Methodology as argument

The AJG has never been a pure citation index. Since its origins in 2010, it has insisted that expert judgement must temper — and sometimes override — what the metrics say. The 2024 edition makes this philosophy explicit. The Guide is now framed around four methodological pillars, each designed to resist the tyranny of the single number.

The Methodologists (Professors Andrew Simpson and Shuxing Yin) standardised four citation metrics within each field — a direct response to the Leiden Manifesto’s call to benchmark against discipline‑specific norms. But the standardised scores were never used as a cut‑off. Instead, they were presented to the Scientific Committee as one voice among many. A journal with strong metrics could be left unchanged if its editorial practices had eroded trust; a journal with modest metrics could rise if consultation revealed a new trajectory.

Against mechanistic use: DORA & Leiden

The Guide’s introduction is, in part, a brief for responsible research evaluation. It explicitly endorses the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) and the Leiden Manifesto. “No single evaluation approach applies to all contexts,” the editors write. “The AJG should not be used as a one‑stop shop to decide where to publish nor to evaluate individuals’ research outputs.” This is not boilerplate — it is a constraint on how the Guide can be legitimately used.

The tension is deliberate. A guide that differentiates between journals inevitably creates hierarchies. But the alternative — local school lists shaped by powerful individuals — is, the editors argue, more capricious and less transparent. The AJG attempts to discipline local prejudice with an international, peer‑driven calibration.

What a ‘grade’ means (and does not mean)

The 2024 edition introduced four new Journal of Distinction after “overwhelming support” from consultation: American Journal of Political Science, American Political Science Review, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, and Journal of Business Venturing. The JoD status signals not just high citation impact, but “exceptional” standing in the scholarly community — a qualitative judgement that metrics alone cannot confer.

Beyond citations: SDGs, policy, and partnership

The 2024 AJG pilots four supplementary contextual indicators, provided by Elsevier’s SciVal. These are not used to determine grades. They are there to enable strategic choice: a scholar or school may trade off a higher grade against, say, strong alignment with UN Sustainable Development Goals or frequent citation in policy documents.

The inclusion of these metrics is a quiet revolution. It signals that the Chartered ABS sees societal engagement, internationalisation, and sustainability as part of what makes a journal valuable — even if that value is not yet reflected in the grade. For the first time, a user can filter journals by their contribution to the ‘wicked problems’ of the SDGs.

The people behind the grades

The 2024 Scientific Committee has 52 members — more than triple its 2010 size. 40% are women; 35% are based outside the UK. This is not a cosmetic change. It reflects the global use of the AJG (half of registered users are non‑UK) and a deliberate effort to reduce parochialism. Fields such as Political Science were brought into the Social Sciences panel, enabling more accurate evaluation of journals that management scholars read but rarely publish in.

Each Subject Expert consulted learned societies and assembled a peer panel. The consultations were recorded on standardised forms, anonymised, and reviewed by the Editors. This formalisation — piloted in 2018, rolled out fully in 2021 and 2024 — transforms consultation from a back‑channel into a verifiable, auditable process.

A home for practitioner work

For the first time, the AJG explicitly identifies a small set of top managerial practitioner journals: California Business Review, Harvard Business Review, and MIT Sloan Management Review. These journals span academic excellence and strong links to business and society. They are not rated 4* — they are in a category of their own, reflecting their distinct mission. This is a nuanced move: it refuses to pretend that HBR competes on the same terms as Administrative Science Quarterly, but refuses also to dismiss it as ‘just’ a practitioner outlet.

What remains unmeasurable

The AJG 2024 is, in the end, a defence of scholarly judgement. Its editors acknowledge that “good work may be found anywhere” — but they also insist that it is more likely to be concentrated in some places than others. The task of a journal guide is not to replace reading, but to orient it. “If readers wish to appraise the worth of a particular piece of scholarly work, any choices they make are theirs alone.”

This post is based entirely on the Academic Journal Guide 2024 – Methodology & Process document published by the Chartered Association of Business Schools. It is an attempt to read that document not as a technical annex, but as a statement of values.