Best Journals Versus Best Fit Journals: A Strategic Orientation To Research Tiers

Best Journals versus Best Fit Journals: A Strategic Orientation to Research Quality Dr Stephen Dann, The Australian National University Abstract Marketing is the process of creating, communicating and delivering value to the customers, and for managing customer relationships in ways that benefit the organisation and its stakeholders. If for a moment, we assume that the developers of the RQF scheme are customers of the university sector, can marketing develop something of value for them in their pursuit of research quality? Decision makers in DEST need the input of the disciplines areas which they seek to measure to determine a research assessment framework that provides the DEST with a benchmarking system. This creates a market opportunity to present a framework of value to the DEST, and of benefit for the universities. The paper proposes a new framework for assessing research output based on the research goals of the selected university, internal research strengths of a department, and the ongoing support for development and enhancement of disciplinary thought within the marketing academy. Presented here is a system of ‘best fit’ between institutional research output and ideal publication mediums, rather than a universal rank of “best” journals. Introduction O' Connor and Moodie (2006) remind us that once again, the higher education sector in Australia is under criticism from its political masters - this time over the lack of diversification between the universities. Under the current minister' s vision for higher education, universities are meant to diversify their portfolios, concentrate on their strengths, and cede ground to rival institutions in the name of sector wide reform. In the pursuit of this goal, most university systems, schools and departments are rushing towards the paradoxical goal of diversifying to the same tune. Across the Australian marketing academy, schools, departments and professors all acknowledge the need for segmentation, positioning, diversification and the pursuit of publication in the same top ten journals. The problem, in part, is the pursuit of league table style metrics that provide evidence of "best" rather than "best fit". Diversification requires universities to focus on their strengths, but if each university uses the same measures to determine those "strengths", then the rigid frameworks of "best journals" and "best conferences" will see best-fit modified to match the "best journals". In other words, diversification will result in the uniform pursuit of the same goals, with everyone citing the same strengths to see themselves competitive on the same scorecard. Rewarding quality by assessing it against a rigid criteria of "best" will simply result in more of the same outcomes - rejection slips from the same "top tier" journals. The Standardised Journal Ranking Schema Journal ranking schema are old news in the business academic sector, with the first studies of journal quality appearing in 1974, and continuing unabated through to the current paper (Koojaroenprasit et al, 1998, Polonsky and Whitelaw, 2006). To quote Polonsky and Whitelaw (2005): …with Hawes and Keillor (2002) identifying that between 1980 and 2001 there were at least 16 journal ranking studies in marketing published in academic journals and conferences. Since 2002 there have been additional ranking studies, including; Baumgartner and Pieters (2003), Theoharakis and Hirst (2002), Mort et al. (2004) and Polonsky and Whitelaw (2004). It appears that ranking journals may in fact be a predisposition within business faculties in general (Armstrong and Sperry 1994, Van Fleet et

al. 2000). Twenty two years, twenty journal ranking systems exist in the published field, with a few more proprietary research ranks existing within different universities around the globe. As Polonsky and Whitelaw (2005) note, once the reader looks outside of the top three or five journals, the inconsistency of these lists stand as a tribute to "one size fits nobody" production orientations. Even within the quality index industry there is a mute acceptance of onedimensional measures of “best”, based on the respondent' s perception of "quality" (Baumgarter and Pieters, 2003). Would the academic who endorses this list for funding back the same single item measure from a student project? For most aspect of the marketing disciplines, the use of a one-dimensional scale of "best" is inconsistent with the fundamental principles of the discipline and the practice of the industry (Corfman, 1991). Does the systematic avoidance of accepted methodology maintain the relevance of the discipline? One would think not, unless the methodological two-step assists in the creation of "quality index" for rating publication outputs. For marketing, an important question needs to be considered – does a single item list of “best” journals match the philosophy of the discipline? Should the notion of market orientation, market segmentation, positioning and an emphasis on not being “everything to everyone” be theory to be tough and practice to avoid? The author contends that this question of disciplinary relevance is often overlooked in order to mask the fundamental clash between what marketing teaches and what it practices with adherence to mono-measure league tables of “quality” journal rankings. A Model for Assessing Research Output / Research Agenda fit Research output is assumed to have two core components - the business strategy component which represents the organisational research goals of the University, and the goal of developing knowledge within a specific discipline. Hawes and Keillor (2002 in Polonsky and Whitelaw (2005) recommend that the using the institutional mission statements in the ranking of marketing journals. This view is also supported by the AACSB (2006) who specify that intellectual contributions, measured in part by peer reviewed journal articles, should be consistent with the school’s mission and strategic management processes. Pursuit of disciplinary research goals or organisational research goals gives rise to the 2x2 matrix of discipline/university agenda alignment of the research Figure 1). Figure 1. Discipline and University Research Goals Discipline Research Goals

Academy Driven Research (Tier 1)

Marketing Unit Research Agenda (Tier 3)

Non aligned Research (Tier 4

University Research Objectives (Tier 2) University Research Goals

These four areas are defined in the practical context for the development of a research output ranking structure. Quadrant 1 represents the Academy Driven Research which encourages the development of the marketing discipline through the engagement in relevant marketing academies. Quadrant 2 is aligned with the strategic research goals of the host university or institution. Quadrant 3 emphasises the creation of a coherent research agenda for a marketing department school or group, and Quadrant 4 represents Independent Research Output which is not aligned to the above objectives. It is important to note that rejecting the tiering orientation with its implicit good to bad sliding scale allows for the broader recognition of appropriate

venues for research output. Instead of reflecting the UQBS “Tier 1 is superior to Tier 2” mindset, Quadrant 1 and Quadrant 2 reflect differing goals and targets for the research. However, it is acknowledge at this point, that the mere creation of a research reward framework based on the organisational goals of the university is not without controversy, and is open to accusation of curtailing of academic freedom. This is addressed later in the paper. Assigning Journals to Quadrants The sample of marketing journals was selected from the University of Queensland Business School (UQBS) List 2003, and confirmed by the University of Auckland List (2003). Although up to 120 journals have been identified as appropriate outputs for marketing research, the preliminary Quadrant schema was restricted to the 57 journals previously identified in these two papers. Two additional lists of research quality ranks were used to assist the quadrant development, Polonsky and Whitelaw (2006) paper (P&W List) which ranked 65 different journals according to five different criteria, and the Mort et al (2003) paper which ranked 72 different journals. These two lists were selected to reflect US (Polonsky and Whitelaw, 2006) and Australian (Mort et al 2003) perceptions of journal quality. Assumptions Two key assumptions underpin the entire process of journal research priority setting. First, research will be treated as a strategic undertaking, and organisational research outputs can be treated as products to be offered to a market of publication outlets. Second, the paper assumes that journals can be treated as consumers of research output, with each journal having research preferences, varying levels of demand for research products. For example, a university with a research centre in retailing is likely to generate research products of interest for the Journal of Retailing. Similarly, the Journal of Consumer Behaviour is not likely to be looking for a research paper on business to business research. Treating journals as consumers of research also allows for researchers to target their research output products where they have a strong match between market need (journal coverage) and research strength. Quadrant 1: Developing the discipline of marketing To ask a marketing academic what they do for a living is to invite the response “I’m a marketer”. The membership of the academy of marketing is a universal and transferable trait, unbound to specific nations or employers. Consequently, and in recognition of the global nature of the discipline, the first quadrant priority for marketing journals is the pursuit of the enhancement and development of the academy of marketing. Quadrant 1 consists of a list of the journals published by the respective academies of marketing across the major geographic areas, e.g. Australasia, Europe and America. Members of an academy should be rewarded for supporting the development and enhancement of their academy specific journals as a means of recognising the contribution to and support of the development of the discipline. Publication in these journals is recognised as contributing to the broader development of the discipline by disseminating research to the academy body, and into the community through the outreach of the academy. Researchers should be encouraged to contribute to the development of their local academy as a priority, and should also be encouraged to contribute to other academy journals where appropriate. (Appendix 1) Quadrant 2: Addressing Institutional Research Goals The second quadrant of journals is based on providing a framework to encourage academics to pursue the research interest of the university in conjunction with the development of their relevant academies. For example, an institution may elect to focus on developing Australian

research, and advancing knowledge of Australian research. Consequently, the Quadrant 2 journals would be selected on the basis of their track record in the publication of Australian research and Australian researchers. In contrast, a university with a priority in econometric theory and econometric modelling would select journals which represented the best track record of publishing econometric papers. Quadrant 2 level journals are selected by matching the research strength of the organisation against the market demand for the research output product. The use of the institutional research goals is not without controversy – aligning strategic goals with research goals for financial reward can be perceived as a restraint of academic freedom to pursue research independent of the organisational goal. Similarly, selection of research foci may be flawed, or based on political rather than academic agendas. However, as universities are moving (or being moved) towards diversification, the use of these explicit positioning statements to guide research outcome expectations may also increase the transparency between organisational goals and internal research reward. Quadrant 3: Marketing Unit Research Agenda Based Objectives Quadrant 3 journals are the disciplinary and sub-disciplinary specific journals which are representative of the peak quality outlets for a specific area or specific research concentration in marketing. Inclusion in this list is based on the match between the journal’s publication objectives and the marketing group’s research agenda. Determining a Research Agenda for Quadrant 3 Development of a research agenda of is based on the staff member’s self reported identification of their areas of research specialisations conducted using a list of track streams from the Australia and New Zealand Marketing Academy Conference. Each the respondent identifies the track streams closest to their PhD topic, primary research area and second research areas. These research clusters are matched against the “areas of research interest” identified in Polonsky and Whitelaw’s (2006) journal ranking paper which incorporated an examination of the research interests of the US marketing community. Table 1 features a sample research agenda list Table 1. Developing a Research Agenda Sum

Polonsky & Whitelaw (2006)

12

Marketing & Society

11 10

Marketing Strategy Marketing Communications

ANZMAC Track Areas Corporate Responsibility, Social Issues and Social Responsibility Marketing and Society Non profit marketing Political Marketing Social Marketing Entrepreneurship, Firms in Networks, Marketing Strategy, New Product Development, Supply Chain Management, Financial & Value-Based Marketing Advertising / Marketing Communication / IMC, Branding

Journals are selected for the research agenda quadrant based on the number of articles containing the relevant research keyword, and the stated research goal of the journal. For example, the Journal of Public Policy and Management has a strong fit with the goals, whilst the Journal of Retailing has a weak fit with the research agenda. Consequently, although the Journal of Retailing has a high individual rank score in the Polonsky and Whitelaw (2006) and Mort et al (2003) league tables, it would not be an appropriate priority target for this research agenda. The use of the aggregate research output is designed to incorporate the individual research agendas into a larger body. Although, ideally, this process could be used to determine personal lists of research quality output, the paper concedes to a level of pragmatism. It is unlikely that DEST or even individual university funding bodies will want to establish and maintain individual level research quality ranks. Incorporating research agendas of individual academics into an aggregate measure will also require negotiation between members of a marketing unit to ensure fair and representative inclusion in the research agenda.

Quadrant 4: High Quality Independent Research Output Good scholars can be expected to publish in these journals, and journals of this level are equal in quality to those in Quadrant 3. These are quality journals, and cover a broad range of fields, but they are not aligned to the research agendas demonstrated above. Quadrant 4 is the recognition that it is possible for a high quality research outlet to not be relevant to the research agenda of an institution. In a commercial marketing context, objectively lucrative markets are often ignored by organisations who lack organisational strengths to meet the needs of these markets. Similarly, if the research institution does not have strengths in the area of specialisation of a high quality journal, strategic marketing management theory would suggest not targeting this research output market. The existence of the fourth quadrant as a catch-all for peer reviewed journals outside of the research agendas of the organisation still allows for academic freedom to pursue research in fields of personal interest. Inclusion in Quadrant 4 is not a criticism of the quality of the journal or the research, and as such, should not be seen as a threat to the legitimacy of external rankings of the journal. Although negative connotations are associated with “fourth tier” journals, this is a perceptual/branding issue resulting from the UQBS and UoA use of the fourth tier as lesser quality journals. In this model, the existence of the fourth quadrant is the preserve of academic freedom, and as such should be used to defend the ability of the individual researcher to pursue research beyond the goal of the university, academy or marketing unit agenda. Limits of the Method All existing measures of journal quality used in this paper, either as a multiple tier structure or a single league table were found to contain reference to the Journal of Market-Focused Management which ceased publication in January 2003. In several instances, this defunct journal was deemed to be a higher quality research publication outlet than active journals. Given the Journal was discontinued in Wednesday, January 01, 2003, lists such as University of Auckland (September, 2003) and Polonsky and Whitelaw (2006) should not have included the defunct journal in the list. It would be an article of a certain quality that could be published in a journal that ceased trading nearly four years prior to this paper’s publication. A second limitation of the process arises in the process used for determining the research agenda journal list. There is a prospect of false positive/false negative hits from the keyword assessment of each journal. In testing the method, the keyword “Australia” was used as a proxy measure for the alignment of the journal with a pro-Australian research agenda. Further research and development of an agenda relevance measure could be used to enhance this framework, and sharing of research agenda grading of journals would be able to reduce bias inherent in the reliance on single source interpretation. Controversy The author freely admits that the suggestion of research agendas determined by organisational goals is the equivalent of looking for a gas leak in a petrol station with a lit match. That said, this quadrant mechanism is designed around the recognition, and explicit acknowledgement, that the notion of pure academic research freedom does not exist in a system that is graded on research quality league tables. In the current process, the use of a measure such as Polonsky and Whitelaw’s (2006)’s league table restricts the freedom of the academic to targeting high scoring journals. Further restrictions are implicit in the use of the UQBS or UoA tier

structures that prescribe “good” journals around narrow research topics. The quadrant approach makes explicit the tie between employer objectives and employee outcomes, whilst preserving the role for matched and unmatched research. Being instructed to publish in Tier 1 or Tier 2 journals in the UQBS list does implicitly limit research agendas to only those areas that are sought by a limited range of journals. If academic freedom must be curtailed by research outlet targeting, it should at least be honest about the process. It should also be acknowledge that the mere existence of a list of target journals should be a controversial issue worthy of debate. Unfortunately, the horse had bolted, and a sausage factory has been constructed where the stable once stood. Academic careers are made and graded by performance on metrics such as publications in Tier 1 journals. This debate, whilst meaningful at one level, is without likelihood of significant impact on the industry. However, the absence of an implemented Research Quality Framework may give rise to an opportunity to revisit notions of freedom to publish research beyond a narrow band of “quality” research outlets. Finally, this paper is presenting a model of a potential process which attempts to incorporate a diverse group of stakeholder needs. At the forefront of this model is the pragmatic recognition that the university will play a more dominant role in determining any research agenda, due to the nature and structure of contemporary research funding and research rewards. Whilst it is possible to mount many persuasive arguments that this should not be the case, until those arguments are mounted and won, it will remain the case in practice. Ideological objections to the roles of the organisation in setting the research agenda have made little difference to the behaviour of the universities in practice. This model may be perceived as perhaps cynical, or worse, pragmatic, yet it was designed from the perspective of balancing the need of the academic (research freedom, research reward), institution (research relevance, organisational goals), disciplinary community (research development) and funding bodies (quality/appropriate outcome metrics). Balancing these needs has also involved balancing the respective power levels of the stakeholders – if the funding body decides to only fund “impact research”, then the best quality agenda of the best academic will still result in nil funding outcomes. Similarly, if the university will not recognise a research outcome which is not in support of its business agenda, the academic has the choice to adapt to the agenda, resist their employer (and face what disciplinary consequences this invokes) or move to the free market to find a better employer-academic fit. Conclusions In what will be a disappointment for many readers, this paper does not feature a full ranking index that is universally applicable across the Australia and New Zealand sector (Appendix 1 features a sample output of the proposed rank system). Presenting a one-dimensional universally applicable index would be to defeat the point of the paper entirely. Instead, the mechanism is provided for others to apply to their own universities to determine best-fit quadrant structures. For the most part, in an age of differentiation, only the primary quadrant of academy journals should be consistent between organisations that ostensibly pursue different research agendas. This ranking mechanism is designed to allow Australian universities to prioritise research output destinations based on their own goals and agendas. The RQF presents a market opportunity for introducing a research framework that guides the government, the institution and the author towards the publication outlets where Australian research can have genuine impact.

References AACSB. 2006. Eligibility procedures and accreditation standards for business accreditation, AACSB International. http://www.aacsb.edu/accreditation/business/STANDARDS.pdf Armstrong, J.S. 1994 “Business School Prestige – Research versus Teaching,” Interfaces 24(2): 13-42. Baumgartner, H, and Pieters, R. 2003 The structural influence of marketing journals: A citation analysis of the discipline and it subareas over time. Journal of Marketing 67 (1): 123139. Corfman, K 1991 “Perceptions of Relative Influence: Formation and Measurement,” Journal of Marketing Research, 28(2): 125-136. Easton, G. and Easton, D.M. 2003. Marketing journals and the research assessment exercise, Journal of Marketing Management 19 (1-2): 5-24. Hawes, J. M., and Keillor, B. 2002. Assessing marketing journals: a mission-based approach. Journal of the Academy of Business Education 3 (2): 70-86. Journal of Market-Focused Management, http://www.springerlink.com/link.asp?id=100292 Koojaroenprasit, N, Weinstein, A, Johnson, W. C. and Remington, D. O. 1998 “Marketing Journal Rankings Revisited: Research Findings and Academic Implications”, Marketing Education Review, 8(1), 95-102. Mort, G, McColl-Kennedy, J, Kiel, G. 2002. Senior Faculty Perceptions of the Quality of Marketing Journals: An Australian and New Zealand Perspective. ANZMAC 2002 Conference Proceedings, 2431-2438. Mort, G. S., McColl-Kennedy, J. R., Kiel, G., and Soutar, G. N. 2004. Australian and New Zealand senior academics’ perceptions of marketing journals Australasian Marketing Journal 12 (2): 51-61. O’Connor, I and Moodie, G. (2006) “Unis can’t diversify to a formula” The Australian Higher Education Supplement, June 21, 2006 [Accessed online http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19534243-12332,00.html June 30, 2006] Polonsky, M J and Whitelaw, P. 2004. Exploring multi-dimensional perceptual ranking of marketing journals by North American academics. 2004 Summer American Marketing Association Educators Conference Summer: 13-20. Polonsky, M, and Whitelaw, P. 2005 What Are We Measuring When We Evaluate Journals?, Journal of Marketing Education 27 189-201 Polonsky, M, and Whitelaw, P. 2006 “A Multi-Dimensional Examination of Marketing Journal Rankings by North American Academics” Marketing Education Review Theoharakis, V, and Hirst A. 2002. Perceptual differences of marketing journals: a worldwide perspective. Marketing Letters 13 (4): 398-402.

University Of Auckland 2003 Department of Marketing, Guideline To Assessing Journals And Books, University Of Auckland – internal document University of Queensland Business School UQBS List 2003– internal document Van Fleet, David D., McWilliams, A., and Siegel, D. S. 2000 A theoretical and empirical analysis of journal rankings: the case of formal lists. Journal of Management 26 (5): 839-861.

Appendix 1: Full journal list with 3rd party list ranks Sample

UQ

UA

P&W

SM

Quadrant

Tier

Tier

List

List

Academy of Marketing Science Review

1

3

0

20

0

Australasian Marketing Journal

1

3

2

57

34

International Journal of Research in Marketing

1

2

1

12

8

Journal of International Marketing

1

2

2

22

23

Journal of Marketing

1

1

1

1

2

Journal of Marketing Management

1

3

2

35

16

Journal of Marketing Research

1

1

1

2

3

Journal of Public Policy & Marketing

1

2

2

7

13

Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science

1

1

1

6

4

Asia-Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics

2

3

3

65

0

European Journal of Marketing

2

3

2

16

11

Industrial Marketing Management

2

2

2

13

16

Journal of Brand Management (The)

2

3

3

53

34

Journal of Business Research

2

2

2

0

11

Journal of Consumer Behaviour

2

3

3

48

23

Journal of Consumer Marketing (The)

2

4

2

19

38

Journal of Product and Brand Management

2

3

3

28

34

Marketing Intelligence and Planning

2

4

3

0

42

Advances in Consumer Research

3

3

2

18

0

International Journal of Advertising

3

4

2

34

28

International Journal of Market Research

3

3

3

31

28

Journal of Advertising

3

2

2

8

9

Journal of Advertising Research

3

2

2

10

13

Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing (The)

3

4

2

24

45

Journal of Consumer Affairs

3

3

0

0

0

Journal of Consumer Psychology

3

2

2

9

21

Journal of Consumer Research

3

1

1

3

1

Journal of Customer Behaviour

3

4

0

0

0

Journal of International Consumer Marketing

3

4

3

58

58

Journal of Macromarketing

3

3

2

36

19

Journal of Marketing Communications

3

4

0

33

42

Journal of Marketing Education

3

3

2

17

28

Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice

3

4

2

29

42

Journal of Non Profit and Public Sector Marketing

3

4

3

0

58

Journal of Strategic Marketing

3

3

2

41

19

Journal title Quadrant 1: Developing the discipline of marketing

Quadrant 2: Addressing Institutional Research Goals

Quadrant 3: Collective Research Agenda

Marketing Letters

3

2

2

14

10

Marketing Management

3

4

2

0

45

Marketing Science

3

1

1

4

4

Marketing Theory

3

3

2

26

27

International Journal of Bank Marketing

4

4

3

61

54

International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management

4

4

3

62

38

International Journal of Service Industry Management

4

3

0

0

0

International Marketing Review

4

2

2

25

23

Journal of Euromarketing

4

4

0

45

50

Journal of Global Marketing

4

4

2

42

54

Journal of Interactive Marketing

4

3

2

30

45

Journal of Marketing Channels

4

4

3

44

38

Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management

4

3

2

11

28

Journal of Retailing

4

1

1

5

4

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services

4

3

2

43

28

Journal of Service Research

4

2

2

21

13

Journal of Services Marketing (The)

4

3

2

23

34

Marketing Health Services

4

4

2

0

45

Psychology and Marketing

4

2

2

15

16

Services Marketing Quarterly

4

4

3

49

45

Sport Marketing Quarterly

4

4

0

0

0

Quadrant 4: Independent research output

Although strictly outside of the page length limits, this paper is following the best practice used by Mort, McColl-Kennedy and Kiel (2002) of the presenting the list of journals as an additional appendix.

Responses to the Reviewers Comments

Proposed model is interesting and somewhat original, but not yet persuasive. It would be worth the author(s) time to write the argument more carefully. I urge them to do so, as it is an important issue. I think the overall changes to the paper have strengthened the case for the model. The purpose of the paper is to outline the model to the point it can be implemented by someone other than the author. The persuasiveness of the use of the model is limited by the necessity to allocate space to explaining how the model is constructed/implemented. Conceptual development, grounded in the literature method, analysis, discussion, implications drawn, formatting: Score: 5. The paper appears to accept the argument that a university may control and restrict an academic’s choice of research to work on (ie, Tier 2 and maybe also 3). The paper should acknowledge there is controversy over that argument. I’d like to thank the reviewer for noticing and stating my implicit bias. I hadn’t recognised explicitly in the paper that a) I believe the university has already exhibited control and b) by using the emotional labels of “tier” rather than “quadrant”, I had created a more controversial structure than intended. I have adjusted the paper to be a better reflection of the four quadrant model illustrated in the figure. Plus, there’s a good set of firestarting controversies now included in the paper. Does an academic have a right to pursue a research topic of his/her choice and then argue for the quality of the research output? Absolutely. This wasn’t sufficiently clear in the first draft, and is now clearly stated in Quadrant 4. Also, discuss how universities picking research foci are similar to the idea of “industrial policy” by which government picks strategic industries to focus on. I recall that the competence of government to pick winning industries and companies in advance has been questioned. Is the competence of universities to pick appropriate research foci also questionable? Very questionable. Yet, who will ask that question? I still need to pay the rent so I’m not going to ask it, and I’m a known troublemaker. What happens to academics who were hired prior to their university declaring a new focus that doesn’t include them? Since I’ve reworked the model, I believe that the individual would be publishing in Quadrant 4, although, as optimistic as I am, I am not naïve enough to assume that they wouldn’t be pressured into a quit or conform scenario. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt. Furthermore, another key issue missing is the use of journal rankings from the individual’s perspective. The paper argues to allow journal ranking lists to vary by university. Why not allow journal rankings to vary by individual?

I’ve incorporated this remark, and whilst I’d love to see it done, it’s the pragmatic part of my career review paperwork that says it won’t happen. Tier 3 on the one hand appears to refer to individuals, but on the other hand is labeled “School, Department, and College level research objectives.” Which is it? My mistake – the language was supposed to be inclusive of the many and varying marketing structures that exist around the Australian university sector. I’m now referring to that as “Marketing Unit”. It’s the aggregation of the individual researcher agendas into a cohesive item, and I think I’ve made that more explicit in the paper. Why not let every individual negotiate a personalized journal rankings specific to their set of research interests? Because that makes logical sense? In seriousness, the introduction of quality tables and tiers occurred to aggregate data, so consequently, I believe the debate on individual v aggregate may be behind us. Or why not avoid prescribing journal rankings for individuals in advance, and let individuals assemble the case for the quality of their output after the output is finalized, based on the various journal rankings surveys and other evidence they can gather. Paperwork, administration, and the fact that this portfolio approach in the NZ hasn’t been the overwhelming expected success. If I can write persuasively to argue my portfolio, yet an academic with a simply portfolio and a lesser grasp of persuasion produces a less convincing argument, is my work better or worse than their work? If the paper addresses these issues, it would be sufficiently comprehensive for a great session at the conference. Oh, I’m expecting this to be a classic. I realize that space constraints are tight, yet there is enough unnecessary text to cut to allow for addressing the above issues, such as deleting the diatribe about the Journal of Market-Focused Management at the end. The diatribe is important to highlight that the existing methods are flawed, and that blind adherence to last time’s list without checking for changes or dead journals just creates weaker structures Nominate this paper for the best paper award: No. Purpose, overall aim - contribution Interesting paper that should promote a lively discussion at the conference. Contribution narrowed by the single university focus. Agreed, although the point of the paper is to spread the concept to more

than one university. Score: 6. Novelty value - originality, uniqueness: Score: 7. This paper uses the literature to provide an orignal take on the subject reg one university in one country. A couple of spelling mistakes in the paper and a few formatting errors in the reference list should be addressed. I promise not to make any remark about the original spelling of “orignal”. Changes made to fix the spelling and the formatting. Gross breaching of the page limit rule conducted in the name of putting in a good argument for the controversies. I promise to put on a really good show at the conference in exchange for the extra leg room. Please?