IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/crpeac/v26y2015icp37-46.html

In Defiance of Folly: Journal rankings, mindless measures and the ABS Guide

Author

Listed:
  • Tourish, Dennis
  • Willmott, Hugh

Abstract

In this paper we challenge the defence of the ABS Guide offered by its authors (Rowlinson et al.). We direct critical attention to its various uses, including as an inappropriate surrogate for assessing the quality of published work without it having to be read; the taking of decisions about which staff to include in research quality assessments, such as the UK's REF; and, its use by promotions and appointment panels within business schools. The Guide offers a one size fits all formula for estimating the quality of journal articles and journals. This approach disadvantages emergent journals and areas of interest. It contributes to a wider debasement of academic culture whereby business schools and academics are encouraged to over-focus on issues of status and league table positioning for their own sake, rather than address important issues of concern to our wider society. Consequently, we urge its withdrawal. Failing that, we suggest that it should be ignored by business schools, and regarded as a quaint but dangerous experiment that it would be wise to consign to our past.

Suggested Citation

  • Tourish, Dennis & Willmott, Hugh, 2015. "In Defiance of Folly: Journal rankings, mindless measures and the ABS Guide," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 26(C), pages 37-46.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:crpeac:v:26:y:2015:i:c:p:37-46
    DOI: 10.1016/j.cpa.2014.02.004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1045235414000318
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.cpa.2014.02.004?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rowlinson, Michael & Harvey, Charles & Kelly, Aidan & Morris, Huw & Todeva, Emanuela, 2015. "Accounting for research quality: Research audits and the journal rankings debate," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 26(C), pages 2-22.
    2. Bristow, Alexandra, 2012. "On life, death and radical critique: A non-survival guide to the Brave New Higher Education for the intellectually pregnant," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 234-241.
    3. Frederic S. Lee & Xuan Pham & Gyun Gu, 2013. "The UK Research Assessment Exercise and the narrowing of UK economics," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 37(4), pages 693-717.
    4. Hugh Willmott, 1993. "Strength Is Ignorance; Slavery Is Freedom: Managing Culture In Modern Organizations," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(4), pages 515-552, July.
    5. William H. Starbuck, 2005. "How Much Better Are the Most-Prestigious Journals? The Statistics of Academic Publication," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(2), pages 180-200, April.
    6. Harney, Stefano & Dunne, Stephen, 2013. "More than nothing? Accounting, business, and management studies, and the research audit," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 24(4), pages 338-349.
    7. Hugh Willmott, 2013. "‘The Substitution of One Piece of Nonsense for Another’: Reflections on Resistance, Gaming, and Subjugation," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(3), pages 443-473, May.
    8. Stuart Macdonald & Jacqueline Kam, 2007. "Ring a Ring o’ Roses: Quality Journals and Gamesmanship in Management Studies," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(4), pages 640-655, June.
    9. Rafols, Ismael & Leydesdorff, Loet & O’Hare, Alice & Nightingale, Paul & Stirling, Andy, 2012. "How journal rankings can suppress interdisciplinary research: A comparison between Innovation Studies and Business & Management," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(7), pages 1262-1282.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rowlinson, Michael & Harvey, Charles & Kelly, Aidan & Morris, Huw & Todeva, Emanuela, 2015. "Accounting for research quality: Research audits and the journal rankings debate," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 26(C), pages 2-22.
    2. Brooks, Chris & Schopohl, Lisa & Tao, Ran & Walker, James & Zhu, Millie, 2025. "The female finance penalty: Why are women less successful in academic finance than related fields?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(4).
    3. Buehling, Kilian, 2021. "Changing research topic trends as an effect of publication rankings – The case of German economists and the Handelsblatt Ranking," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(3).
    4. Romero-Silva, Rodrigo & Marsillac, Erika & de Leeuw, Sander, 2025. "Dominance of leading business schools in top journals: Insights for increasing institutional representation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(3).
    5. A. S. M. Sohel Azad & Abdelaziz Chazi & Ashraf Khallaf & Zaher Zantout, 2024. "On the state of financial research: Is it in a silo?," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 64(2), pages 2037-2083, June.
    6. Corsi, Marcella & D’Ippoliti, Carlo & Zacchia, Giulia, 2019. "Diversity of backgrounds and ideas: The case of research evaluation in economics," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    7. Su, Yang & Brooks, Chris & Lucey, Brian & Urquhart, Andrew, 2026. "Journal ratings changes: Implications for author diversity and research characteristics," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(2).
    8. Drivas, Kyriakos & Kremmydas, Dimitris, 2020. "The Matthew effect of a journal's ranking," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(4).
    9. Yoon, Hyungseok & Belkhouja, Mustapha & Wei, Yingqi & Lee, Sangho, 2021. "Born to be similar? Global isomorphism and the emergence of latecomer business schools," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 30(5).
    10. Vogel, Rick & Hattke, Fabian & Petersen, Jessica, 2017. "Journal rankings in management and business studies: What rules do we play by?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(10), pages 1707-1722.
    11. Osterloh, Margit & Frey, Bruno S., 2020. "How to avoid borrowed plumes in academia," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(1).
    12. Brooks, Chris & Schopohl, Lisa & Walker, James T., 2023. "Comparing perceptions of the impact of journal rankings between fields," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    13. Brooks, Chris & Schopohl, Lisa, 2018. "Topics and trends in finance research: What is published, who publishes it and what gets cited?," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 50(6), pages 615-637.
    14. Brooks, Chris & Fenton, Evelyn M. & Walker, James T., 2014. "Gender and the evaluation of research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(6), pages 990-1001.
    15. Pajić, Dejan, 2015. "On the stability of citation-based journal rankings," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(4), pages 990-1006.
    16. Chahed, Yasmine & Charnock, Robert & Du Rietz, Sabina & Joseph Lennon, Niels & Palermo, Tommaso & Parisi, Cristiana & Pflueger, Dane & Sundström, Andreas & Toh, Dorothy & Yu, Lichen, 2025. "The value of research activities “other than” publishing articles: reflections on an experimental workshop series," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 121656, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    17. Ronald Rousseau, 2018. "The repeat rate: from Hirschman to Stirling," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(1), pages 645-653, July.
    18. J-R Córdoba & G Midgley, 2006. "Broadening the boundaries: an application of critical systems thinking to IS planning in Colombia," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 57(9), pages 1064-1080, September.
    19. David L. Anderson & John Tressler, 2013. "The Relevance of the “h-” and “g-” Index to Economics in the Context of A Nation-Wide Research Evaluation Scheme: The New Zealand Case," Economic Papers, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 32(1), pages 81-94, March.
    20. Seongkyoon Jeong & Jong-Chan Kim & Jae Young Choi, 2015. "Technology convergence: What developmental stage are we in?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 104(3), pages 841-871, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:crpeac:v:26:y:2015:i:c:p:37-46. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/critical-perspectives-on-accounting/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.