Management Journal Impact Factors 2008
20 June 2009 at 6:18 am Nicolai Foss 20 comments
| Nicolai Foss |
The new ISI impact factors for 2008 have just been released. There are lots of surprises this time. The biggest one is arguably that Organization Science is now out of the top 10 range, a long drop from its #4 status in 2006 (this sucks when you got two recent papers, one forthcoming and one R&R, at this journal :-( ). The second surprise, at least to me, is that the Journal of Management has made it to #5. One possible explanation is its rather influential yearly review issues. Another surprise is that Organization Studies, which was among the top 10 in 2006, has now moved down a lot to close to #30. The Journal of Management Studies, while not among the top 10 this year, has not been harmed as badly, dropping to #14. ASQ, once the undisputed top-management journal, is now #9. Less surprising is Academy of Management Review’s #1 position (it is usually among the top 3), and that the Strategic Management Journal is #4.
The rank order down to LRP at # 36 is: AMR – AMJ – MIS Q – SMJ – JoM – ORM – JIBS – AMLE – ASQ – OBHD – RP – JPIM – Org. Sci. – JMS – RoB – JoM – JOperationsM – IMA – JMIS – Man Sci -DS – IRS – LQ – Omega – R&D Man – GOM – JIT – Techno. – Org. Stud. – Brit. JoM – Adv. Strat Man. – HBR – Int Small Bus. J – Int. J. Oper. Prod. M. – Int. J. Man. Rev. – Int. J of Forec. – LRP
A new feature of the list is the inclusion of a five-year impact factor which, given the rather turbulent movements from year to year, makes a lot of sense (and which produces a rather different rank order from the above!).
Entry filed under: - Foss -, Management Theory.
Organizations and Markets 
1.
CM Hsieh | 22 June 2009 at 5:51 am
hi nicolai, don’t currently have access to ISI so a quick inquiry… is the JoM at #5 different from the JoM at #16 in the ranking quoted above?? i can’t think of a JoM other than Journal of Management… -cm
2.
Ashish | 22 June 2009 at 7:41 am
I dont have acess to new journal Impact factors relased for 2008. Could anyone kindly let me know the impact factor for the :Journal of hazardous materials and journal of environmental management
3.
Russ Cof | 23 June 2009 at 5:47 am
Given how much people “dis” the AoM journals, it is interesting that they remain at the top. Really surprised about ASQ & OS… What’s with that?
4.
2008 management journals impact factors published « doc.dr. Miha Škerlavaj | 8 July 2009 at 2:08 am
[…] 2008 management journals impact factors published July 8, 2009 Posted by mihaskerlavaj in conferences. Tags: impact factors, management, Thomson Reuters trackback Talking about living in a turbulent times… there are some serious changes in ‘the hierarchy’ of scientific management journals measured with Thomson Reuters (formerly ISI) impact factors. More here. […]
5.
Stine Grodal | 13 July 2009 at 12:15 am
Hi Nicolai,
I hate to talk methods, but here I go! :-)
When searching the ISI it is an important choice how you sort the list. I think that you might have sorted by “impact factor”, which looks at how many time a specific journal is cited. However, I think that a better measure is “article influence score”, which measures how many times each article within journal is cited. With “Impact factor” ournals that publish many articles shoot to the top of the list ,whereas a selective journal like ASQ suffers. As researchers we should focus on “article influence score”, because that is the true indicator of how many people are actually going to read our work.
Further note that ISI has both a “management” and a “business” category. I think that the most robust results are created by using both.
So – Nicolai – congrats on those Org. Science pubs! Because when you look at “article influence score” Org. Science flies into the 8th spot after AMR, AMJ, ASQ, MISQ, Research in Organizational Behavior, Journal of Marketing and SMJ.
Best,
Stine Grodal
6.
Joel West | 13 July 2009 at 3:43 pm
Nicolai,
I hate to quibble over something small, but by my count LRP is at #37.
Joel
1. AMR
2. AMJ
3. MIS Q
4. SMJ
5. JoM
6. ORM
7. JIBS
8. AMLE
9. ASQ
10. OBHD [OBHDP]
11. RP
12. JPIM
13. Org. Sci.
14. JMS
15. RoB
16. JoM
17. JOperationsM
18. IMA
19. JMIS
20. Man Sci
21. DS
22. IRS
23. LQ
24. Omega
25. R&D Man
26. GOM
27. JIT
28. Techno.
29. Org. Stud.
30. Brit. JoM
31. Adv. Strat Man.
32. HBR
33. Int Small Bus. J
34. Int. J. Oper. Prod. M.
35. Int. J. Man. Rev.
36. Int. J of Forec.
37. LRP
7.
Dr. Md. Ehtesham Ul Hoque | 8 September 2009 at 5:50 am
I would like to get the Journal Impact Factor 2008.
Thanks.
8.
Ram Mudambi | 14 December 2009 at 4:48 pm
Nicolai:
As you know, along with colleagues at Temple, I have been doing some research in this area. Impact factors have so many weaknesses, I would abandon using them.
SSCI now provides an Article Influence Score that fixes many (though not all) of the problems of impact factors.
Check out the journal ranking using that. You will see that Org Sci (2.851) significantly outperforms JIBS (1.513), for example.
Best,
Ram
9.
Manu | 11 February 2010 at 1:22 am
Hello Nicolai,
Could you let me know the SSCI for the Journal of Management & Organization ?
Thanks.
Manu
10.
Terry | 12 July 2010 at 9:14 am
Anybody knows the impact factors for 2009? I heard they are just published.
11.
cm | 3 August 2010 at 6:16 am
2009 impact factors for management journals rank as follows:
amr – amj – misq – smj – jom – rob – p psych – strategic org – asq – jibs – j op m – org sci – omega – jms – obhd – orm – techno – decision sci – scm – ijmr – inform mgmt – res policy – amle – man sci – lead quarterly – msom – org stud – jmis – corp gov – j inf tech – job – cal mgmt review – gom – tourism mgmt – j int mgmt – info systems – hbr – human relations – lrp – oper research
12.
Cristiano | 16 November 2010 at 12:21 pm
Hi. Please. What is the full name of journals “techno” and “Gom”? Thank you.
13.
management journal rankings, crowdsourced « orgtheory.net | 14 January 2011 at 11:37 pm
[…] Science Quarterly really the #9 journal in management (as suggested by impact factors a few years ago)? Pl-eez! For example, is Academy of Management Learning & Education really a better […]
14.
Rupesh Kumar.M | 4 March 2011 at 11:24 pm
I need to have a list of MANAGEMENT journals with impact factor 2010.
15.
Nandi | 8 April 2011 at 1:34 am
I need to have a list of top 50 MANAGEMENT journals with impact factor 2010.
16.
Arpan Kar | 12 July 2011 at 10:39 am
Hi, Can you plz mail me a copy of the report to arpan.kumar.kar@gmail.com
It will be really helpful for me.
17.
K Ravi Prakash | 15 November 2011 at 5:42 am
Request to please provide me a list of Management Journals with impact factor 2011. pdf or any other format.I’m searching for this information but am unable to get the source as to where this info. is available. Please help me. Ravi Prakash – Research Scholar-OU
18.
BeaumShevitz Arundanandtatmula | 6 December 2011 at 12:44 am
Nicolai Foss? As a 1st year Management PhD student with an interest in knowledge creation theory, I am glad to see such a respected scholar in the field posting to an online community. It makes top scholars seem more accessible, though I am told it is a small world in academia. Thanks for the impact factor info (albeit 3 years old by now), as it is a common question for me as I read and try to get a handle on all these journals.
19.
Bruce | 17 February 2012 at 1:06 pm
There is an interesting paper by Joel Baum on this … Free Riding on Power Laws: questionining the validity of the Impact Factor as a measure of research quality in organization studies – Organization (2011) 18(4) pp. 449-466 – he does an nice analysis of citations, and shows (what many of us suspected) that citations are highly skewed to a small subset of articles, so the idea of an impact factor which is based on a mean citation rate is erroneous. He concludes that “Impact Factor has little credibility as a proxy for the quality of eitehr organization studies journals of the articles they publish, resulting in attributions of journal or article quality that are incorrect as much or more than half the time. The clear implication is that we need to cease our reliances on such non-scientific, quantitative characterisation to evaluate the quality of our work”
20.
Ram Mudambi | 17 February 2012 at 3:42 pm
This analysis was already done in a paper we wrote in 2005 – finally now published in Scientometrics:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/e712x112vkp200t6/
We have the further and stronger result that in many years, the top 10 percent of papers in A- journals like Research Policy outperform the top 10 percent of papers in A journals like AMJ.
So it is the paper that matters, NOT the journal in which it was published. Evaluating scholars on the basis of where they have published is pretty meaningless. Some years ago, we had a senior job candidate with EIGHTEEN real ‘A’ publications – it turned out he had only 118 total citations on Google scholar. So his work was pretty trivial, even though it appeared in top journals.