Journal rankings and directions for future research in health care management: A global perspective

Abstract

Despite the increasingly global nature of health care, much of the research about journal rankings and directions for future research in health care management is from a United States based viewpoint. There is a lack of information about influential journals and trends for health care management research from a global perspective. This exploratory study gathered the opinions of health care management researchers from 17 countries regarding which journals are considered most influential, popular research topics and areas needing more attention from the research community. An online survey was sent to individuals in high-income Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries who were identified through author relationships, academic institution websites, editorial boards of international journals, and academic and practitioner associations in the countries of interest. Results indicate that journal rankings vary substantially from prior published studies evaluating health care management journals and international ranking lists, and the list of influential journals includes a much more diverse array of publications. Respondents also indicated a diverse number of topics for current and future research, highlighting the global complexity of the field. The implications of this study are valuable to scholars evaluating outlets for disseminating research, and highlighting areas for collaborative research in health care management globally.

Mapping the literature of health care management: an update

“…The protocol also recommends utilizing the opinions of faculty and librarians in the field. Recent surveys of health care research and management faculty members and researchers have affirmed the importance of these five journals [9][10][11]. The participants in Borkowski et al's study ranked these journals as the top five most relevant health-related titles as potential publishing sources for HCM research [11].…”

“…The participants in Borkowski et al's study ranked these journals as the top five most relevant health-related titles as potential publishing sources for HCM research [11]. Meese et al found that all five titles were among the top twenty most influential journals in HCM according to the opinion of international experts, with HCMR (rank=1), HA (rank=2), HSR (rank=4), and JHM (rank=6) in the top ten [10]. Menachemi and DelliFraine surveyed health administration faculty members and found that all five of this study's source journals were ranked in the top ten health administration journals, with HA, HSR, HCMR, and JHM in the top five [9].…”

“…For this reason, mapping patterns of citation to a variety of disciplinary scholarly journals is an especially apt approach for examining a multidisciplinary field like health care management. Previous studies evaluating publication outlets in HCM have identified core journals based on faculty ratings of perceived quality, relevance, or both [6][7][8][9][10][11] or bibliometric studies [12,13]. In addition to analyzing the difference in the literature, the researchers aim to offer collection librarians useful information upon which to base decisions regarding which publications and indexes are essential.…”

Escaping our echo chambers

“…If we want to address such challenges effectively, we need research that does justice to their inherently universal nature. In other words, we need more rigorous cross-country comparative research.In many of the "top" health care management journals (according to Meese et al, 2017), upward of 96% of all contributions in the past few years stem from one country, according to our own analysis of Clarivate data. At HCMR, almost two thirds of the contributions are from one country.…”

A new approach to journal ranking: social structure in hospitality and tourism journals

“…In the literature, several studies propose new or updated ranking methods either at specific discipline- or field levels, or across all academic journals (Bornmann et al , 2016; Carraher and Paridon, 2015; Gursoy and Sandstrom, 2016; Horrace and Parmeter, 2017; Mahmood, 2017; Meese et al , 2017; Okumus et al , 2017; Tourish and Willmott, 2015; Tüselmann et al , 2015). These studies have primarily relied on either the basic or advanced formulations, including the citation count of journals or the stated preferences or expertise obtained via surveys.…”