Ring a Ring o’ Roses: Quality Journals and Gamesmanship in Management Studies*
指出管理研究领域的优质期刊更多是衡量学术绩效的单位而非知识贡献，揭示了期刊定义的循环性，并通过英国大学管理系主任调查发现博弈策略普遍存在，建议奖励应基于论文内容而非发表期刊。
abstract A paper in one of the quality journals of Management Studies is much more important as a unit of measurement than as a contribution to knowledge. It measures academic performance and determines much academic funding. There is consequently some pressure to publish in quality journals. But quality journals are defined in terms that are themselves defined in terms of quality journals – a circularity that explains both the paper's title and the frustration of those who do not mix in these circles. We examine the gamesmanship of publishing in quality journals. Findings from a survey of heads of Management Studies departments in UK universities suggest that such gamesmanship is common. Cunning and calculation now support scholarship in Management Studies. Gamesmanship will remain common until the rewards for publishing attach to the content of papers, to what is published rather than where it is published. We propose a ‘Tinkerbell Solution’: without belief in the value of a paper in a quality journal, the game is no longer worth playing.