An empirical assessment of the perceived relevance and quality of POM‐related journals by academicians
基于对决策科学学会中POM领域成员的问卷调查，评估了20种期刊在POM研究中的感知相关性和质量，发现期刊相关性与质量认知存在不一致，且POM领域存在身份认同危机。
Abstract As in other fields, promotion and tenure decisions of academicians in POM are very closely related to their publication achievements. Such achievements are generally measured by where academicians publish rather than just what they publish. Therefore, the perceived quality or image of POM journals is important to the faculty and researchers in this field. Not surprisingly, several previous studies have attempted to rank order journals belonging to related fields such as accounting, finance, economics and management. Unfortunately, for POM journals, there exist little published data accepted and shared by all in this respect. The primary objectives of the study are to establish the perceived relevancy and quality ratings of 20 selected journals that are frequently used to disseminate POM‐related research work. The results are based on a questionnaire survey of those Decision Sciences Institute members who listed POM as their primary area of interest (DSI code N). Regarding relevancy, the Journal of Operations Management is rated as the most relevant journal for POM research. Other journals that received high relevance ratings are: International Journal of Production Research, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Journal of Manufacturing and Operations Management, Decision Sciences, and Production and Inventory Management Journal . Based on the quality ratings. Management Science, Journal of Operations Management , and Decision Sciences appear to be the “best” journals publishing POM‐related research. IIE Transactions, International Journal of Production Research, Harvard Business Review, Operations Research, Naval Research Logistics , and Journal of Manufacturing and Operations Management form the group of next best journals. The results provide some evidence of an apparent incongruity between the notions of journal relevancy and journal quality, as perceived by the respondents. Some journals that received high quality ratings were found only moderately relevant to POM research. On the other hand, some journals received poor quality ratings but were rated highly for relevancy. The opinions of the associate and full professors, as well as those with better publication associations with the included journals, were found strikingly similar to those of the entire sample surveyed. Some discrepancy was evident as to what the respondents and their administrative evaluators think are the top journals. The faculty evaluators tend to consider Management Science and Operations Research as the top two journals in the POM field. Such an observation, along with other pertinent data, suggests that there still exists a tendency to equate POM with OR, and the field, to an extent, is suffering from an identity crisis.