Search

The development of the Association of Business Schools (ABS) list in 2007 and its rapid adoption by UK business schools has had a profound effect on the nature of business and management academics' ways of working. Using a large‐scale survey of UK business academics, we assess the extent to which individuals use the Academic Journal Guide (AJG/ABS) list in their day‐to‐day professional activities. In particular, we explore how their perceptions of the list, the academic influence of their research, academic rank and organizational context drive the varied use. Building on prior research on the importance of univalent attitudes in predicting behaviour, we find those who have either strong positive or negative views of the list are more extensive users than those who are ambivalent. We also find that the extent of use of the AJG/ABS list is greatest among those academics who have lower academic influence, in the middle or junior ranks within business schools and in middle and low‐status universities. We explore the implications of these findings for the value of journal rankings and for the management of business schools. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The marked increase in the use of metrics, such as journal lists, to assess research has had a profound effect on academics' working lives. While some view the diffusion of rankings as beneficial, others consider their diffusion as a malicious development, which further acerbates a tendency towards managerialism in academia, and undermine the integrity and diversity of academic research. Using data from a large-scale survey and a re-grading of journals in a ranking used by Business and Management UK scholars—the Academic Journal Guide—as a pseudo-experiment, we examine what determines negative and positive perceptions of rankings. We find that the individuals who published in outlets that were upgraded were less hostile to the ranking than those who did not benefit from these changes, and that individuals were also less hostile to the ranking if outlets in their field had benefited from re-grading in the new list. We also find that the individuals who published in outlets that were upgraded were more positive to the ranking than those who did not benefit from these changes, and that individuals were also more positive to the ranking if outlets in their field had benefited from re-grading in the new list. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]