English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Evaluating the quality of academic journal is becoming increasing importantwithin the context of research performance evaluation. Traditionally, journalshave been ranked by peer review lists such as that of the Association ofBusiness Schools (UK) or though their journal impact factor (JIF). However,several new indicators have been developed, such as the h-index, SJR, SNIP andthe Eigenfactor which take into account different factors and therefore havetheir own particular biases. In this paper we evaluate these metrics boththeoretically and also through an empirical study of a large set of businessand management journals. We show that even though the indicators appear highlycorrelated in fact they lead to large differences in journal rankings. Wecontextualize our results in terms of the UK's large scale research assessmentexercise (the RAE/REF) and particularly the ABS journal ranking list. Weconclude that no one indicator is superior but that the h-index (which includesthe productivity of a journal) and SNIP (which aims to normalize for fieldeffects) may be the most effective at the moment.

Evaluating Journal Quality: A Review of Journal Citation Indicators and Ranking in Business and Management