Are Ranked Journal Lists Effective Determiners of Article Quality?

References

• Mingers J, Willmott H. Taylorizing business school research: on the ‘one best way’ performative effects of journal ranking lists. Hum Relat. 2013;66(8):1051–73. doi:10.1177/0018726712467048.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cuellar MJ, Truex DP III, Takeda H. Reconsidering counting articles in ranked venues (CARV) as the appropriate evaluation criterial for the advancement of democratic discourse in the is field. Commun Assoc Inf Syst. 2019;44:10. doi:10.17705/1CAIS.04410.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Locke J, Lowe A. Problematising the construction of journal quality: an engagement with the mainstream. Account Forum. 2002;26(1):45–71. doi:10.1111/1467-6303.00079.
   Google Scholar
• Dean DL, Lowry PB, Humpherys SL. Profiling the research productivity of tenured information systems faculty at U.S. institutions. Mis Q. 2011;35(1):1–15. doi:10.2307/23043486.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Straub D, Anderson C. Editor’s comments: journal quality and citations: common metrics and considerations for their use. Mis Q. 2010;34(1):iii–x88. doi:10.2307/20721411.
   Google Scholar
• Dennis AR, Valacich JS, Fuller MA, Schneider C. Research standards for promotion and tenure in information systems. Mis Q. 2006;30(1):1–12. doi:10.2307/25148714.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kateratanakul P, Hong S. Quality and knowledge contributions of MISQ: a citation analysis. Commun Assoc Inf Syst. 2003;11:271–88. doi:10.17705/1CAIS.01115.
   Google Scholar
• Lewis BR, Templeton GF, Luo X. A scientometric investigation into the validity of is journal quality measures. J Assoc Inf Syst. 2007;8(12):619–33. doi:10.17705/1jais.00145.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garvin DA. What does “product quality” really mean? Mit Sloan Manage Rev. 1984;25:25–43.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cuellar MJ, Truex DP III, Takeda H. 2016. Twenty-second Americas Conference on Information Systems San Diego CA. Atlanta, GA: Association for Information Systems.
   Google Scholar
• Crosby P. Quality is free. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1979.
   Google Scholar
• ASQ. Glossary - entry: quality. 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Motorola University. What is six sigma. 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Taguchi G. Taguchi on robust techology development. ASME Press; 1992. doi:10.1115/1.800288.
   Google Scholar
• ISO. ISO 9000: 2005, quality management systems – fundamentals and vocabulary. 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Drucker P. Innovation and entrepreneurship. New York: Harper & Row; 1985.
   Google Scholar
• Wang RY, Strong DM. Beyond accuracy: what data quality means to data consumers. J Manage Inf Syst. 1996;12(4):5–33. doi:10.1080/07421222.1996.11518099.
   Google Scholar
• Lee YW, Strong DM, Kahn BK, Wang RY. AIMQ: a methodology for information quality assessment. Inf Manage. 2002;40(2):133–46. doi:10.1016/S0378-7206(02)00043-5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Madnick SE, Wang RY, Lee YW, Zhu H. Overview and framework for data and information quality research. ACM J Data Inf Qual. 2009;1(2):1–22. doi:10.1145/1515693.1516680.
   Google Scholar
• Strong DM, Lee YW, Wang RY. Data quality in context. Commun ACM. 1997;40(5):103–10. doi:10.1145/253769.253804.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stvilia B, Gasser L, Twidale MB, Smith LC. A framework for information quality assessment. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol. 2007;58(12):1720–33. doi:10.1002/asi.20652.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang RY. A product perspective on total data quality management. Commun ACM. 1998;41(2):58–65. doi:10.1145/269012.269022.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rieh SY. Judgement of information quality and congnitive authority in the Web. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol. 2002;53(2):145–61. doi:10.1002/asi.10017.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor RS. Value added processes in information systems. New York: Bloombury Academic; 1986.
   Google Scholar
• Wilson P. Second-hand authority: an inquiry in to cognitive authority. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press; 1983.
   Google Scholar
• Straub D, Boudreau M-C, Gefen D. Validation guidelines for is positivist research. Commun Assoc Inf Syst. 2004;13:380–427. doi:10.17705/1CAIS.01324.
   Google Scholar
• Petter S, Straub D, Rai A. Specifying formative constructs in information systems research. Mis Q. 2007;31(4):623–56. doi:10.2307/25148814.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chin WW. Modern methods for business research. G. A Marcoulides, editor. United Kingdom: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.; 1998. p. 295–335.
   Google Scholar
• Gefen D, Straub D. A practical guide to factorial validity using pls-graph: tutorial and annotated example. Commun Assoc Inf Syst. 2005;16:91–109. doi:10.17705/1CAIS.01605.
   Google Scholar
• Klein KJ, Kozlowski SW. Multilevel theory, research and methods in organizations. Washington DC: Jossey-Bass; 2000.
   Google Scholar
• Klein HK, Myers M. A set of principles eor conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in information systems. Mis Q. 1999;23(1):67–94. doi:10.2307/249410.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Myers M, Klein HK. A set of principles for conducting critical research in information systems. Mis Q. 2011;35(1):17–36. doi:10.2307/23043487.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wynn D Jr, Williams CK. Principles for conducting critical realist case study research in information systems. Mis Q. 2012;36:787–810. doi:10.2307/41703481.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Latour B. Science in action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1987. p. 274.
   Google Scholar
• Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika. 1951;16(3):297–334. doi:10.1007/BF02310555.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacDonald S, Kam J. Ring a ring o’ roses: quality journals and gamesmanship in management studies. J Manage Stud. 2007;44(4):640–55. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2007.00704.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Truex DP III, Cuellar MJ, Vidgen R, Takeda H. 2011 Seventh international cricial management studies conference July, 2011 Naples, Italy.
   Google Scholar
• Singh G, Haddad KM, Chow CW. Are articles in “top” management journals necessarily of higher quality? J Manage Inquiry. 2007;16(4):319–31. doi:10.1177/1056492607305894.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lotka AJ. The frequency distribution of scientific productivity. J Wash Acad Sci. 1926;16:317–23.
   Google Scholar
• Egghe L. Power laws in the information production process: lotkaian informetrics. Elsevier; 2005. doi:10.1108/S1876-0562(2005)05.
   Google Scholar
• Straub D. Type II reviewing errors and the search for exciting papers. Mis Q. 2008;32(2):v–x. doi:10.2307/25148837.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• AIS. Senior scholars’ basket of journals. 2022. http://aisnet.org/?SeniorScholarBasket.
   Google Scholar
• Harzing A-W. 2015. Journal Quality List 56th Edition. https://harzing.com/resources/journal-quality-list
   Google Scholar
• Rowe F. Personal email from frantz rowe. 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Publish or Perish v. 2.8.3774. Harzing; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Harzing A-W. A preliminary test of google scholar as a sourse for citation data: A longitudinal study of nobel prize winners. Scientometrics. 2013;93(3):1057–75. doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0777-7.
   Google Scholar
• Harzing A-W. A longitudinal study of google scholar coverage between 2012 and 2013. Scientometrics. 2014;98(1):565–75. doi:10.1007/s11192-013-0975-y.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zaiontz C. Kruskal-Wallis Test. 2014. http://www.real-statistics.com/one-way-analysis-of-variance-anova/kruskal-wallis-test/.
   Google Scholar
• Zaiontz C. Statistical tests for normality and symmetry. 2014. http://www.real-statistics.com/tests-normality-and-symmetry/statistical-tests-normality-symmetry/.
   Google Scholar
• Loos P, König W, Österle H, De Marco M, Pastor JA, Rowe F. NationaL research and international competitiveness – an antinomy? Bus Inf Syst Eng. 2010;2(4):249–58. doi:10.1007/s12599-010-0115-7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar