What Are We Measuring When We Evaluate Journals ?

This article undertakes two studies to examine issues related to journal rankings. Study 1 examines the consistency between journal rankings reported in past studies. It finds that while there is consistency when comparing these studies, this consistency does not always occur outside the top-ranked journals. Study 2 explores whether individuals believe that the weighting of four underlying evaluative criteria-that is, prestige, contribution to theory, contribution to practice, and contribution to teaching-vary, based on (1) whose criteria are used (individual or individuals' perception of their institutions weighting), (2) the geographic region in which the individuals teach (North America, Europe, and Asia-Pacific), and (3) whether or not an individual works at an institution offering a Ph.D./D.B.A. The results suggest that some differences in criteria weighting exist. Implications are discussed, with it being suggested that it may not be possible to develop a universally applicable set of journal rankings.