The research journal especially in marketing, is now not only the primary communication method, but is also used to evaluate an academic's research contribution. Measuring the quality of research journals has also become more complex as a result of the rapid increase in the number of journals published. In marketing research, scientists have professed the use of sophisticated or more sensitive techniques yet little has been done to improve the measurement of research journals. This thesis investigates the use of alternative measurement techniques to explore this important aspect of the academic environment. Historically two dominant methodologies have been used to measure the quality ofjournals: Peer review and Citation Analysis. However these methods have been criticised and academics have been sceptical of the results, taking the opinion that these methods create, bias in the results. Previous methods have also taken a one-dimensional view of journal quality with little time devoted to uncovering the criteria that governs that quality. The research applied marketing methodologies that combined qualitative and quantitative research techniques to explore the problem. Four critical research questions were examined in this study. What are the important elements of journal research standing? 38 items were found to be important elements ofjoumal research standing. Is journal research standing a multi-dimensional construct? Three underlying dimensions represented the construct journal research standing, these were Reputation, Reviewing Standards and Content Quality. Do academics acknowledge the multiple dimensions of journal research standing? Academics acknowledged the -differences -between dimensions for ten selected marketing journals. What moderating factors affect academic opinions of journal research standing? Academic attitudes towards a joutnal's research stdtiding are moderated by their country of origin, familiarity and research fit. Attitudes towards a journal may also be moderated when academics have a paper rejected from that particular journal.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:bl.uk/oai:ethos.bl.uk:311055 |
| Date | January 1999 |
| Creators | Hirst, Andrew S. |
| Publisher | Loughborough University |
| Source Sets | Ethos UK |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Electronic Thesis or Dissertation |
| Source | https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/2134/7174 |
Page generated in 0.0022 seconds