Home Marketing Journal Rankings: Active Scholar Assessment
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Marketing Journal Rankings: Active Scholar Assessment

  • Russell Currie ORCID logo EMAIL logo , Gurupdesh Pandher and Peter Voyer
Published/Copyright: May 11, 2023
Review of Marketing Science
From the journal Review of Marketing Science Volume 21 Issue 1

Abstract

Journal rankings convey important information to researchers and influence processes related to promotion, remuneration, research funding, and resource allocation in academe. The present research uses direct responses from an international sample of 203 active marketing scholars in a web-based survey to endogenously rank 138 marketing journals by quality, awareness, and importance. We employ regression estimation with nested random journal-within-tier effects to comprehensively rank the marketing journals into four ordered tiers (A–D), and then in turn, subdivide journals in each tier, into “upper,” “middle,” and “lower” groups (e.g. Tier A: A+, A and A−). Our methodology, Active Scholar Assessment (ASA), produces an independent ranking of marketing journals that aggregates individual expert opinion regarding journals by researchers from 68 countries. Subsequently, we compare our ASA-developed marketing journal rankings and categories with prominent citation-based ranking systems (Scimago, Clarivate Analytics’ Journal Citation Reports, Association of Business Schools, and the Australian Business Deans Council) to demonstrate that the opinions of active scholars are comparatively more stable and capture additional information (that is not reflected by computations based solely on citations), and provide useful strategic information and direction to scholars.

Keywords: active scholar assessment; opinion; journal quality; rankings; nested random-effects regression estimation
Corresponding author: Russell Currie, Thompson Rivers University, Kamloops, BC V2C 0C8, Canada, E-mail:

  1. Summary statement of contribution: Dissemination of research via appropriate publication outlets is important to a successful academic career. As scholars seek to comparatively assess outlets, journal rankings become critical. Here, we develop a robust ranking of prominent marketing journals based on quality, awareness, and importance. In so doing, we contribute to the burgeoning journal ranking literature. Also, pragmatically, our rankings can contribute to decision processes related to tenure awarding, promotion, research funding, and other procedural entities that could benefit from a valid ranked order journal list. Thus, we offer unique and robust insights that can directly contribute to academic career advancement.

References

Chan, K. C., P. Lai, and K. Liano. 2012. “A Threshold Citation Analysis in Marketing Research.” European Journal of Marketing 46 (1/2): 134–56. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090561211189211.Search in Google Scholar

Cherkowski, S., R. R. Currie, and S. Hilton. 2012. “Who Should Rank Our Journals … and Based on What?” Journal of Educational Administration 50 (2): 206–30. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231211210558.Search in Google Scholar

Currie, R. R., and G. S. Pandher. 2011. “Finance Journal Rankings and Tiers: An Active Scholar Assessment Methodology.” Journal of Banking & Finance 35 (1): 7–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2010.07.034.Search in Google Scholar

Currie, R. R., and G. S. Pandher. 2013. “Management Education Journals’ Rank and Tier by Active Scholars.” Academy of Management, Learning and Education 12 (2): 194–218. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2010.0184.Search in Google Scholar

Currie, R. R., and G. S. Pandher. 2020. “Finance Journal Rankings: Active Scholar Assessment Revisited.” Journal of Banking and Finance 111: 105717. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2019.105717.Search in Google Scholar

Donthu, N., and J. Cherian. 1993. “Differences in Consumer Perceptions of Similarity and Dissimilarity.” Marketing Letters 4 (1): 31–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00994185.Search in Google Scholar

Erickson, G. M., and J. K. Johansson. 1985. “The Role of Price in Multi-Attribute Product Evaluations.” Journal of Consumer Research 12 (2): 195–9. https://doi.org/10.1086/208508.Search in Google Scholar

Fei, Q., and R. L. Bell. 2013. “Marketing Journal Ranking, Celebrity Authors, and the Diminishing Quality Gap.” Mustang Journal of Management & Marketing 3: 16–32.Search in Google Scholar

Gruber, T. 2014. “Academic Sell-Out: How an Obsession with Metrics and Rankings is Damaging Academia.” Journal of Marketing for Higher Education 24 (2): 165–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2014.970248.Search in Google Scholar

Guidry, J. A., B. N. G. Hollier, L. Johnson, J. R. Tanner, and C. Veltsos. 2004. “Surveying the Cites: A Ranking of Marketing Journals Using Citation Analysis.” Marketing Education Review 14 (1): 45–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/10528008.2004.11488853.Search in Google Scholar

Haddad, K., G. Singh, D. Sciglimpaglia, and H. Chan. 2014. “To What Extent Do Articles Published in Other Than “Top Journals” Have Impact on Marketing.” European Journal of Marketing 48 (1/2): 271–87. https://doi.org/10.1108/ejm-11-2010-0592.Search in Google Scholar

Harvey, C., A. Kelly, H. Morris, and M. Rowlinson. 2010. Academic Journal Quality Guide, Version 4. London: The Association of Business Schools.Search in Google Scholar

Hawes, J. M., and B. Keillor. 2002. “Assessing Marketing Journals: A Mission-Based Approach.” Journal of the Academy of Business Education 3 (2): 70–86.Search in Google Scholar

Hult, G. T. M., M. Reimann, and O. Schilke. 2009. “Worldwide Faculty Perceptions of Marketing Journals: Rankings, Trends, Comparisons, and Segmentations.” Global Edge Business Review 3 (3): 1–23.Search in Google Scholar

Hofacker, C. F., M. R. Gleim, and S. J. Lawson. 2009. “Revealed Reader Preference for Marketing Journals.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 37 (2): 238–47, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-008-0124-y.Search in Google Scholar

Hult, G. T. M., W. T. Neese, and R. E. Bashaw. 1997. “Faculty Perceptions of Marketing Journals.” Journal of Marketing Education 19 (1): 37–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/027347539701900105.Search in Google Scholar

Jiang, L., Z. Yang, and D. Carlson. 2012. “Marketing Professionals’ Perceptions of Marketing Journals/Publications.” African Journal of Business Management 6 (11): 4317–27.10.5897/AJBM11.2909Search in Google Scholar

Jobber, D., and P. Simpson. 1988. “A Citation Analysis of Selected Marketing Journals.” International Journal of Research in Marketing 5 (2): 137–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-8116(88)90065-1.Search in Google Scholar

Johnson, R., A. Watkinson, and M. Mabe. 2018. “The STM Report.” In An Overview of Scientific and Scholarly Publishing, 5th ed. The Hague: International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers.Search in Google Scholar

Korkeamäki, T., J. Sihvonen, and S. Vähämaa. 2018. “Evaluating Publications Across Business Disciplines: Inferring Interdisciplinary “Exchange Rates” from Intradisciplinary Author Rankings.” Journal of Business Research 84: 220–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.11.024.Search in Google Scholar

Kumar, V., V. Mittal, and N. Morgan. 2018. “Reflections on Publishing in the Journal of Marketing.” Journal of Marketing 82 (6): 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022242918805485.Search in Google Scholar

Luke, R. H., and E. R. Doke. 1987. “Marketing Journal Hierarchies: Faculty Perceptions, 1986–87.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 15 (1): 74–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02721957.Search in Google Scholar

McKercher, B., R. Law, and T. Lam. 2006. “Rating Tourism and Hospitality Journals.” Tourism Management 27 (6): 1235–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2005.06.008.Search in Google Scholar

Merigó, J. M., A. Mas-Tur, N. Roig-Tierno, and D. Ribeiro-Soriano. 2015. “A Bibliometric Overview of the Journal of Business Research Between 1973 and 2014.” Journal of Business Research 68 (12): 2645–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.04.006.Search in Google Scholar

Mort, G. S., J. R. McColl-Kennedy, G. Kiel, and G. N. Soutar. 2004. “Australian and New Zealand Senior Scademics’ Perceptions of Marketing Journals.” Australasian Marketing Journal 12 (2): 51–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1441-3582(04)70097-x.Search in Google Scholar

Moussa, S., and M. Touzani. 2010. “Ranking Marketing Journals Using the Google Scholar-Based Hg-Index.” Journal of Informetrics 4: 107–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2009.10.001.Search in Google Scholar

Polonsky, M. J., and P. Whitelaw. 2005. “What are We Measuring When We Evaluate Journals?” Journal of Marketing Education 27 (2): 189–201. https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475305276842.Search in Google Scholar

Polonsky, M. J., and P. Whitelaw. 2006. “A Multi-Dimensional Examination of Marketing Journal Rankings by North American Academics.” Marketing Education Review 16 (3): 59–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/10528008.2006.11488974.Search in Google Scholar

Rosenstreich, D., and B. Wooliscroft. 2012. “Assessing International Journal Impact: The Case of Marketing.” European Business Review 24 (1): 58–87. https://doi.org/10.1108/09555341211191553.Search in Google Scholar

Sethna, Z., and J. Blythe. 2019. Consumer Behaviour, 4th ed. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.Search in Google Scholar

Steenkamp, J. B. E. 1990. “Conceptual Model of the Quality Perception Process.” Journal of Business Research 21 (4): 309–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-2963(90)90019-a.Search in Google Scholar

Steward, M. D., and B. R. Lewis. 2010. “A Comprehensive Analysis of Marketing Journal Rankings.” Journal of Marketing Education 32 (1): 75–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475309344804.Search in Google Scholar

Stremersch, S., N. Camacho, S. Vanneste, and I. Verniers. 2015. “Unraveling Scientific Impact: Citation Types in Marketing Journals.” International Journal of Research in Marketing 32 (1): 64–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2014.09.004.Search in Google Scholar

Svensson, G. 2008. “Scholarly Journal Ranking(s) in Marketing: Single- or Multi-Item Measures?” Marketing Intelligence and Planning 26 (4): 340–52. https://doi.org/10.1108/02634500810879250.Search in Google Scholar

Svensson, G., and G. Wood. 2008. “Top versus Leading Journals in Marketing: Some Challenging Thoughts.” European Journal of Marketing 42 (3/4): 287–98. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090560810852931.Search in Google Scholar

Tadajewski, M. 2016. “Academic Labour, Journal Ranking Lists and the Politics of Knowledge Production in Marketing.” Journal of Marketing Management 32 (1/2): 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257x.2015.1120508.Search in Google Scholar

Tahai, A., and M. J. Meyer. 1999. “A Revealed Preference Study of Management Journals’ Direct Influences.” Strategic Management Journal 20 (3): 279–96. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1097-0266(199903)20:3<279::aid-smj33>3.0.co;2-2.10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199903)20:3<279::AID-SMJ33>3.0.CO;2-2Search in Google Scholar

Theoharakis, V., and A. Hirst. 2002. “Perceptual Differences of Marketing Journals: A Worldwide Perspective.” Marketing Letters 13 (4): 389–402. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1020378718456.10.1023/A:1020378718456Search in Google Scholar

Theußl, S., T. Reutterer, and K. Hornik. 2014. “How to Derive Consensus Among Various Marketing Journal Rankings.” Journal of Business Research 65 (5): 998–1006.10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.08.006Search in Google Scholar

Truex, D., M. Cuellar, and H. Takeda. 2009. “Assessing Scholarly Influence: Using the Hirsch Indices to Reframe the Discourse.” Journal of the Association for Information Systems 10 (7): 560–94. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00203.Search in Google Scholar

Uncles, M. D. 2004. “Journal Rankings: How Much Credence Should We Give Them?” Australasian Marketing Journal 12 (2): 67–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1441-3582(04)70100-7.Search in Google Scholar

Walters, W. H. 2017. “Key Questions in the Development and Use of Survey-Based Journal Rankings.” The Journal of Academic Librarianship 43 (4): 305–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2017.05.002.Search in Google Scholar

Yang, Z., and C. Gao. 2012. “Ranking Marketing Journals by Using Social Network Analysis.” In Technology for Education and Learning, edited by T. Honghua, 623–9. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.10.1007/978-3-642-27711-5_82Search in Google Scholar

Yoo, B. 2009. “Developing an Overall Ranking of 79 Marketing Journals: An Introduction of PRINQUAL to Marketing.” Australasian Marketing Journal 17 (3): 160–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2009.05.014.Search in Google Scholar
Received: 2022-09-21
Accepted: 2023-04-20
Published Online: 2023-05-11

© 2023 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. The Rise of the Non-Fungible Token (NFT) Market in Turkey: The Effect of Social Media Interaction and the Need for Uniqueness on NFT Purchase Intention*
  3. Walk in Someone Else’s Shoes: Fan Group Behavior and Rivalry in Sport and Athletic Footwear Brands
  4. Dynamic Formation of Quality Expectations: Theory and Empirical Evidence
  5. A Systematic Analysis of Higher Educational Content Over Social Media for Engagement Optimization
  6. Developing Affective Brands: Paratextualization in the Entertainment Industry
  7. How Does Social Media Impact Consumers’ Sustainable Purchase Intention?
  8. Packaging Global Warming Products: The CIS Strategy as a Driver of Gen Z’s Satisfaction and Loyalty
  9. How to Improve the Performance of Email Marketing Campaigns? A Field Experiment Using the Authority Principle to Improve Email Performance
  10. Marketing Journal Rankings: Active Scholar Assessment
  11. Further Insight into the Usage of Bank Cards Over Cash at the Point-of-Sale?
  12. Exploring Must-know Criteria for Effective Customer Segmentation in Online Market Using AHP
  13. The Impact of Customer Perceived Justice on Target-Based Customer Citizenship Behaviors: The Mediating Effects of Customer Trust and Affective Commitment
  14. Unveiling Brand Convergence in Consideration Sets: The Effects of Purchase for Self or Others and Product Nature
https://doi.org/10.1515/roms-2022-0076
Keywords for this article
active scholar assessment; opinion; journal quality; rankings; nested random-effects regression estimation

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. The Rise of the Non-Fungible Token (NFT) Market in Turkey: The Effect of Social Media Interaction and the Need for Uniqueness on NFT Purchase Intention*
  3. Walk in Someone Else’s Shoes: Fan Group Behavior and Rivalry in Sport and Athletic Footwear Brands
  4. Dynamic Formation of Quality Expectations: Theory and Empirical Evidence
  5. A Systematic Analysis of Higher Educational Content Over Social Media for Engagement Optimization
  6. Developing Affective Brands: Paratextualization in the Entertainment Industry
  7. How Does Social Media Impact Consumers’ Sustainable Purchase Intention?
  8. Packaging Global Warming Products: The CIS Strategy as a Driver of Gen Z’s Satisfaction and Loyalty
  9. How to Improve the Performance of Email Marketing Campaigns? A Field Experiment Using the Authority Principle to Improve Email Performance
  10. Marketing Journal Rankings: Active Scholar Assessment
  11. Further Insight into the Usage of Bank Cards Over Cash at the Point-of-Sale?
  12. Exploring Must-know Criteria for Effective Customer Segmentation in Online Market Using AHP
  13. The Impact of Customer Perceived Justice on Target-Based Customer Citizenship Behaviors: The Mediating Effects of Customer Trust and Affective Commitment
  14. Unveiling Brand Convergence in Consideration Sets: The Effects of Purchase for Self or Others and Product Nature
Sign up now to receive a 20% welcome discount
Institutional Access
How does access work?
Have an idea on how to improve our website?
Please write us.
© 2025 De Gruyter Brill
Downloaded on 7.9.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/roms-2022-0076/html?lang=en&srsltid=AfmBOoq1gzR-DbYuaohzGU5nOGOQt1A-zaHCdp0rOhifoOqeXHck3JLv
Scroll to top button