IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Assessing Sport Management Journals: A Multi-Dimensional Examination

Listed author(s):
  • Shilbury, David
  • Rentschler, Ruth
Registered author(s):

    The rating of refereed journals has become important for academics and institutions as well as for sport management as a field of study. This paper argues that the dearth of a rating system in sport management works against the best interests of the development of the field. This paper presents a rating scheme for sport management journals, which replicates an earlier study of marketing journals, using weighted multi-dimensional perceptual ratings (Polonsky & Whitelaw, 2006). Forty-five senior sport management academics evaluated 13 journals on four criteria: journal prestige, contribution to theory, contribution to practice and contribution to teaching. Using the weighted scores of the four criteria for each journal and a supporting cluster analysis, four categories of journals were identified. The results of this study will assist academics as they argue the case for the quality of journals in which they publish. Further it facilitates evaluation of sport management journals in relation to one another on the basis of their overall ranking and their scores on the four individual criteria.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Sport Management Review.

    Volume (Year): 10 (2007)
    Issue (Month): 1 (May)
    Pages: 31-44

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:eee:spomar:v:10:y:2007:i:1:p:31-44
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    Order Information: Postal:

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:spomar:v:10:y:2007:i:1:p:31-44. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.