ISSN 1940-1868
Journal of International Business Management & Research
Volume 3, Issue 7
Published and Sponsored by: Intellectbase International Consortium (IIC)
TABLE OF CONTENT THE INFLUENCE OF DIFFERENT LOYALTY PROGRAMS ON LITHUANIAN PETROL STATIONS CUSTOMERS’ INTENTION TO BE LOYAL
Vida Škudienė, Yuhua Li McCorkle, Denny McCorkle and Justė Matuizaitė ........................... 1
THE ROLE OF TRUST, LONGEVITY AND INTERDEPENDENCY IN SUPPLY CHAIN RELATIONSHIPS
Mario A Ferrer Vasquez ............................................................................................................ 19
ANTECEDENTS AND OUTCOMES OF TRUST, COMMITMENT, AND SATISFACTION IN THE FRANCHISOR-FRANCHISEE RELATIONSHIP
María Amador-Dumois .............................................................................................................. 32
HUMAN EMOTIONS AND THEIR IMPACT ON THE INDIAN INVESTORS’ DECISIONS
M. R. Shollapur, Shridevi V. Patted, Dev Prasad and Ravi Jain............................................. 50
INVESTIGATING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CEO DUALITY, SHAREHOLDING, AND ENTREPRENEURIAL PERFORMANCE: THE MEDIATING EFFECT OF R&D INTENSITY
D. J. Cheng and Vivian Chang.................................................................................................. 59
THE EFFECT OF RETAIL MUSIC PRICES AND LEGISLATION ON MUSIC PIRACY
Mehdi Zahaf and James Anderson ........................................................................................... 72
THE NORTH, EAST, WEST AND SOUTH (NEWS) PROJECT: EXPOSING NEW COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGES IN THE CREATIVE ECONOMY
Timothy Antoniuk ....................................................................................................................... 89
FRACTURED TRUTH? A CALL FOR RESEARCH ON THE AMERICAN SHALE GAS BOOM
Brigid Boettler............................................................................................................................. 99
IN THE FOOT-STEPS OF MARY MACKILLOP: THE EMERGENCE OF AUSTRALIAN SPIRITUAL TOURISM MARKETING
Farooq Haq and Anita Medhekar ............................................................................................ 114
REGIONAL DETERMINANTS IN BUILDING GREEN
Kokila Doshi and Andrew Narwold ......................................................................................... 125
PERCEPTIONS AND VIEWS OF INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS AT TENNESSEE STATE UNIVERSITY
Samad Mumuni-Dimbie ........................................................................................................... 136
DISCIPLINE, NATION, AND TIME BASED DIFFERENCES IN BUSINESS JOURNAL ACCEPTANCE RATES AND REVIEW PROCESSES
Jack Shorter, Thomas Krueger and Ruth Chatelain-Jardon ................................................. 147
EXAMINING THE FRAMEWORK BETWEEN BOARD STRUCTURE AND FIRM PERFORMANCE: DOES R&D INTENSITY MATTER?
Tao-Yu DJ Cheng and Chun-Hsi Vivian Chen ....................................................................... 164
J. Shorter, T. Krueger and R. Chatelain-Jardon
JIBMR - Volume 3, Issue 7 (2012), pp. 147-163
Full Article Available Online at: Intellectbase and EBSCOhost │ JIBMR is indexed with Cabell’s, JournalSeek, etc.
JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT & RESEARCH Journal Homepage: www.intellectbase.org/journals │ ©2012 Published by Intellectbase International Consortium, USA
DISCIPLINE, NATION, AND TIME BASED DIFFERENCES IN BUSINESS JOURNAL ACCEPTANCE RATES AND REVIEW PROCESSES Jack Shorter, Thomas Krueger and Ruth Chatelain-Jardon Texas A&M University - Kingsville, USA
ABSTRACT
J
ournals from three distinctly-different business disciplines were studied to gain some insight into the veracity of the review process facing faculty members from different academic areas. Comparison of journals based in Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States provide insights regarding the challenges faced by faculty members from these nations and has inferences regarding how to get research published by going abroad. This study finds that marketing journals have experienced a higher level of attrition, especially among United States publications. Marketing journals are more likely to use a blind review process, and this tendency has been more stable than the other disciplines studied. Marketing journals use more external reviewers in the review process, especially when Canada is the nation of origin. Acceptance rates of marketing journals are lower than their finance and information systems counterparts. However, marketing publications in the United Kingdom have acceptance rates that are almost ten percent higher than marketing publications in the United States. During the seventeen-years covered by this study a higher percentage of marketing journals became less generous in their willingness to accept manuscripts. Keywords: Journal Acceptance Rates, Journal Review Processes, Retention, Promotion, Tenure Decisions, Scholarship Appraisal, Journal Editor Decision Making, International Acceptance Rates, International Review Processes.
INTRODUCTION Judgments concerning faculty output are used at many levels in business schools. Assistant professor retention, promotion and tenure decisions are based on research output. Senior faculty competition for university-wide funding considers research output. Meanwhile, universities compare themselves with others on the basis of research productivity. Premier research institutions require publication in only a few top-tier journals. According to Polonsky, Jones, and Kearsley, some “marketing departments may even develop lists of “approved” journals to which academics must submit their work if they are to receive any “publishing credit.” (1999, p. 181) Other institutions evaluate the quality of faculty scholarship using some outside source. Due to the difficulty of appraising scholarship outside one’s specialization, journal reputation is frequently used as a measure of the quality of a scholar’s work (McAllister, 2005; Swanson, 2004).
147
Discipline, Nation, and Time Based Differences in Business Journal Acceptance Rates and Review Processes
Journal editor decisions have many consequences for submitting professors. Perhaps all researchers have experienced disappointment when their manuscripts have been rejected. Beyond the time expenditure arising from revising and resubmitting their article, financial rewards and promotion may be delayed. These disappointments may be heightened when faculty observe others experiencing publication success. As a means of protecting one’s self-esteem, researchers may conclude that the successful researchers may be doing research in a discipline or country that has more generous acceptance rates. In fact, the successful researchers might be perceived as employing lesser, nontraditional venues to get their manuscripts accepted. The potential of discipline-specific and nation-specific explanations for research success is empirically testable and the focus of this report. Three distinctly-different business disciplines were chosen for analysis: finance, information systems, and marketing. The publication process and acceptance rates found in these disciplines are compared both across nations and time. The time dimension is added because researchers would ideally like to publish results of their research in journals that will be around for an extended period of time. The two key research hypotheses studied in this paper are presented below. Alternative hypotheses are based on variations in the scholarly process that may arise across disciplines, nations, and time.
Null Hypothesis #1: Review processes in terms of the type of review and the number of reviewer are similar. Alternative Hypothesis 1.A: Alternative Hypothesis 1.B: Alternative Hypothesis 1.C:
These aspects of the review process vary across discipline. These aspects of the review process vary across nations. These aspects of the review process vary over time.
Null Hypothesis #2: Business journal acceptance rates are similar. Alternative Hypothesis 2.A: Alternative Hypothesis 2.B: Alternative Hypothesis 2.C:
Acceptance rates vary across discipline. Acceptance rates vary across nations. Acceptance rates vary over time.
Relevant literature is reviewed in the following section. After the research method is presented, findings arising from our study of journals in these three disciplines in 1994 and 2011 will be presented. In the conclusion, we will return to each of these hypotheses.
LITERATURE REVIEW The “Publish or Perish” Environment Due to the very nature of academia’s “publish or perish” credo, researchers must typically disseminate the results of multiple investigations through academic journals. This makes it imperative that both beginning and seasoned researchers learn how and where to send their manuscripts. Researchers usually target journals in a particular discipline, or more often, a few carefully chosen journals as possible venues for their manuscripts. Therefore, knowing acceptance rates and journal review types are necessary skill sets for any researcher who wants to get their manuscript published. Beyond core compensation rising roughly linearly with rank, Hult, Neese, and Bashaw (1997), report that marketing departments at many universities use journal rankings as a tool to formally evaluate their faculty and
148
J. Shorter, T. Krueger and R. Chatelain-Jardon
JIBMR - Volume 3, Issue 7 (2012), pp. 147-163
ascertain whether they should receive tenure or promotion. Furthermore, Aiken, Ghosh, and Vanjani (2007) report that research support can add up to $10,000 to a faculty member’s annual compensation. A significant amount of research has examined the issue of what constitutes quality research. According to Schibrowsky, Peltier, and Boyt (2002, p. 45), “the quality of the research output is generally equated to the academic status of the outlet.” A description of different methods of journal rankings used over the 1980 to 2001 period is provided by Hawes and Keillor (2002). Four years later, Polonsky and Whitelaw (2006) report that journals outside the top four do not receive the same ranking and that the journal ranking criteria used by faculty and that which they perceive their institution uses frequently differ. In their comprehensive analysis of marketing journal rankings, Steward and Lewis (2010) examine fifteen years of journal ranking studies. Their investigation uncovers two ranking approaches used by past studies, opinion surveys and citation analysis. More specifically, they find that thirteen journal articles report rankings of marketing journals over the 1993 through 2008 period. Seven of these studies reported rankings from opinion surveys, four based their analysis on citation data, and two used other sources such as library holdings. Ironically, not one of the studies assesses journal quality on the basis of acceptance rates. Instead of following this line of research, Steward and Lewis add actual in-house target journal lists used by a sample of Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB)-accredited schools to assess the research of business faculty. They refer to the earlier journal-based analysis as the “discipline view,” while the target journal approach is referred to as the “institutional view” of journal quality. Though valuable, Steward and Lewis, like the other researchers, study perceptions instead of key scholarship environment demographics. We fill in this void by investigating journal acceptance rates. To further enhance the value of this study, we add an analysis of review method and external reviewers. While knowing the acceptance rates of journals is important, another skill successful researcher’s need is an awareness of the possible factors affecting the rejection rates of academic journals. According to Schultz (2010), some of these factors include the submission of inappropriate or off-topic manuscripts by the author. He finds that the likelihood of reviewer rejection is a function of education, professional experience, quality, country of origin, opinion of the submitted manuscript and, possibly the most important reason of all, biases against the submitting author. The journal itself can influence its acceptance rate through its reputation’s impact on the ability to attract potential submissions, percentage of unsolicited manuscripts versus invited submissions, number of submissions relative to the number of journal pages they publish (or can afford to publish), open access, and page charges. Additional factors affecting the rejection rates can also come from the editor’s decision-making strategy, such as the decision to reject when only one reviewer recommends rejection versus a policy of rejection only when a majority of reviewers recommend rejection. Another key factor is the actual number of reviewers. While Schultz (2010) was writing about journals in the atmospheric sciences, one would expect these factors to exist in other academic disciplines as well, including business administration. In this study we will examine the discipline and national differences in the number of external reviewers.
Review Process Research reports typically enter into some sort of review process by submission to a journal’s editor. According to Beyer (1978, p. 68), editors serve as “dual gatekeepers,” by exerting considerable control 149
Discipline, Nation, and Time Based Differences in Business Journal Acceptance Rates and Review Processes
over the flow of information into the journal and recognition from the journal to the individual scientist. An ability to efficiently and effectively match papers and reviewers is the most important contribution made by the editor in the journal process. Leband (1990) finds that almost everyone complains about the objectivity and quality of refereeing. Reviewers frequently are targets of researchers who do not get their manuscripts accepted for publication. However, “although they are frequently the targets of authors’ anger, reviewers provide an indispensable service to a discipline. Without them, no top research journal could operate. Most reviewers are among the most prolific authors in the field. They serve as reviewers because they want to help the discipline advance, because they feel they owe it to their discipline, because of the prestige of being a member of an editorial board, and/or because they enjoy the reviewing process.” (Summers, 2001, p. 414) There are many ways journals are able to create a perception of “structural legitimacy”. Structural legitimacy is the projection of a perception of quality, which creates an aura of research quality if one publishes in that journal. According to Rynes & Brown (2011), there are several standards that are used as signals of structural legitimacy. One of these standards is that the journal must operate under a double-blind peer review process. Double-blind reviews, where neither the author nor reviewer knows the other party, are preferred in terms of quality. Snodgrass (2007) conducted a randomized experiment to determine the effects of double-blind versus single-blind peer reviewing on acceptance rates. As expected, when a double-blind review was utilized, acceptance rates were lower and referees were found to be more critical of article submissions. An interesting analysis by Moss, Xiaolong, and Barth (2007) provides a unique, theoretical study of the scholarship environment. They present a theoretical model of the publication process and a simulation showing alternative combinations of submission strategies. They develop hypothetical levels of research effort necessary to fulfill the more stringent research requirements of faculty today, finally concluding that incremental submission effort exceeds incremental research effort to attain the higher scholarship qualifications currently in existence. While we agree with the premise of Moss, Xiaolong, and Barth’s research, we believe that better information is afforded by identifying actual review processes and acceptance rates across disciplines, nations, and time.
Acceptance Rates Acceptance rates are another method of evaluating journal quality, with lower rates implying higher quality. An acceptance rate is calculated as the number of articles accepted relative to total submissions. Journals with lower article acceptance rates are frequently considered to be more prestigious and more “meritorious”. Locating acceptance rates for individual journals or for specific disciplines can be a difficult, yet a necessary task for promotion and tenure decisions. Some journals include acceptance rate information in their “submission guidelines” preface or at the journal’s website. You can also contact the editor of the journal and see if s/he will share the acceptance rate. (UNT Libraries, 2008) There are several alternatives to pure acceptance rates in the assessment of journal quality. An impact factor is described as the ratio of the number of times a recent article is cited relative to the total number of recent articles where “recent” refers to the last two years or so. The immediacy factor is similar except that it only considers citations during the past year. An Eigen factor rates the importance of journals with citations from highly ranked journals given greater weight (Kapelianis, 2011; Fairfield 150
J. Shorter, T. Krueger and R. Chatelain-Jardon
JIBMR - Volume 3, Issue 7 (2012), pp. 147-163
University, 2011; UNT, 2008). The calculation of these various rates and/or factors appears to be a rather arduous task for any individual. Fortunately, journals and/or databases exist which have already made the necessary calculations and/or list other information pertinent to the determination of journal quality. Nevertheless, the definition of “highly ranked journals” and “recent period” is subjective. Consequently, in this study we will use acceptance rates reported by journal editors in the widely-used Cabell’s Directory of Publishing Opportunities using data acquired over the past year. Perhaps the most relevant article found during our literature review search, is the research conducted by Krueger, Shorter, and Huff (2012), who studied journal review processes in 2011 across the accounting, finance, information systems, and management disciplines. They identified several significant differences in review processes and acceptance rates across nations. We expand on their study by adding marketing to the mix and the analysis of how aspects of the research environment vary over time.
RESEARCH METHOD This study is based on the universe of finance, information systems, and marketing journals that survived the seventeen year period from 1994 to 2011. These years were chosen because the earliest Cabell’s Directory at our disposal was published in 1994, though it is referred to as the (1994-1995) edition. Nation of origin was determined on the basis of the mailing address of each journal’s editor. We are studying journals that survived the entire seventeen year period for two reasons. One, surviving journals would have the greatest reputation and have the greatest impact on our respective disciplines. Cabell’s has recently begun identifying “commendable journals” on the basis of longevity, though its primary criterion is that the journal needs to be in existence for only five years. Extending our sample period would diminish sample size and the number of nations being compared. Two, by examining the same journals we are not mixing in more recent additions, and thereby confounding the analysis of how journals have changed. In order to base our comments on more than a single journal, we limited our study to nations with at least three journals throughout the entire seventeen year period. The same three nations were the location of origin of at least three journals in the finance, information systems, and marketing disciplines. As shown in Table 1, these nations are Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States. You can also find a graphic illustration of the number of journals in each discipline, by nation, in Figure 1. Table 1: Finance
Journal Attrition Information Systems
1994 Attrition Remaining 1994 Attrition Journals Rate Journals Journals Rate
Marketing
Remaining 1994 Attrition Remaining Journals Journals Rate Journals
Canada
4
25%
3
4
25%
3
5
40%
3
U.K.
12
17%
10
19
47%
10
10
0%
10
USA
112
39%
69
110
47%
57
148
68%
47
Total
128
82
133
70
163
151
60
Discipline, Nation, and Time Based Differences in Business Journal Acceptance Rates and Review Processes
Finance As shown in the first three data columns of Table 1, there were 128 finance journals in these three countries in 1994. A vast majority of the total originated in the United States. The United States also had the greatest attrition rate, with thirty-nine percent of its journals going out of print over the subsequent seventeen years. As a consequence, sixty-nine U.S. journals survived and will comprise this nation’s research sample. One of the Canadian journals and two of the UK journals went out of print, resulting in three and ten journals representing these nations, respectively. The following analysis of finance journals will be based on the 82 surviving publications.
Information Systems As shown in the middle three data columns of Table 1, there were 133 information systems journals in these three countries in 1994. Once again, a vast majority of this total originated in the United States. The United States and the United Kingdom had the greatest attrition rate, with forty-seven percent of its journals going out of print over the seventeen years in both countries. As a consequence, fifty-seven U.S. journals survived and will be the research sample. One of the Canadian journals and nine of the UK journals went out of print, resulting in three and ten journals representing these nations, respectively. The following analysis of information systems journals will be based on the 70 surviving publications.
Marketing The last three columns of Table 1 show that in 1994 there were 163 marketing journals in the three target countries. Again the vast majority of this total originated in the United States. The United States also had the highest attrition rate, with sixty-eight percent of its journals going out of print over the seventeen years. As a consequence, forty-seven journals survived and will be the U.S. research sample. Two of the Canadian journals and none of the UK journals went out of print, resulting in three and ten journals representing these nations, respectively. The following analysis of marketing journals will be based on the 60 surviving publications. Figure 1 Number of Journals in 1994 and 2011 Canada
United Kingdom
United States
160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Fin 94
Fin 11
IS 94
IS 11
Mkt 94 Mkt 11
Figure 1: Number of Journals in 1994 and 2011 152
J. Shorter, T. Krueger and R. Chatelain-Jardon
JIBMR - Volume 3, Issue 7 (2012), pp. 147-163
Graphic Comparison Figure 1 illustrates the journal attrition across discipline, nation, and time dimensions. Canadian journals are presented first in each column, U.K. journals second, and US journals third. The first two columns present finance journal outlets, the second two columns information systems journal outlets, and the final two columns marketing journal outlets. The first column for each discipline is based on the 1994 data and the second the 2011 data. Exactly half of the 424 original journals were no longer publishing in 2011. It is easy to observe the dominance of the US journals which despite their higher attrition rate still comprise eighty-one percent of the remaining journals. The attrition rate was the highest in the United States, across all three disciplines, with the 68% marketing journal attrition rate being almost twice that experienced by finance journals. Sorting nations (from most journals to least journals), the ordering of surviving journals in terms of discipline representation flips from marketing - information systems - finance in 1994 to finance - information systems - marketing in 2011. In percentage terms, the number of marketing journals fell from thirty-eight to twenty-eight percent of the sample, while finance journals rose from thirty to thirtynine percent. These changes are illustrated in Figure 1 by observing the rise from left to right in the U.S. journals’ 1994 column bars, but fall from left to right when observing the 2011 column bars.
FINDINGS Journal Review Process Three review processes are possible. In the blind review process, the journal editor sends copies of the research out to several reviewers who advise the editor on the quality of the manuscript and its acceptability for publication. In the editorial review process, the journal editor makes decisions either independently or with the assistance of a limited set of reviewers on their editorial board. When manuscripts are shared with an editorial board, manuscript authorship typically is not shared. Though not available in 1994, in 2011 Cabell’s Directories include a peer review editorial process option where the author’s identity is shared with the reviewer. The seldom-used peer review procedure is included in the editorial category because the editorial review process may include sharing of manuscript authorship. Table 2 and Figure 2 present a numeric and graphic comparison of the journal review process, respectively. Table 2:
Percentage of Journals using a Blind Referee Review Process
Finance Percentage in:
Information Systems
1994
2011
Percentage with Change
Canada
100%
100%
U.K.
40%
USA
75%
Percentage in:
Marketing Percentage in:
1994
2011
Percentage with Change
1994
2011
Percentage with change
0%
100%
66%
33%
100%
100%
0%
60%
40%
50%
60%
10%
80%
90%
10%
77%
9%
75%
77%
9%
89%
87%
6%
Finance As shown in the first three data columns of Table 2, in 1994, a majority of the journals used the blind review process. Only in the United Kingdom would one have found less than half of all journals using a 153
Discipline, Nation, and Time Based Differences in Business Journal Acceptance Rates and Review Processes
blind review process. By 2011, more than half of the journals in this nation also followed the blind review process. The slight movement of U.S. journals towards a blind review process understates the amount of review process change during the period. While the number of U.S. blind-refereed finance journals rose from 46 to 48, four journals switched to a blind review process and two switched from a blind-review process to an editorial process, representing nine percent of the sixty-nine journals.
Information Systems As shown in the middle three data columns of Table 2, in 1994, a majority of the journals used the blind review process. However, the United Kingdom was split evenly between blind review and editorial review processes at fifty percent each. By 2011, sixty-percent of the UK journals were using the blindreview process. Over the ensuing seventeen years, review process frequency moved away from an even split to a 60/40 blind-review majority. The total number of U.S. blind-refereed information systems journals only increased by one (43 to 44) over the seventeen year period. However, three journals changed from editorial review to blind review, and two journals changed from the blind to editorial review process. Hence, nine percent of these fifty-seven journals experienced a change in their review process.
Marketing The last three columns of Table 2 show that in 1994 a majority of marketing journals used the blind review process. The Canadian percentage was 100%, the U.S. percentage was 89%, and the UK percentage was the lowest at 80%. By 2011, the Canadian percentage was still 100%, the U.S. percentage had dropped slightly to 87%, and the UK percentage had increased to 90%. The slight decrease in the U.S. percentage change resulted from a change in the review process of two journals from blind to editorial and one from editorial to blind review. Hence, six percent of the forty-seven U.S. marketing journals experienced a change in their review2 process. Figure Percentage of Journals Using a Blind Review Process in 2011 Finance
Information Systems
Marketing
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Canada
United Kingdom
United States
Figure 2: Percentage of Journals Using a Blind Review Process in 2011
Graphic Comparison The percentage of journals using the blind review process in 2011 is illustrated in Figure 2. With bars always above 50% and sometimes reaching as high as 100%, the dominance of the blind review 154
J. Shorter, T. Krueger and R. Chatelain-Jardon
JIBMR - Volume 3, Issue 7 (2012), pp. 147-163
process is evident. Canadian journals are more likely to use a blind-review process and UK journals more likely to use an editorial review process. Marketing journals are the most likely to have a blind review process, while there is great similarity in the blind/editorial distribution of journals in the finance and information systems disciplines. Looking solely at the proportion of journals with a blind review process, one might conclude that there has been a lot of consistency in the review process. In fact, 167 journals and 169 journals in the sample used a blind process in 1994 and 2011, respectively. However, twenty-two journals experienced a change in the type of review process during this period.
Average Number of Outside Reviewers One of the more prominently reported items in Cabell’s Directories has been the number of external reviewers. Although one might think that no outside reviewers are used in an editorial review process, analysis of the editor submissions to Cabell’s Directories suggest that editors frequently view this measure as the number of individuals besides themselves judging each submission. The number of external reviewers range from zero to five, though the latter may represent an instance when an editor counted all editorial board members, and not solely those reviewing a specified article. One potential disadvantage to an increase in the number of external reviewers is that it may slow down the review process. Krueger and Shorter (2012) show that there is no significant difference in acceptance rates across the number of outside reviewers, which are reported across disciplines and nations in Table 3. Table 3:
Average Number of Outside Reviewers used in the Review Process Finance
External Reviewers Used in:
Information Systems
1994
2011
Percentage with Change
Canada
2.0
1.7
U.K.
1.6
USA
2.0
External Reviewers Used in: 1994
2011
Percentage with Change
33%
2.0
1.7
2.0
50%
2.2
1.7
33%
2.6
Marketing External Reviewers Used in: 1994
2011
Percentage with change
66%
2.7
3.0
33%
2.5
40%
2.2
2.4
60%
2.3
49%
2.6
2.2
36%
Finance The consistency in the average number of outside reviewers is quite remarkable, as shown in the first two data columns of Table 3. In 1994 the number of outside reviewers ranged from 1.6 to 2.0, while in 2011, the number of outside reviewers ranged from 1.7 to 2.0. There was a slight decline in the number of outside reviewers at U.S. journals in existence for the entire seventeen-year period. The average measure, however, overlooks the vast amount of change at the individual journal level, as indicated by the third column. Between one-third and one half of all journals changed the number of external outside reviewers being used. In total, 29 of 82 journals changed the number of external reviewers, with at least one third of the journals in all three nations changing their usage of external reviewers.
Information Systems When you look at the number of outside reviewers in the information systems discipline, as shown in data columns four and five in Table 3, you notice an overall decline in both Canada and the United States. There is actually a slight increase in the United Kingdom numbers. In 1994, the number of outside reviewer’s ranged from 2.0 to 2.6, while in 2011, the number of outside reviewers ranged from 155
Discipline, Nation, and Time Based Differences in Business Journal Acceptance Rates and Review Processes
1.7 to 2.5. It is of interest that the United States had the highest average of outside reviewers in 1994 (2.6), while the United Kingdom had the highest average of outside reviewers in 2011 (2.5). Once again, the average measure overlooks the vast amount of change at the individual journal level, as indicated in column six of Table 3. Across nations between two fifths to two thirds of all journals changed their number of external outside reviewers. In total, 34 of 70 journals changed the number of external reviewers, with at least 40 percent in the information systems journals in all three nations changing their usage of external reviewers. The information systems discipline had the greatest amount of change in the use of outside reviewers. Before leaving this discussion it should be pointed out that the percentage of change is probably understating the real change that occurred over the period, because it does not include those journals that shifted the number of reviewers shortly after 1994 and recently shifted back to their original number.
Marketing As shown in the last three columns of Table 3, the average number of outside reviewers in the marketing discipline in 1994 ranged from 2.2 in the UK to 2.7 in Canada. In 2011, the range for all countries has shifted slightly upward from 2.2 to 3.0 reviewers. There was a slight increase in Canada and the United Kingdom, and a noticeable drop, from 2.6 to 2.2 in the U.S. average. As previously observed, the average measure overlooks the vast amount of change at the individual journal level, as indicated in column nine of Table 3. When you analyze this discipline, between thirty-three and sixty percent of all marketing journals changed their number of external reviewers. In total, 24 out of 60 journals changed the number of external reviewers, with at least one third of the journals in all three nations changing their use of outside reviewers.Figure 3 Number of Reviewers in the United States during 2011 Finance
Information Systems
Marketing
60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Zero
One
Two
Three
Over three
Figure 3: Number of Reviewers in the United States during 2011
Graphic Comparison Insight into the distribution of external reviewers across disciplines is provided in Figure 3. With the highest bars for all disciplines in the two reviewer’s column, it is easy to see the tendency of journal editors to rely upon the opinions of two reviewers. The second highest number of reviewers at finance 156
J. Shorter, T. Krueger and R. Chatelain-Jardon
JIBMR - Volume 3, Issue 7 (2012), pp. 147-163
journals is one reviewer, while information systems and marketing journals are likely to use three reviewers. This breakdown is consistent with the average number of external reviewers for finance journals being the lowest. On average, in 2011, information systems journals were using 2.30 reviewers, marketing journals were using 2.27 reviewers, and finance journals were using 1.74 external reviewers. The existence of no external reviewers, or over three reviewers, occurs in less than ten percent of the journals in each discipline. Across nations, there is a lot of consistency in the number of external reviewers. Combining sample periods and disciplines, the average number of external reviewers ranges from 2.15 in the United Kingdom to 2.20 in the United States. There has been a slight decline in the number of external reviewers used by the journals in this sample. For example, across all U.S. journals the number of external reviewers dropped from 1.95 to 1.74 between 1994 and 2011.
Average Acceptance Rates Of course, the most important concern to scholars is whether their research has been accepted. Due to the importance of this issue, we gathered information regarding average acceptance rates, frequency of large changes in acceptance rates, and the standard deviation in acceptance rates. As with the number of outside reviewers, this report probably understates the amount of variation, because it would not capture instances where acceptance rates changed and then reverted to their original levels. Table 4 presents average acceptance rates across disciplines and nations. Table 4: Finance 1994
2011
Average Acceptance Rates Information Systems
Percentage with Change
1994
2011
Percentage with Change
Marketing 1994
2011
Percentage with change
Canada
18.3% 24.2%
67%
22.8% 36.7%
100%
33.6% 22.5%
100%
U.K.
23.0% 17.2%
70%
33.6% 24.2%
70%
46.2% 28.9%
80%
USA
23.0% 22.4%
71%
22.2% 19.5%
79%
22.4% 19.2%
79%
Finance Across all nations, in both time periods, the average acceptance rate is less than twenty-five percent, as exhibited in the first two columns of Table 4. In fact, in Canada in 1994 and the United Kingdom in 2011, the average acceptance rate is under twenty percent. While other nations have had some variation in the average acceptance rate, the average acceptance rate in the United States has stayed very stable at approximately twenty-three percent. The average value, however, underreports the large amount of variation in the U.S. acceptance rate on a journal-by-journal basis. Seventy-one percent of the U.S. finance journals, or 49 out of 69, reported a change in their acceptance rate. At least two-thirds of the finance journals in the other nations also experienced a change in their acceptance rate.
Information Systems As exhibited in columns 4 and 5 of Table 4, both the United States and the United Kingdom average acceptance rates have dropped dramatically. There was almost a ten percent drop in average acceptance rates for the journals that survived in the United Kingdom from 1994 to 2011. Acceptance 157
Discipline, Nation, and Time Based Differences in Business Journal Acceptance Rates and Review Processes
rates for surviving U.S. journals also dropped, but experienced a much smaller decrease (2.7%). All three Canadian journal acceptance rates changed resulting in a percentage with change rate of 100%. However, the sample size is extremely small and any significance attributed to this change is suspect. There is a large amount of variation in the United States’ acceptance rate at the journal-by-journal level. Seventy-nine percent of the U.S. journals, or 45 out of 57, reported a change in their acceptance rate. The lowest amount of change is in the UK sample, but even this “low” amount is seventy percent of the ten journals.
Marketing The last three columns of Table 4 show that for the journals that survived from 1994 to 2011, the average acceptance rate has dropped in all three countries. For Canada and the United Kingdom, the decline exceeded ten percent. The average acceptance rate for Canada dropped from thirty-four percent to twenty-three percent. A greater decline existed in the United Kingdom, where the average acceptance rate fell from forty-six to twenty-nine percent. U.S. journal acceptance rates were more stable, experiencing a decline of only three percentage points. As with the other disciplines, the average value underreports the large amount of variation in acceptance rates on a journal-by-journal level for the three countries. If you look at the statistics for the surviving marketing journals, one hundred percent of Canada publications, eighty percent of United Kingdom publications, and seventyFigure 4 nine percent of United States publications, experienced a change in their acceptance rates. Average Acceptance Rates in 2011 Finance
Information Systems
Marketing
40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Canada
United Kingdom
United States
Figure 4: Average Acceptance Rates in 2011
Graphic Analysis Figure 4 presents average acceptance rates across discipline and country. Though variation exists within disciplines, it is easy to conclude that the US acceptance rate bars are lowest, consistently being below twenty-five percent. Acceptance rates at both information system journals and marketing journals are at their lowest level in the bars at the right, which are based on US journals. Considering the disciplines, a surprising number of journals have acceptance rates below twenty-five percent. Going across nations, finance journal acceptance rates in all countries, information systems journal 158
J. Shorter, T. Krueger and R. Chatelain-Jardon
JIBMR - Volume 3, Issue 7 (2012), pp. 147-163
acceptance rates in two countries, and marketing journal acceptance rates in two countries are below twenty-five percent. As shown in Table 4, these acceptance rates have tended to decline over time, with a high percentage of journals reporting some change.
Frequency of Large Changes in Acceptance Rates Findings reported in Table 4 show a dichotomous situation. There is very little variation in average acceptance rates, yet journals have experienced changing acceptance rates over time. A logical followup question concerns the amount of change in the acceptance rate. That is, did the acceptance rate vary by only a few percentage points or a much larger amount? If there was little change, the variation in acceptance rates reported in Table 4 would not be important. If changes are substantial, a researcher would want to study recent trends in acceptance rates to determine the likelihood of submission acceptance. There is no theoretical measure regarding what would constitute a “large” change in acceptance rates. Consequently, the authors used a metric of approximately half of the mean acceptance rate. That is, did the acceptance rate vary by more than ten percent? Furthermore, did the acceptance rate rise or fall by more than 10 percent. If acceptance rates began at levels below 25%, a 10% drop would constitute a remarkable decline of at least forty percent. Another benchmark for assessing the size of an acceptance rate change is the standard deviation of this measure. Information regarding the frequency of acceptance rate changes exceeding ten percent and acceptance rate standard deviations across disciplines and nations of publication are presented in Table 5. Table 5:
Range of Changes in Acceptance Rates
Finance N = 82
Information Systems N = 71
Marketing N = 48
< -10%
> 10%
2011 Standard Deviation
< -10%
> 10%
2011 Standard Deviation
< -10%
> 10%
2011 Standard Deviation
Canada
0
1
7.4%
0
1
20.1%
1
0
9.0%
U.K.
2
0
15.5%
3
0
9.3%
5
0
18.6%
USA
11
13
13.2%
13
6
11.5%
7
3
9.9%
Total
13
14
na
16
7
na
13
3
na
Finance As shown in the first two columns of Table 5, the acceptance rates of 13 finance journals declined by over ten percent, 14 finance journals experienced an acceptance rate rise of over ten percent, and the remainder did not raise or fall by more than ten percent. Large acceptance rate changes were more common in the United States, with less than one-fourth of the finance journals in the other countries experiencing an acceptance rate change exceeding ten percent. By contrast, the acceptance rate of a third of US finance journals changed by over ten percent. Approximately as many acceptance rates fell as rose by over ten percent. This similarity is quite remarkable given that three-fourths of the possible acceptance rates lie above twenty-three percent and yet consistent with Table 4, where we report that the average acceptance rate dropped. One reason may be that there is a ten percent change is only three-fourths of the 13.2 percent standard deviation in the U.S. finance journal acceptance rates. 159
Discipline, Nation, and Time Based Differences in Business Journal Acceptance Rates and Review Processes
Information Systems Looking at columns four and five in Table 5, one can see that the acceptance rates of 16 information systems journals declined by over ten percent. Seven information systems journals experienced an acceptance rate rise of over ten percent, and the remainder did not raise or fall by more than ten percent. Focusing on the U.S. information systems journals, one can see that the change in acceptance rate of one third of the journals exceeded ten percent. Acceptance rates of approximately twice as many journals fell as rose by over ten percent. Larger acceptance rate changes were somewhat common in the United States and the United Kingdom with thirty percent of the U.K. journals experiencing an acceptance rate fall of more than 10 percent. Only in the case of the three U.K. journals did the 10 percent metric for a “large” change exceed one standard deviation.
Marketing As exhibited in columns seven and eight of Table 5, the acceptance rates of 13 marketing journals registered a decline greater than ten percent; meanwhile, 3 journals reported an increase greater than ten percent. The acceptance rates of the other thirty-two surviving marketing journals did not raise or fall by more than ten percent. Out of the 13 marketing journals with a decline greater than ten percent, one, five and seven are from Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States respectively. It is remarkable to notice that all of the journals that reported an increase in their acceptance rates greater than ten percent are based in the United States. As with the other disciplines, though seemingly large, a ten percent change does not represent more than one standard deviation.
Figure 5: Changes in Publishing Difficulty from 1994 to 2011 More Difficult (Blue), Less Difficult (Red), About the Same Publishing Difficulty (Green) “X” Represents Acceptance Rate Change 160
J. Shorter, T. Krueger and R. Chatelain-Jardon
JIBMR - Volume 3, Issue 7 (2012), pp. 147-163
Graphic Analysis Figure 5 illustrates the distribution of the amount of change in acceptance rates of journals that survived from 1994 to 2011. The pie chart’s blue slice represents the proportion of journals in a specified discipline that reduced acceptance rates by over ten percent. Red slices represent acceptance rate increases exceeding ten percent. Green slices represent instances where acceptance rate changes were less substantial or even zero. The key insights from Table 5 are captured by the three slices found in Figure 5. Insight from the large green slice is the similarity across disciplines with about two-thirds of all journals not reporting a substantial change in acceptance rates. The number of journals with acceptance rate changes between negative ten and positive ten percent varies from 55 (finance) to 42 (marketing), but as a percentage of the sample the same proportion of journal acceptance rates in these disciplines remained essentially the same. The blue slice, representing instances where acceptance rates were reduced by over ten percent, demonstrates the fact that publishing in the marketing arena has become more difficult. In fact, twentyseven percent of marketing journals experienced a substantial decline in acceptance rates. By contrast, the blue slice in the finance pie is about half as large when you compare the percentages. By contrast, Marketing’s red slice is only one-fourth that of finance’s blue slice. This difference implies that the proportion of finance journals which have become more lenient publishing venues is four times larger than that of marketing. Information systems journal changes were approximately half way between that of marketing and finance, with approximately twice as many journals becoming substantially more researcher-friendly than researcher-stringent.
CONCLUSION Researchers want their reports to be available to the public for an extended period of time. Hence, they desire to have their research published in manuscripts that have stood the test of time. This analysis examines changes in the academic scholarship environment between 1994 and 2011. In the process, we shed light on the editorial process and acceptance rates across disciplines, nations, and time. Journals from three distinctly-different business disciplines were studied to gain some insight into the veracity of the review process facing faculty members from different academic areas. Comparison of journals based in Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States provide insights regarding the challenges faced by faculty members from these nations and has inferences regarding how to get research published by going abroad. Journal attrition is surprising, with as many as two-thirds of the Marketing journals going out of print over the seventeen-year period. The greatest attrition rate in all disciplines has been in the United States. Whether foreign or domestic, the blind-review process is the conventional way that manuscript quality is appraised. It also appears that the majority of journals use approximately two external reviewers. Journals in the United Kingdom have a greater likelihood of being editorial refereed publications. Approximately one tenth of the journals switched from either a blind process or editorial process to the other review mode. A larger forty-one percent reported a change in the number of external reviewers being employed.
161
Discipline, Nation, and Time Based Differences in Business Journal Acceptance Rates and Review Processes
Consistent with the perception that getting research accepted is challenging, the average acceptance rate for the entire sample was found to be only 21.2 percent. The lowest nation/discipline combination was the 17.2 percent acceptance rate average of U.K. finance journals. The highest nation/discipline combination was the 36.7 percent acceptance rate average of Canadian information systems journals. Seventy-six percent of the journals had a different acceptance rate in 2011 versus their reported 1994 level. Of these, forty-two acceptance rates (or twenty percent of the sample) reported a decline exceeding ten percent. Twenty-four reported acceptance rate increases exceeding ten percent. The nation/discipline combination with the greatest number of acceptance rates dropping by over ten percent was experienced by the U.S. information systems subset. The nation/discipline combination with the greatest number of acceptance rates rising by over ten percent was U.S. finance journals. Future research could examine changes within a given discipline (such as advertising), or additional information reported about publications (such as time to review). One could also expand this study by analyzing the current distribution of journals from other business disciplines across countries, and over time.
REFERENCES Aiken, M., Ghosh, K., & Vanjani, M. (2007). MIS faculty compensation: 1999-2005. Southwestern Business Administration Journal, 7 (1): 45-61. Beyer, J. M. (1978). Editorial policies and practices among leading journals in four scientific fields. The Sociological Quarterly, 19 (1), 68-88. Fairfield University. (2011). Journal prestige. DiMenna-Nyselius Library. Retrieved August 25, 2011, from http://librarybestbets.fairfield.edu/content.php?pid=176112&sid=1482966 Hawes J. M. & Keillor, B. (2002). Assessing marketing journals: A mission-based approach. Journal of the Academy of Business Education, 3, 70-86. Hult, G., Neese, W., & Bashaw, R. (1997). Faculty perceptions of marketing journals. Journal of Marketing Education, 19 (1), 37 – 52. Kapelianis, D. (1999). Cabell’s Directory of Publishing Opportunities in management and marketing. Journal of Consumer Affairs. Retrieved August 29, 2011, from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi _hb3250/is_2-33/ai_n28754692/ Krueger, T. & Shorter, J. (2012). Variation in scholarly journal review processes and acceptance rates across time and disciplines. Southwestern Business Administration Journal, in press, September 22, 2011. Krueger, T., Shorter, J., & Huff, K. (2012). International differences in business journal acceptance rates across business disciplines. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3 (3), 1 – 16. LaBand, D. N. (1990). Is there value-added from the review process in economics?: Preliminary evidence from authors. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 105 (2), 341 - 352. McAlister, I. (2005). Unleashing potential. Journal of Marketing, 69 (4), 16-17. Moss, S., Ziaolong, Z., & Barth, M. (2007). Modeling the academic pipeline. Academy of Information and Management Sciences Journal, 10 (1), 75-92. Polonsky, M. J., Jones, G., Kearsley, M. J. (1999) Accessibility: An alternative method of ranking marketing journals? Journal of Marketing Education, 21 (3), 181 – 193. Polonsky, M. J. & Whitelaw, P. (2006) A multi-dimensional examination of marketing journal rankings by North American academics. Marketing Education Review, 16 (3), 59-72.
162
J. Shorter, T. Krueger and R. Chatelain-Jardon
JIBMR - Volume 3, Issue 7 (2012), pp. 147-163
Rynes, S. L., & Brown, K. G. (2011). Where are we in the “long march to legitimacy?” Assessing scholarship in management learning and education. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 10 (4), 561 – 582. Schibrowsky, J. A., Peltier, J. W., & Boyt, T. E. (2002). A professional school approach to marketing education. Journal of Marketing Education, 24 (1), 43 – 55. Steward, M., & Lewis, B. (2010). A comprehensive analysis of marketing journal rankings. Journal of Marketing Education, 32 (1), 75 – 92. Summers, J. O. (2001). Guidelines for conducting research and publishing in marketing: From conceptualization through the review process. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 29 (4), 405 – 415. Swanson, E. P. (2004). Publishing in the majors: A comparison of accounting, finance, management, and marketing. Contemporary Accounting Research, 21, 223-255. Schultz, D. M. (2010). Rejection rates for journals publishing in the atmospheric sciences. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 91 (2), 231 – 243. Snodgrass, R. T. (2007). Editorial: Single- versus double-blind reviewing. ACM Transactions on Database Systems, 32 (1): Article 1. UNT Libraries. (2008) Journal article acceptance rates. Retrieved November 1, 2011, From http://www.library.unt.edu/ris/journal-article-acceptance-rates. p. 37.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS Jack Shorter is Professor of Information Systems at Texas A&M University – Kingsville. He has published over forty journal articles, appearing in blind and editorial-refereed journals, including the Journal of Computer Information Systems, Journal of Education for Business, Journal of Systems Management, Network World, Central Business Review, International Journal of Business and Social Science, Inside DPMA, and Business Insights. Research interests include forensic investigation, IT security management, disaster recovery, cell phone health issues, and penetration testing. Thomas Krueger is Director of Research and Professor of Finance at Texas A&M University – Kingsville. He has published over fifty journal articles, appearing in blind and editorial-refereed journals, including the Journal of Finance, Journal of Economics and Finance, and Journal of Investing. Research interests include security and portfolio management, insurance, mutual fund management, and financial statement analysis. Ruth Chatelain-Jardon is Assistant Professor of Management & Marketing at Texas A&M University – Kingsville. She received her Ph.D. from Texas A&M International University. Research interests include business journal acceptance rates, Web-based training, and selected management, information systems, and marketing topics.
163
