~ Pergamon Omega, Int. J. Mgmt Sci. Vol. 24, No. 5. p. 613, 1996

Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. Printed in Great Britain 0305-0483/96 $15.00 + 0.00

Judging Research Quality and Journals: a Call for Debate

THE PRECEDING EXCHANGE [3, 7, 8], and some- what related papers published recently in Omega [1,2,4-6], touch on points of clear importance to at least UK-based academics and possibly to academics elsewhere. The points are not without interest either to editors and publishers of academic journals, and perhaps also to librarians. Further contributions to the debate would be welcome.

GEORGE MITCHELL

REFERENCES 1. Doyle JR and Arthurs AJ (1995) Judging the quality of

research in business schools: the UK as a case study. Omega 23, 257-270.

2. Doyle JR, Arthurs A J, Green RH, McAulay L, Pitt MR, Bottomley PA and Evans W (1996) The judge, the model of the judge, and the model of the judged as judge: analyses of the UK 1992 Research Assessment Exercise data for business and management studies. Omega 24, 13-28.

3. Doyle JR, Arthurs A J, McAulay L and Osborne PG (1996) Citation as effortful voting: a reply to Jones, Brinn and Pendlebury. Omega 24, 603-606.

4. Eom SB (1995) Decision support systems research: reference disciplines and a cumulative tradition. Omega 23, 511-523.

5. Goh CH, Holsapple CW, Johnson LE and Tanner J (1996) An empirical assessment of influences on POM research. Omega 24, 337-345.

6. Holsapple CW, Johnson LE, Manakyan H and Tanner J (1994) Business computing system research: structuring the field. Omega 22, 69-81.

7. Jones M J, Brinn T and Pendlebury M (1996) Judging the quality of research in business schools: a comment from accounting. Omega 24, 597-602.

8. Jones MJ, Brinn T and Pendlebury M (1966) Journal evaluation methodologies: a balanced response. Omega 24, 607-612.

613