Explicit and Implicit Subject Bias in the ABS Journal Quality Guide

Abstract

This paper addresses issues raised in two recent papers published in this journal about the UK Association of Business Schools' Journal Quality Guide (ABS Guide). While much of the debate about journal rankings in general, and the ABS Guide in particular, has focused on the construction, power and (mis)use of these rankings, this paper differs in that it explains and provides evidence about explicit and implicit biases in the ABS Guide. In so doing, it poses potentially difficult questions that the editors of the ABS Guide need to address and urgently rectify if the ABS Guide seeks to build and retain legitimacy. In particular, the evidence in this paper shows explicit bias in the ABS Guide against several subject areas, including accounting and finance. It also shows implicit bias against accounting and finance when comparing journal rankings in sub-areas shared between accounting and finance and the broader business management subject areas.

Keywords:

• ABS Guide
• journal quality
• explicit bias
• implicit bias
• British Accounting and Finance Association
• Thomson ISI

Acknowledgements

The authors are very thankful to the Editor, Richard Wilson, Christopher Napier, and the anonymous reviewers of Accounting Education: an international journal for their invaluable comments on earlier drafts of this paper. The authors are also indebted to the many members of the British Accounting and Finance Association who have taken the time to raise their evidence-based concerns regarding flaws in the ABS Guide. While these concerns have not been used as evidence for analysis in his paper, they have informed the perceptions, in particular, of one of the authors. The views expressed in this paper are not necessarily shared by the Principles for Responsible Investment or the British Accounting and Finance Association. The authors are listed alphabetically.

Notes

The fourth edition of the ABS Guide only used ‘star’ for a subsection of 4-rated journals that met specified additional criteria. Thus the rankings in the fourth edition were 4*, 4, 3, 2, and 1, whereas in the third edition they were 4*, 3*, 2* and 1*.

The authors are grateful to the one of the anonymous reviewers of this paper for this suggestion.