[AISWorld] Addressing the Financial Times 45 Journal List

[MurphJen at aol.com]

My question is why use a list at all?  We are not producing journals,  we 
produce articles and given that we have tools like google scholar and publish 
 and perish we can gather statistics on each article and make a case for 
the  quality of the article.  I've always wondered about the halo effect of a  
journal (both positive and negative) and have never thought it fair that a 
good  article in a lesser journal is considered less impressive than a 
mediocre  article in a great journal.  I do understand that the process followed 
by a  journal impacts the quality of the final article but as an editor in 
chief I  also know that not all articles in a journal are equally great.  
Hence my  question why we rely on a secondary source (the journal) rather than 
the  primary source (the article) to determine quality of research.
 
Murray E. Jennex, Ph.D., P.E., CISSP, CSSLP, PMP
Professor MIS, San Diego State University
Editor in Chief International Journal of Knowledge Management
Co-editor in Chief International Journal of Information Systems for Crisis  
Response and Management
 
 
In a message dated 6/9/2016 10:42:03 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,  
jdedrick at syr.edu writes:

If the  FT 45 is a public relations vehicle and not scientific, shouldn't 
we be  fighting to change the practice of using their list as a measure of  
quality?  This should not be a battle between MIS and other fields, but  
between all faculty and the deans (and others) who use this dubious metric in  
the first place.   Our deans are also faculty members, who should  see the 
bigger problem and address it, and the faculty should be encouraging  them to 
do so.


Jason Dedrick, Professor
Associate Dean for  Research
School of Information Studies
Syracuse  University
jdedrick at syr.edu



_______________________________________________
AISWorld  mailing  list
AISWorld at lists.aisnet.org