stock repurchase announcements: a test of market ... - Asbbs.org

Publishing in Management Journals
So, the problem is not research productivity, but its implications. Beyond the understanding that research
activity can hamper teaching effectiveness, there st ill exist issues that plague faculty m embers. Our
experience is that there appear to be ample outlets in term s of both conferences and journals for the
presentation and publicati on of our scholarship. So, getting published is not the problem . Although we
agree with the argu ment that scholarship is critical to effective teaching (Nelson, 2004), we also submit
that it be r espectable scholarship. As previously stated, the potential exists for publishing to be
accomplished irrespective of scholarship, which relegates publications to the status of commodities. If we
accept that only the best scholarship gets published in top-tier journals, then less than the best scholarship
gets publishe d in lesser known journa ls. This begs the question, what is the objective of publ ishing
something that does not get read?
The argument that scholarship is critical to effectiv e teaching rests on effective scholarship. The reviews
above and t he evidence below suggest that onl y the top schools will consistently publish effective
scholarship simply because they have the resources to do so. Although it is not the objective of this study
to prescribe t enure and prom otion policy, it is reasonabl e to conclude that faculty at traditional teaching
schools should be rewarded for the consu mption of published research, as opposed to the p roduction of
peer-reviewed publications. The proba bility of great numbers of teaching faculty publishing in journals
with high circulation rates is low. The remainder of this paper shows the evidence for that.
METHODOLOGY
The methodology cited he re is the same as that used in our previous study (Fekula & Horn yak, 2007)
since the database is the same for both analyses. Portions of the methodology text are taken verbatim from
the previous study when there is no bet ter way to state the method. Based upon circulation rates, the 10
journals examined in this study represent thre e di stinct tier s of prestig e a s follow: (a) Ti er 1:
Administrative Science Quarterly, Academy of Management Journal, and Academy of Management
Review; (b) Tier 2: Journal of Management, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Human Relations,
and Journal of Management Inquiry; (c) Tier 3: Business and Society, Group and Organization
Management, and Organization Science.
The journals cover the five-y ear period from 2000 through 20 04. The top 100 periodic als listed in
Emerald Management Reviews (2004) were reviewed to first de termine which qualified as scholarly
journals. Ne xt, journals were selected to ensure th at they represented the fiel d of general manage ment.
Then journals were chosen based upon the level of prestige determined by the authors’ experience with
the journals, as well as their knowledge of the views of other professors in the management field. In order
to collect data in a reasonable amount of time, the journals were also chosen based upon their availability
in electronic form . The final selection criterion was to ensure that enough j ournals were chosen to
reasonably represent three possible tiers of prestige. Although various criteria such as acceptance rate,
numbers and types of reviewers, frequency of publishing, and circulation (Cabell’s, 2001) could be used,
ultimately the authors ch ose circulatio n rate as th e criteria for tier assignment because t here is l ess
variance reported for that measure. The chosen journals fell clearly into the three circulation categories to
yield three tiers. Tier 1 journals ra nge from 10 to 25 thousand copi es circulated, Tier 2 from three to four
thousand copies, and Tier 3 from one to two thousand copies (Fekula & Hornyak, 2007).
After the journals wer e chosen the following data w as recorded by reviewing each journal article or its
tables of contents: journal title, date, volume, author last name and first initial, and the affiliation of each
author. In some cases, affiliations were unavailable and the researchers searched the internet to determine
the affiliation of an author.
The data was then coded and input to a spreadsheet as follows: (a) each journal date and volum e wa s
given a unique identifier; (b) Each au thor’s name and affiliation were entered; (c) First authors were
coded as such; (d) Su bsequent authors were coded as such, but only first authors were given a specific
ASBBS E-Journal, Volume 4, No.1, 2008
34