Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T13:12:05.216Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Prestige and relevance of the scholarly journals: Impressions of SIOP members

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 May 2020

Scott Highhouse ,
Michael J. Zickar  and
Sarah R. Melick
Scott Highhouse*
Affiliation:
Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio, USA
Michael J. Zickar
Affiliation:
Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio, USA
Sarah R. Melick
Affiliation:
Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio, USA
*
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Prestigious journals are widely admired for publishing quality scholarship, yet the primary indicators of journal prestige (i.e., impact factors) do not directly assess audience admiration. Moreover, the publication landscape has changed substantially in the last 20 years, with electronic publishing changing the way we consume scientific research. Given that it has been 18 years since the publication of the last journal prestige survey of SIOP members, the authors conducted a new survey and used these results to reflect on changing practices within industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology. SIOP members (n = 557) rated the prestige and relevance of I-O and management journals. Responses were analyzed according to job setting, and were compared to a survey conducted by Zickar and Highhouse (2001) in 2000. There was considerable consistency in prestige ratings across settings (i.e., management department vs. psychology department; academic vs. applied), especially among the top journals. There was considerable variance, however, in the perceived usefulness of different journals. Results also suggested considerable consistency across the two time periods, but with some increases in prestige among OB-oriented journals. Changes in the journal landscape are discussed, including the rise of OHP as a topic of concentration in I-O. We suggest that I-O programs will continue to attract the top researchers in talent management and OHP, which should result in the use of a broader set of journals for judging I-O program impact.

Keywords

journal rankingsimpact factorscitations
Type
Focal Article
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 13 , Issue 3 , September 2020 , pp. 273 - 290
Copyright
© Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Inc. 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

We are grateful to Margaret Brooks, Alexis Hirvo, and Brendan Lortie for their contributions to this project.

References

Aguinis, H., Bradley, K. J., & Brodersen, A. (2014). Industrial–organizational psychologists in business schools: Brain drain or eye opener? Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 7(3), 284–303.10.1111/iops.12151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aguinis, H., Ramani, R. S., Campbell, P. K., Bernal-Turnes, P., Drewry, J. M., & Edgerton, B. T. (2017). Most frequently cited sources, articles, and authors in industrial-organizational psychology textbooks: Implications for the science–practice divide, scholarly impact, and the future of the field. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 10, 507–557.10.1017/iop.2017.69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, N., Herriot, P., & Hodgkinson, G. P. (2001). The practitioner-researcher divide in Industrial, Work and Organizational (IWO) psychology: Where are we now, and where do we go from here? Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74(4), 391–411.10.1348/096317901167451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Archambault, É., & Larivière, V. (2009). History of the journal impact factor: Contingencies and consequences. Scientometrics, 79(3), 635–649.10.1007/s11192-007-2036-xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armstrong, J. S. (1980). Unintelligible management research and academic prestige. Interfaces, 10, 80–86.10.1287/inte.10.2.80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blanton, J. S. (2000). Why consultants don’t apply psychological research. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 52, 235–247.10.1037/1061-4087.52.4.235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, J. P., & Wilmot, M. P. (2018). The functioning of theory in Industrial, Work, and Organizational Psychology (IWOP). In Ones, D. S., Anderson, N., Viswesvaran, C., & Sinangil, H. K. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of industrial, work, and organizational psychology: Personnel psychology and employee performance (2nd ed., pp. 3–37). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Cucina, J. M., Hayes, T. L., Walmsley, P. T., & Martin, N. R. (2014). It is time to get medieval on the overproduction of pseudotheory: How Bacon (1267) and Alhazen (1021) can save I/O psychology. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 7, 356–364.10.1111/iops.12163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dilchert, S. (2017). Future of research published in the International Journal of Selection and Assessment: Incoming editor’s perspective. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 25(4), 416–418.10.1111/ijsa.12196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Extejt, M. M., & Smith, J. E. (1990). The behavioral sciences and management: An evaluation of relevant journals. Journal of Management, 16(3), 539–551.10.1177/014920639001600302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuyuno, I., & Cyranoski, D. (2006). Cash for papers: Putting a premium on publication. Nature, 441(7095), 792.10.1038/441792bCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Highhouse, S., & Schmitt, N. W. (2013). A snapshot in time: Industrial-organizational psychology today. In Schmitt, N. W., Highhouse, S., & Weiner, I. B. (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Volume 12: Industrial and organizational psychology (p. 3–13). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.Google Scholar
Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102, 16569–16572.10.1073/pnas.0507655102CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jeanneret, R., & Silzer, R. (2011). Individual psychological assessment: A core competency for industrial–organizational psychology. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 4(3), 342–351.10.1111/j.1754-9434.2011.01352.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Judge, T. A. (2003). Marginalizing the Journal of Applied Psychology . The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 40, 56–59.Google Scholar
Kuncel, N. R., & Highhouse, S. (2011). Complex predictions and assessor mystique. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 4, 302–306.10.1111/j.1754-9434.2011.01343.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawler, E. E. III, Cranny, C. J., Campbell, J. P., Schneider, B., MacKinney, A. C., Vroom, V. H., & Carlson, R. E. (1971). The changing role of industrial psychology in university education: A symposium. Professional Psychology, 2(1), 2–22.10.1037/h0031759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahmood, K. (2017). Correlation between perception-based journal rankings and the Journal Impact Factor (JIF): A systematic review and meta-analysis. Serials Review, 43, 120–129.10.1080/00987913.2017.1290483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ones, D. S., Kaiser, R. B., Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Svensson, C. (April, 2017). Has industrial-organizational psychology lost its way? The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 54(4), 67–74.Google Scholar
Quan, W., Chen, B., & Shu, F. (2017). Publish or impoverish: An investigation of the monetary reward system of science in China (1999–2016). Aslib Journal of Information Management, 69, 486–502.10.1108/AJIM-01-2017-0014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryan, A. M., & Ford, J. K. (2010). Organizational psychology and the tipping point of professional identity. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 3, 241–258.Google Scholar
Rynes, S. L., Colbert, A. E., & O’Boyle, E. H. (2018). When the “best available evidence” doesn’t win: How doubts about science and scientists threaten the future of evidence-based management. Journal of Management, 44(8), 2995–3010.10.1177/0149206318796934CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rynes-Weller, S. L. (2012). The research-practice gap in I/O psychology and related fields: Challenges and potential solutions. In Kozlowski, S. W. J. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of organizational psychology, Volume 1 (pp. 409–452). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Salgado, J. F., Anderson, N. R., & Hülsheger, U. R. (2010). Employee selection in Europe: Psychotechnics and the forgotten history of modern scientific employee selection. In Farr, J. L. & Tippins, N. T. (Eds.), Handbook of employee selection (pp. 921–942). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Silzer, R., & Jeanneret, R. (2011). Individual psychological assessment: A practice and science in search of common ground. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 4, 270–296.10.1111/j.1754-9434.2011.01341.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Svenson, O. (1983). Scaling evaluative statements in verbal protocols from decision processes. In Humphreys, P., Svenson, O. & Vári, A. (Eds.), Advances in psychology (Vol. 14, pp. 371–382). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Tkachenko, O., Hahn, H. J., & Peterson, S. L. (2017). Research–practice gap in applied fields: An integrative literature review. Human Resource Development Review, 16(3), 235–262.10.1177/1534484317707562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiss, H. M., & Rupp, D. E. (2011). Experiencing work: An essay on a person-centric work psychology. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 4(1), 83–97.10.1111/j.1754-9434.2010.01302.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zickar, M. J., & Highhouse, S. (2001). Measuring prestige of journals in industrial-organizational psychology. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 38(4), 29–36.Google Scholar
Zickar, M. J., & Highhouse, S. (2017). Where has all the psychology gone (twenty years later)? Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 10, 616–621.10.1017/iop.2017.66CrossRefGoogle Scholar