I removed the reference to this study: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1212540.
The study in itself is very interesting, but the way it is referenced was misleading and given undue emphasis. Below a few points:
- The recall survey study is limited to management and social science disciplines, so generically referring to AMJ as 'top 10 offenders' seemed misleading.
- The study authors do not provide information on the percentage of respondents from the Academy of Management community. The fact that the journal figured among the 'top 10' can be explained as an artefact of the sampling frame.
- The authors do not take into account for the popularity of the journal. AMJ receives over 1000 submissions per year. 14 people mentioned the journal in the survey.
- Respondents were asked about the practice of requesting authors to add references to the journal where they submit, without referring to the finality. Editors may have very different reasons for doing so, e.g., to ensure that the authors are acknowledging relevant academic conversations among their readers. Inflating impact factor seems less relevant, particularly in management, which tends to give more emphasis to journal lists [1].
- the Academy of Management Journal was not mentioned in the main body of the article, but only in the appendix.
If the reference is reintroduced, it should be cited with sufficient context, and in a separate section. The concrete risk of discrediting the image of a scientific journal should be weighted against the quality and strength of the evidence provided. Oldblo (talk) 12:06, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
