IC Task Force Meeting Minutes

Spring 2016

May 13, 2016

Room CBA 204

Present: Rod Smith, Josh Arnold, Risto Moisio, Chanwit Phengpis, Melody Kiang

Ex Officio: Robert Chi

Recording Secretary: Robert Chi

1. Meeting called to order at 11:30

2. M/S/P Approved agenda

3. M/S/P Approval of minutes for the January 29, 2016

4. M/S/P ICTF journal ranking guidelines (attached)

5. M/S/P to re-rank “Journal of Data Analysis and Information Processing” as “Other”

6. M/S/P to rank “FINSIA Journal of Applied Finance” as “type 5 or Support”

7. M/S/P to rank “Journal of International Marketing” as “type 3 or High Quality”

8. Meeting adjourned at 13:00

These minutes have not been approved.

Attachment

CBA Intellectual Contributions Task Force Guidelines for

Ranking/Re-Ranking Journals

Approved by ICTF on 5/13/2016

1. The policies/procedures outlined here apply to both the initial ranking of a journal not contained in the CBA journal rankings and the potential re-ranking of any journal already contained in the rankings. In both cases, except for journals not associated with a particular department (e.g., cross-disciplinary or business ethics), the ICTF will solicit a departmental recommendation prior to its decision. 2. When a faculty member publishes a paper in a journal that is not currently ranked, he/she should send a copy to the Office of Accreditation. The author (or authors) has (have) the responsibility to provide information useful for determining journal quality to his/her departmental faculty. 3. Before voting on the ranking/re-ranking of any journal, all faculty should familiarize themselves with the Faculty Council policy related to the “CBA Definition of ‘Academic Qualification’ ” and, more importantly, the “Intellectual Contribution Items” specifying the standards for the ranking categories (i.e., type 1 (Elite), type 2 (High Quality+), type 3 (High Quality), type 4 (quality) and type 5 (Support). All faculty members should clearly understand the relevant ranking criteria and how they should be used to rank journals. 4. In classifying journals, faculty should use both quality and impact criteria. a. Criteria about quality are personal judgments about the academic rigor and quality of a journal. Qualitative criteria may also include published or unpublished journal ranking information. b. Criteria about the impact shall include, but not be limited to, the h-index, g-index, and SSCI impact factors, if available. c. To increase the quality of input from faculty, it is recommended that faculty members be aware of potential biases in the interpretation of impact data. 5. Each department should organize an anonymous voting procedure for ranking/re-ranking journals. If a faculty member is not sufficiently familiar with a journal, they should be encouraged to abstain from making a judgment about the appropriate classification of that journal. 6. Within a week after the secret vote has been completed, the department should be informed about the result of the vote. The department’s ICTF representative will then report the results of the anonymous departmental vote (including actual vote counts) and the department’s recommendation to the ICTF. 7. In the ICTF meeting, a decision will be reached regarding the appropriate classification of the journal taking into account the department’s recommendation, the strength of that recommendation and comparative standards established by the ICTF. The final ranking may or may not be congruent with the department’s view. 8. The ICTF will only consider requests for re-ranking journals after at least 6 months have passed since the previous ranking. However, departments may request re-ranking at any time if there is clear evidence of an ICTF error (e.g., reliance on an incorrectly computed impact factor) that affected the ranking.”