on such metrics, may not correspond with how
scholars perceive them. Our purpose therefore was to produce a guide that took into consideration this
subjective input.
The AJG is not intended to be a fully comprehensive guide, given, inter alia, the problems of demarcating
what is Business and Management research and/or relevant to it, and what is not. Inclusion in the AJG
is wholly at the discretion of the Editors and the Scientific Committee, and no undertakings have been
made that all journals that may desire inclusion will have been included. Non-inclusion in the AJG should
not necessarily be taken as a judgment of journal quality, but may reflect a wide range of factors which
may include: a journal’s aims and scope; that most content of the journal lies outside the scope of, or
are not relevant to business and management studies; or that the Scientific Committee and those they
consulted with did not encounter sufficient evidence on which to formulate an opinion.
The AJG is intended to give both emerging and established scholars greater clarity as to which journals
to aim for, and where the best work in their field tends to be clustered. Emerging scholars will have
greater clarity as to the full range of possible outlets, and where the best work in their field may be
clustered. Business and Management is an amalgam of fields. The volume of research in Business and
Management has grown rapidly over time, as have the number and breadth of available outlets in which
scholars publish. By the same measure, publication in identified top journals gives scholars a recognised
currency to assist in situating their research that is not based upon idiosyncratic local preferences that
can be distorted by local networks. Should local networks deny the currency of scholars’ research in one
institution, there will consequently be others who will recognise and welcome it.
We appreciate DORA’s concerns as to any focus on outlet rather than content; however, by the same
measure, a journal guide gives scholars some outside affirmation that their work resides in the best
company, even if the worth of their research is denied by established patronage networks often
dominated by privileged groups. Again, we share DORA’s concern with citation metrics as an over-riding
measure, and hence our emphasis on peer opinion, encompassing a careful reading of typical work and
scientific merit that is encountered in particular journals. The Chartered ABS Guide simply seeks to give
an opinion that encompasses a composite view as to the relative concentration of work that may be
encountered in particular places, whilst recognising that this is a tendency, rather than a general rule. If
readers wish to appraise the worth of a particular piece of scholarly work, any choices they make are theirs
alone. It is also recognised that there is a great range in the standard of editorial experience and standing
between journals, and, indeed, in the quality of reviewers that journals can hope to attract, although it
does not automatically correspond to journal metrics, and, indeed, there are important methodological
differences within the latter. Of course, there are many other forms of research output than journal
articles, including books and a variety of creative endeavours informed by scholarly enquiry; the Guide
only focuses on journals, but other forms of scholarly endeavour are worthy of due consideration. Again,
relative readership of, and citation by, the peer scholarly community needs to be considered against
the wider impact on the economy and society of scholarly research. At the same time, we would reject
the view that only research that demonstrates immediate practical impact is worthwhile; we remain
convinced that scholarly reflection and endeavour can be a good in its own right, and the presence of an
intellectual class engaged in either pure or applied enquiry and debate on the state of the human and
natural condition is the mark of a civilized society.
 UK business schools and international student recruitment: Trends, challenges and the case for change
Academic Journal Guide 2021 Page 8
Page 8

Good work may, of course, be found anywhere, but it is a generally held view that such work is more
likely to be concentrated in certain journals rather than others. The Editors recognise that any guide that
seeks to differentiate between journals will naturally be contentious. Some of this will reflect the natural
tensions in academia between shared scholarly identity, exchange and debate, and the individual pursuit
of very specialised knowledge that, whilst potentially worthwhile in its own right, when disseminated
is likely to be only accessible to a very small audience. It will also reflect the tensions between efforts to
commodify academic labour time, and the acclaim exceptional bodies of work receive across the scholarly
community. While recognising that exceptional scholarly work may be found in many places, we similarly
accept that such work tends to be clustered in particular locales and journals, in a process that may reflect
both the availability of resources and accumulated collective human capital. Better journals can be more
selective, find it easier to attract top reviewers, have the resources to manage papers efficiently, and,
because they are more widely read and cited, will attract some of the most ambitious authors. Identifying
such locales is a difficult and fraught process, but we remain convinced that it is better that this is
operationalised through the involvement of scholarly experts than without. We have made every effort to
learn from feedback we received on the 2018 edition of the AJG.
As outlined in the methodology section, the AJG builds on its previous iterations, and the Editors of this
Guide owe a debt of gratitude to the Editors and Scholarly Experts involved in these former editions.

THE AIMS OF THE 2021 AJG

The 2021 edition is a full update of the entire guide.
The aims of the 2021 edition were:
i. To undertake consultation involving a consistent, verifiable and robust process with learned societies
and additional consultation with peer communities and stakeholders.
ii. To reflect the emergence of a number of new journals that meet appropriate standards for scholarly
rigour across the subject areas covered by the AJG and bring into the fold a number of established
existing journals that have a strong relevance to business and management, about which we were
now in a position to formulate an opinion.
iii. To identify and consult upon selected journals that have witnessed substantial changes in practices
and/or metrics that have potentially influenced their quality.
iv. To transfer, where appropriate, journals across subject areas if their initial ‘home’ had been deemed to
be unsuitable.
 UK business schools and international student recruitment: Trends, challenges and the case for change
Academic Journal Guide 2021 Page 9
Page 9

THE PROCESS
The holistic methodology underpinning the AJG, consisting of evaluations of journals not based solely
on metrics but reflecting Subject Experts’ views, is a distinctive feature of the Guide. The approach
followed in 2015 and 2018 built on the previous iterations of the AJG, while we endeavoured to engage
more widely with expert peers than when producing earlier guides. The 2021 AJG continued to build
on the work of the 2018 AJG through an enlarged and more diverse Scientific Committee and enhanced
consultation process.
In detail, the four methodological components are as follows:
First, an open call was issued for applications for new journals to be added to the Guide alongside
those already included in the AJG. The Subject Experts formulated an opinion if journals should
be included or not.
Second, the Methodologists analysed the data collected from: (i) the Journal Citation Reports™ (JCR) from
Clarivate; (ii) the SCImago Journal Rank (SJR); (iii) the Source Normalised Impact per Paper (SNIP); and (iv)
the CiteScore.
Third, commencing from September 2020, evaluations were conducted by Subject Experts, based
on consultations with learned societies, professional associations and leading academics in their area
(see Appendix 2 for details of the consultation process). Following these consultations, Subject Experts
compiled these inputs, metric information and other information into cases for changes in journal ratings
where these were supported by robust evidence. The experts accorded particular attention to journals
where there had been a significant change in the metrics, where there had been a significant change
based on criteria of AJG journal grade definitions, as well as journals new to the Guide. Based on this,
reasoned recommendations were formulated.
Following this process, the Methodologists, the Chair of the Scientific Committee and the Editors met
with the Scientific Committee on 9th March 2021. All cases with completed Journal Review Forms and
supporting metric information were provided to the committee. This allowed the Committee as a whole
to review the proposed ratings of the journals under consideration in their entirety.
Fourth, the review and approval by Chartered Association of Business School’s Academic Journal Guide
Management Committee.
Please see Appendix 1 for more detail on the review process.
 UK business schools and international student recruitment: Trends, challenges and the case for change
Academic Journal Guide 2021 Page 10
Page 10

THE FOUR IMPACT FACTORS

RELATING TO CITATION INFORMATION
With regard to the citation information within the second methodological component, it is not the
intention of this document to provide a detailed review of the methodologies underlying these four
impact factors. Nevertheless, in what follows we provide a brief description of these four impact factors,
including their advantages and drawbacks. The 2008 version of the 5-Year Impact Factor from Clarivate
was the impact factor underlying the 2010 version of the AJG. In addition to the Five-Year JIF the
2015 version used the SJR and the SNIP. The 2018 revision of the AJG also used a fourth impact factor,
i.e. the Impact per Publication (IPP). As Elsevier replaced the IPP with the CiteScore in December 2016,
the 2021 AJG therefore uses the latter, in addition to the Clarivate 5-Year Impact Factor, and the SJR and
SNIP from Scopus.
An immediate advantage of using all four impact factors other than just the Clarivate 5-Year Impact Factor
is that the SJR, the SNIP and the CiteScore are available for a much larger number of journals whereas
the JCR represents only journals that are in the Social Sciences Citation Index™ from Clarivate. Refer to
González-Pereira et al. (2010) for more information on the SJR, and Moed (2010) for more information
about the SNIP and how it compares to the SJR.
The main advantages and disadvantages of the four impact factors are as follows (see Colledge et al.
2010 for a much more detailed comparison). The Journal Citation Reports (JCR) contain the most widely
used journal metrics, including the Journal Impact FactorTM (JIF) and the 5-Year Impact Factor. Its main
disadvantage is that it does not adjust for differences in the number of citations across subject areas. In
particular, it tends to generate much lower values compared to journals in the Science Citation Index
Expanded™ from Clarivate that includes biomedical science, physical sciences, and chemistry.
The SJR’s main advantages are that it adjusts for differences in the number of citations across subject areas
and also adjusts for the prestige of a journal. However, the fact that it adjusts for prestige also creates a
drawback as sources that are cited in more prestigious journals in turn are given more prestige. This may
result in self-perpetuating lists of so called prestige journals.
The SNIP’s main advantage is that it normalises citations across subject areas and that it does so without
relying on classifications of subject areas that in turn would create limitations.1 However, as the SNIP does
not adjust for the percentage of reviews published in a journal, it tends to have higher values for journals
publishing reviews. It is also more prone to editorial ‘game playing’ via journal self-citations.
The CiteScore measures the average citations received per article published in a journal. It is the ratio of
the number of citations obtained in a given year (e.g., 2018) for the papers published in the prior three
years (e.g., 2015 to 2017) to the total number of articles published in that journal during the same three-
year window.2
Bearing in mind that all four impact factors have advantages as well as drawbacks – i.e., no impact factor
is perfect – a strong case can be made for the need to consult all four impact factors (wherever available)
when assessing the quality of a journal. This is the approach adopted for the AJG. The four impact factors
were standardised across each subject area in a similar way to the 2015 and 2018 versions of the AJG.

1 Effectively, the SNIP’s subject areas are ‘tailor-made’ (Moed 2010: 274) which is an advantage when dealing with cross- and
multi-disciplinary journals.
2 Analogously, the 5-Year Impact Factor for 2018 divides the 2018 citations for a journal by the number of papers it published
during the five previous years, i.e. 2013-2017. Note that in June 2020, the CiteScore calculation was changed, in particular,
counting the number of citations for a journal over a four-year window. Work on the 2021 AJG began in 2019 and hence
employs the previous CiteScore calculation.
 UK business schools and international student recruitment: Trends, challenges and the case for change
Academic Journal Guide 2021 Page 11
Page 11

Following the 2018 AJG, this iteration of the guide uses the mean 5-Year Impact Factor from Clarivate
based on the average of the five-year impact factors for the years 2014 to 2018. This average is
then standardised by subtracting the average for the subject area and dividing this difference
by the standard deviation:

Standardised Journal Impact Factor-Mean Impact Factor for Subject Area

Impact Factor Standard Deviation of Impact Factor for Subject Area

We used standardised impact factors that are calculated for the SJR, the SNIP and the CiteScore. It should
be noted, however, that the standardised mean SJR, SNIP and CiteScore are based on the three-year
impact factors rather than the five-year impact factors as the latter are not available.
The reason why the AJG focuses on the 5-Year Impact Factor (and the three-year SJR and SNIP) rather than
a 2-year impact factor is that 2-year citation metrics can be highly volatile across years and because the
AJG takes a longer-run view of journal evaluation.
It should be noted that there can be considerable variability between and across journal metrics from
different sources and with different calculations. Hence, these should not be used mechanistically and
uniquely as a means of distribution. Crucially, this variability underlines the importance of adopting a
four-step methodology. The Subject Experts were also provided with the other metrics and data items,
such as the percentage of articles not cited and the percentage of reviews per journal, to help them rate
the journals in their subject area. The Subject Experts were asked to rate the journals from 4 to 1. A further
distinction (Journal of Distinction) was made for in respect of a small number of journals amongst those
with a rating of 4.
 UK business schools and international student recruitment: Trends, challenges and the case for change
Academic Journal Guide 2021 Page 12
Page 12

RATING DEFINITIONS
In Table 1, the definitions of the journal ratings are set out. This draws on the previous iterations of the AJG.

Table 1: Definitions of journal ratings

Rating Meaning of Quality Rating

4* Journals of Distinction. Within the business and management field including economics,
there are a small number of grade 4 journals that are recognised world-wide as exemplars
of excellence. As the world leading journals in the field, they would be ranked among the
highest in terms of impact factor. The initial paper selection and review process would be
rigorous and demanding. Accepted papers would typically not only bring to bear large
scale data and/or rigour in theory, but also be extremely finely crafted and provide major
advances to their field.

4 All journals rated 4 (whether included in the Journal of Distinction category or not) publish
the most original and best-executed research. As top journals in their field, these journals
typically have high submission and low acceptance rates. Papers are heavily refereed. These
top journals generally have among the highest citation impact factors within their field.

3 3 rated journals publish original and well executed research papers and are highly regarded.
These journals typically have good submission rates and are very selective in what they
publish. Papers are heavily refereed. These highly regarded journals generally have good to
excellent journal metrics relative to others in their field, although at present not all journals
in this category carry a citation impact factor.

2 Journals in this category publish original research of an acceptable standard. For these well
regarded journals in their field, papers are fully refereed according to accepted standards
and conventions. Citation impact factors are somewhat more modest in certain cases. Many
excellent practitioner-oriented articles are published in 2-rated journals.

1 These journals, in general, publish research of a recognised, but more modest standard in
their field. Papers are in many instances refereed relatively lightly according to accepted
conventions. Few journals in this category carry a citation impact factor.

Source: Adapted from Harvey et al. (2010)

 UK business schools and international student recruitment: Trends, challenges and the case for change
Academic Journal Guide 2021 Page 13
Page 13

Why is that Journal Awarded that Rating?

Users of the AJG are not likely to agree with the rating of every journal. The AJG incorporates a wide set
of experts on its Scientific Committee and each member has spoken to many individual scholars and
scholarly associations. There proved to be a remarkable general consensus concerning most journals,
albeit offset with a relatively small number of difficult or contentious cases. One or two ratings may
still appear unusual to users, but it is worth considering that the Scientific Committee includes many
experts who are party to a wide range of information, that not all may be similarly aware of. More broadly
speaking, we have simply awarded journal ratings, and any conclusions as to the worth of the journal
the user reaches are their own. Reviewing the AJG, a critical user may conclude that it is only the 4-rated
journals (or the JoD category) that are worth considering for their work; others may feel that a rating of 2 is
what matters, as it sets these journals apart from those that are rated 1. Still others may find that a rating of
1 is a useful indicator that the journal meets normal scholarly standards, including a general expectation
of peer review.
It is important to note that the average number of articles published by a journal within a particular issue
will affect how much work is published in 3- or 4-rated outlets in a particular field. In terms of categorising
research in a particular national context, the proportion of work by local scholars typically published by
that journal is an important consideration; many journals are dominated by contributors from a particular
nation or region. A note of caution is also urged in looking at the proportion of 3 and 4-rated journals
in a particular field; again, the proportion of 3s and 4s will to a large extent be a product of the number
of 1-rated journals included. In very large areas, there is likely to be a large number of journals with low
ratings, whilst in smaller fields, the journal ecosystem may be more limited. Hence, readers of the AJG
are cautioned against simply counting the number of 3 and 4-rated journals in a particular field, and
comparing the result with other fields. Any conclusions that do not take these issues into account might
be misleading.
 UK business schools and international student recruitment: Trends, challenges and the case for change
Academic Journal Guide 2021 Page 14
Page 14

AJG 2021 OUTCOMES

An important raison d’être of journal rankings is to encourage good practices in journals and, in doing so,
respond to developments in the journal ecosystem in as much as they might impact on quality and the
relative concentration of good work in particular places. The 2021 edition of the AJG focused on selected
journals that had substantive changes in metrics or esteem, with such changes being identified through
Scientific Committee members, and/or where there were significant shifts in metrics when compared
against peer journals so as to lead to them being sent out for consultation. It was also the case that the
2021 AJG added to the list a number of journals where it was possible to make an informed judgement
and where the Subject Experts were confident that there was sufficient evidence of scholarly standards.
The list now comprises 1,703 journals up from slightly less than 1,600 journals in the 2018 AJG, i.e., a 9%
increase in journals (see Table 2).
Almost all new journals typically entered the list with a rating of 1 or 2, reflecting their emerging or
focused status. Only in very exceptional cases did journals enter the list with a rating of 3. Finally,
there were 5 journals that were upgraded from a rating of 4 to Journal of Distinction status following
overwhelming support to do so from a broad-based consultation of their respective fields as well as the
Scientific Committee. Specifically, these were Academy of Management Annals; Academy of Management,
Learning and Education; Human Resource Management Journal; Journal of the Association of Information
Systems; and Personnel Psychology. For each subject area, a number of eminent individuals had been
consulted about the proposed new Journal of Distinction and all had supported on the basis that it was
an exceptional journal in the subject, with a high impact score.
In this iteration of the AJG, we have taken on board the findings of a survey of business academics (Walker
et al., 2019a). Specifically, we have further expanded the size as well as the geographical and gender
composition of the Subject Expert group on the Scientific Committee. We also increased the diversity of
subjects examined. Specifically, the Subject Expert group has expanded to 53, representing more than
a threefold increase since 2010. Since 2010, the proportion of women on the committee has risen from
11% to 33%. And while the members of the Scientific Committee are all internationally respected in their
fields, the proportion of scholars based outside the UK has risen from a mere 2% to 38%. This shift also
mirrors the usage of the AJG with approximately half of the 40,000 registered users of the AJG residing
outside of the UK. It is also encouraging that fields, such as economics, that are represented by the AJG
but who frequently work outside the business schools also utilise the guide as a means to recognise the
contributions, particularly in interdisciplinary contexts (Walker et al., 2020c).
One element of providing a ‘level playing field’ is ensuring that the guide aligns to the fields that business
and management scholars, and scholars in aligned fields, publish in. While work has shown that the AJG
aligns closely to academic users’ primary fields (Walker et al., 2019b), we appreciate that a strength of
business and management is that it comprises an umbrella of disciplines.
As well as expanding the scope and deepening the extent of expertise of the Subject Expert group, we
have further codified the process of evaluation based on clear consultations with the wider academic
community though subject experts. Subject Experts have utilised their subject-specific knowledge
to examine a broad array of indicators at the journal level by reviewing the journal content, editorial
composition and other factors. We consider that the examination of a wide array of journal indicators
will lead to a more responsible evaluation framework, in which values such as diversity, transparency and
accuracy are valued as well as scholarly impact.
The only change to the quantitative methodology has been the inclusion of a fourth impact factor, the
CiteScore, which replaces the IPP that had been discontinued by Elsevier.
 UK business schools and international student recruitment: Trends, challenges and the case for change
Academic Journal Guide 2021 Page 15
Page 15

CONCLUSION
We hope that the Academic Journal Guide (AJG) will stimulate further dialogue with the peer community
at large. No journal rating guide is ever definitive. It could be argued that the supposed objectivity and
superiority of purely metrics-based ratings is potentially misleading, as are crude count-based measures
(Aguinis et al., 2020). The AJG is based on the conviction that the expertise and experience of a committee
of successful researchers provides fertile grounds for including scholarly judgment in the rating of
academic journals.
We take the concerns of the peer community very seriously. Hence, the Editors and Management
Committee would again welcome informed input and feedback.
Our intention is to update the AJG every three years. We will continue to strive for ever greater rigour,
representation and inclusivity, taking account of the concerns across the community of business and
management scholarship, whilst retaining the principle of differentiation in research outputs and evading
a ‘tragedy of the commons’.
 UK business schools and international student recruitment: Trends, challenges and the case for change
Academic Journal Guide 2021 Page 16
Page 16

Table 2: Data on Subject Areas

The numbers in italic refer to the 2018 Academic Journal Guide. 

Distribution of Journals Across Ratings

4 3 2 1 Total
6 21 34 28 89
Accounting
6 21 34 28 89
3 4 13 9 29
Business and Economic History
2 5 13 8 28
Economics, Econometrics and 27 67 116 124 334
Statistics 23 67 118 122 330
Entrepreneurship and Small 3 6 10 13 32
Business Management 3 5 9 13 30
8 32 36 37 113
Finance
8 29 39 34 110
General Management, Ethics, 9 12 30 64 115
Gender and Social Responsibility 8 12 27 31 78
Human Resource Management and 5 9 23 20 57
Employment Studies 5 9 22 17 53
8 11 36 45 100
Information Systems
4 17 34 39 94
2 5 12 21 40
Innovation
2 3 14 15 34
International Business and Area 2 7 18 28 55
Studies 2 7 17 26 52
Management Development and 1 3 17 29 50
Education 1 3 17 25 46
8 12 21 35 76
Marketing
8 12 21 29 70
Operations and Technology 4 9 10 46 69
Management 3 9 11 39 62
Operations Research and 5 22 18 24 69
Management Science 5 22 17 22 66
5 6 12 15 38
Organisational Studies
5 4 14 9 32
12 15 13 27 67
Psychology (General)
9 12 11 25 57
8 14 18 26 66
Psychology (Organisational)
7 13 20 27 67
5 10 25 15 55
Public Sector and Health Care
3 11 14 15 43
Regional Studies, Planning and 3 9 9 12 33
Environment 3 8 9 4 24
 UK business schools and international student recruitment: Trends, challenges and the case for change
Academic Journal Guide 2021 Page 17
Page 17

Distribution of Journals Across Ratings

4 3 2 1 Total
Sports, Leisure, Tourism and Sector 5 10 38 55 108
Studies 5 10 38 54 107
8 29 29 22 88
Social Sciences
8 29 29 7 73
2 2 5 11 20
Strategy
1 3 4 9 17
139 315 543 706 1,703
All subject areas
121 311 532 598 1,562

REFERENCES
Aguinis, H., C. Cummings, R. S. Ramani and T. G. Cummings (2020). ‘“An A is an A”: The new bottom line for
valuing academic research’, Academy of Management Perspectives, 34, pp. 135-154.
Colledge, L., de Moya-Anegón, F., Guerrero-Bote, V., López-Illescas, C., El Aisati, M. H. and Moed, M. (2010),
‘SJR and SNIP: Two new journal metrics in Elsevier’s Scopus’, Serials: The Journal for the Serials Community
23, 215-221.
González-Pereira, B., Guerrero-Bote, V. P., Moya-Anegón, F. (2010), ‘A new approach to the metric of journals’
scientific prestige: The SJR indicator’, Journal of Informetrics 4, 379-391.
Harvey, C., Kelly, A., Morris, H. and M. Rowlinson (2010), Academic Journal Quality Guide, Version 4, London:
The Association of Business Schools.
Moed, H. F. (2010), ‘Measuring contextual citation impact of scientific journals’, Journal of Informetrics 4,
265-277.
Walker, J.T., E. Fenton, A. Salter and R. Salandra (2019a). ‘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, 730-747.
Walker, J.T., Fontinha, R., Salter, A. and Salandra, R. (2019b). ‘What determines how individual’s view ranks?
Evidence from a large-scale survey’, Research Evaluation, 28, 218-231.
Walker, J.T., Della Giusta, M., Fontinha, R. (2020), ‘Initial findings from the consultation on the impact of
research metrics on the work of academic economists 2020’.
 UK business schools and international student recruitment: Trends, challenges and the case for change
Academic Journal Guide 2021 Page 18
Page 18

APPENDIX 1
Overview of the AJG 2021 Review Process

Remit of Review Process

• All existing AJG 2018 journals
• Journals new to AJG 2021 (Chartered ABS application process; deferred from AJG 2018;
and additional journals suggested by subject area experts)

Review with Consultation Streamlined Review

Grade 3 and Grade 4 journals, and Journals of Distinction (JoD), where methodologists Grade 1 and Grade 2 journals (except
identified significant upward or downward movement in the metrics-based Grade 2 journals that qualify for the full
rankings since AJG 2018. review and consultation process)
Grade 2 journals with significant upward movement in Journals new to AJG with proposed
metrics-based rankings. inception Grade of 1 or 2
Exceptional cases agreed with the Editors: In addition, subject area experts could in
exceptional cases, where a journal is not indicated under above definition, but where
there is robust evidence that a journal has shifted substantially based on criteria of the AJG
journal grades definition, and in consultation and agreement with the Editors, propose the
journal to be submitted to the consultation process.
Journals new to AJG with proposed inception grade ≥ 3

Consultation with learned societies/scholarly associations and peer community

(see Appendix 2)

Completion of Journal Review Form (see Appendix 3).

Based on metrics (if available), outcome of • Retention of existing journal grade For journals subject to consultation process,
consultation process (where applicable), • Change in journal grade the assessment of above review elements
other relevant information at disposal, and • Inception grade for journals new to AJG and a reasoned evidence-based report
subject area experts’ assessment, subject • Change in JoD status and/or additional with the recommendation was formally
area experts propose: JoD (in line with AJG definition of JoDs) recorded in the Journal Review Form
(see Appendix 3)

Review by Editors

Put forward to Scientific Committee with view of agreed recommended journal grades
• Scientific Committee members furnished with journal metrics • Presentation of proposed journal grades and grade changes by
spreadsheets and Journal Review Forms of all subject areas prior to subject experts and subsequent discussion in Scientific Committee,
meeting to allow the Committee as a whole to review proposed moderated by Editors and Chair of Scientific Committee
ratings and grade changes of the journals under consideration in
• Decisions taken in Scientific Committee
their entirety.
by consensus principle

Review by Editors

Review and Approval of journal grades and AJG 2021 in its entirety by AJG Management Committee
 UK business schools and international student recruitment: Trends, challenges and the case for change
Academic Journal Guide 2021 Page 19
Page 19

APPENDIX 2
Consultation with Academic Community

Overview and Guiding Principles

The formal consultation process and documented assessment with review forms, piloted in the AJG 2018
interim review process was further strengthened, refined and formalised and rolled out comprehensively
in the AJG 2021 process. It involved a consistent, transparent, verifiable and robust consultation with
learned societies/scholarly associations and peer community panels in each AJG subject area. The
consultation process formed an integral part of the AJG review process. As well as expanding the scope
and deepening the extent of expertise of the Subject Area Expert teams of the Scientific Committee, the
systematic roll-out of a comprehensive, verifiable and formalised consultation process with the wider
academic community ensured a codified process of evaluation based on consultation and expertise
residing in both AJG subject area teams and the Scientific Committee across subject areas.

Journals subject to Consultation Process

All journals falling within the remit of “Review with Consultation” in the AJG 2021 Review Process
(see Appendix 1).

Consultation Target Audience in the Academic Community

• Where possible and where they exist: main worldwide, regional (e.g. European) and UK based learned
societies and scholarly associations in the specific subject area, and with relevant special interest
groups in general management and business and related learned societies.
• Peer Group Panel of recognised experts in the field, having regard to appropriate international spread
and gender balance.
• Beyond the consultations above, subject experts were welcomed to conduct further consultations
with the wider peer community and other stakeholders.

Consultation Process
• Subject area experts were furnished with a bespoke spreadsheet for consultees to record their
assessment and to provide comments and narrative if they so wished, as well as with an official
Chartered ABS letter to accompany the consultation requests, setting out inter alia the purpose, remit
and importance of the consultation process, data protection, ethics, confidentiality undertakings.
• Subject experts provided to Editors and Chair of Scientific Committee on a confidential basis the list
of peers (anonymised) and learned societies consulted, which they reviewed to ensure sufficiency
and adequacy of consultation in the subject area and consistency across subject areas.
 UK business schools and international student recruitment: Trends, challenges and the case for change
Academic Journal Guide 2021 Page 20
Page 20

Computation of the Consultation Outcome

• Subject experts retained a record of the consultations.
• The outcome of the consultation process was formally recorded and on a dedicated spreadsheet
for each subject area. In addition, a number of subject areas also provided documents with detailed
comments and narratives from consultees.
• All consultation records were reviewed by the Editors and Chair of Scientific Committee and logged
in the Chartered ABS AJG system with restricted access for the Editors, Chair of Scientific Committee,
Methodologists and the Chartered ABS AJG team.

Evaluation of Consultation Outcome and Completion of Journal Review Form

• For all journals that underwent consultations, subject area experts computed a numerical summary
assessment of the consultation results in terms of averages and/or means and median for peer
group consultations and for the consultations with learned societies, as well as a short synthesis
summarizing the subject area experts’ assessment of the consultation results. These were made
available to Scientific Committee members.
• This information was also documented in the Journal Review Form and made available to Scientific
Committee members. Review forms were completed if after completion of the consultation process,
and based on the metrics, the results of consultation, other information that may be available and
subject area experts’ assessment, subject experts recommend a change in journal grade, a change
in JoD status/addition, or adding a journal which is new to the AJG with a grade of 3 or higher.
• Based on the holistic assessment of the consultation outcome and the other journal grade
criteria, this entailed also a reasoned summary assessment to support the recommendation.
The completed Journal Review Forms were reviewed by the Editors and made available to
Scientific Committee, allowing the Committee as a whole to review proposed rankings/changes
of the journals under consideration in their entirety and facilitate informed decision making at the
Scientific Committee meeting.
 40 Queen Street
London
EC4R 1DD

charteredabs.org