Journal rankings loom large over tenure and promotion decisions in economics and management departments, but exactly how they’re weighed varies more than most early-career scholars realize. Understanding the actual mechanics of how committees evaluate publication records helps you build a strategy suited to your specific institutional context, rather than a generic one.
Ranked Lists Are Institution-Specific
Many departments maintain (formally or informally) a tiered list of journals considered top-, second-, or third-tier within their field, and these lists differ meaningfully across institutions. A journal ranked highly at one university’s business school may be weighted differently elsewhere. Understanding your own department’s specific list — not a generic global ranking — is far more useful for planning your submissions.
Quality Often Matters More Than Sheer Volume
Most tenure committees say explicitly, and many mean it, that a small number of well-placed papers can outweigh a longer list of publications in lower-ranked outlets. This is particularly true in economics, where the discipline places significant weight on a handful of top general and field journals.
The Role of “A-Journal” Lists in Business Schools
Many business schools use formal journal lists — such as the Financial Times’ FT50 or various ABS/ABDC rankings — as an explicit input into tenure evaluation. Where such lists exist, they function almost as a checklist, and scholars often plan their publication strategy explicitly around them.
Committees Also Read the Papers Themselves
Despite the prominence of journal rankings, most rigorous tenure processes also involve external letters and direct reading of a candidate’s work by committee members and outside reviewers — meaning a strong paper in a solid, well-matched journal (even if not the very top of a ranked list) can still carry real weight if its contribution and quality are evident.
Interdisciplinary and Applied Work Faces Added Complexity
Scholars whose work spans economics and management, or connects to policy and practice, sometimes face added complexity in tenure evaluation, since their publication record may not map neatly onto a single discipline’s ranked list. Being explicit, in tenure documentation, about how a broader publication portfolio serves a coherent research agenda helps address this directly.
Practical Guidance for Building a Tenure-Ready Portfolio
- Understand your specific department’s evaluation norms early, rather than assuming a generic industry standard applies
- Balance ambition with realistic timelines — a tenure clock doesn’t wait for a single blockbuster paper to clear a multi-year review process at a top journal
- Choose well-matched, respected journals for a portion of your portfolio, rather than targeting only the highest-ranked outlets for every paper
- Document your research agenda’s coherence clearly in tenure materials, connecting individual papers to a broader contribution
The Bigger Picture
Journal rankings matter, but they’re a proxy — often an imperfect one — for what committees ultimately care about: evidence of a rigorous, influential, and coherent body of scholarly work. Building toward that underlying goal, rather than optimizing narrowly for a ranked list, tends to serve scholars better over a full career.
For further discussion of how journal rankings function within business school evaluation specifically, the Chartered Association of Business Schools’ Academic Journal Guide is a widely referenced ranking framework in the field.
Building a publication portfolio that includes well-matched, respected outlets? Review the journal’s scope and submit through the paper submission page.