A Multi-Dimensional Examination of Marketing Journal Rankings by North American Academics

3071 9 70709 2 2411594 document 70709 lightbox.jpg image/png fa79a9e3d17d2dd492fe504cf756d5e0 MD5 62592 2020-10-20 03:01:38 https://vuir.vu.edu.au/3071/2/lightbox.jpg 3071 2 2 image/png other Thumbnails conversion from text to thumbnail_lightbox en staffonly

lightbox.jpg

preview.jpg

medium.jpg

small.jpg

http://eprints.org/relation/isVersionOf https://vuir.vu.edu.au/id/dark_document/70673 http://eprints.org/relation/isVolatileVersionOf https://vuir.vu.edu.au/id/dark_document/70673 http://eprints.org/relation/issmallThumbnailVersionOf https://vuir.vu.edu.au/id/dark_document/70673 archive 664 disk0/00/00/30/71 2012-05-02 05:08:09 2021-08-27 07:44:34 2012-05-02 05:08:09 article show Polonsky Michael Jay Polonsky, Michael Whitelaw Paul A Whitelaw, Paul A A Multi-Dimensional Examination of Marketing Journal Rankings by North American Academics pub HospitalityTourismMarketing FOR_2008_150300 ResPubID11241, multi-dimensional evaluation, teaching, journals’ prestige This paper extends the journal ranking debate by developing weighted multi-dimensional perceptual rankings based on respondents’ evaluation of a journals’ prestige, contribution to theory, contribution to practice and contribution to teaching. Spearman correlations indicate that journal rankings based on each of the evaluative criteria are statistically significantly correlated for all pairs of criteria, other than teaching and theory. The multi-dimensional evaluation is also statistically significantly correlated to all individual criteria, other than the teaching dimension. A cluster analysis of the journals using the four evaluative criteria identified that there are three groupings of journals: A, B and C. In most cases, A journals are evaluated as performing better than B journals on each of evaluative criteria other than for the contribution to teaching where there are no difference in perceptions between groups. B journals are viewed to perform better than C journals on prestige, contribution to practice and contribution to teaching, but not based on their prestige of weighed evaluation. This suggests that there are differences in how academics view each group of journals, although these differences do seem to vary based on the grouping being considered (i.e., A, B, or C). 2006 published CtC Press 70673 2 2411525 dark_document 70673 Polonsky Michael 2.pdf application/pdf 898814c8c035693e613c05f4e242062d MD5 45529 2020-10-20 02:51:35 3071 1 1 application/pdf text Generic Permission Form en staffonly

Polonsky Michael 2.pdf

other none Marketing Education Review 16 3 59-72 TRUE 1052-8008 Includes bibliographical references: pp. 70-71. FALSE