Abstract
A paper in one of the quality journals of Management Studies is much more important as a unit of measurement than as a contribution to knowledge. It measures academic performance and determines much academic funding. There is consequently some pressure to publish in quality journals. But quality journals are defined in terms that are themselves defined in terms of quality journals - a circularity that explains both the paper's title and the frustration of those who do not mix in these circles. We examine the gamesmanship of publishing in quality journals. Findings from a survey of heads of Management Studies departments in UK universities suggest that such gamesmanship is common. Cunning and calculation now support scholarship in Management Studies. Gamesmanship will remain common until the rewards for publishing attach to the content of papers, to what is published rather than where it is published. We propose a 'Tinkerbell Solution': without belief in the value of a paper in a quality journal, the game is no longer worth playing.
Translated title of the contribution | Ring a Ring o' Roses: Quality Journals and Gamesmanship in Management Studies |
---|---|
Original language | English |
Pages (from-to) | 640 - 655 |
Number of pages | 16 |
Journal | Journal of Management Studies |
Volume | 44 (4) |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - Jun 2007 |