The skewed few: people and papers of quality in management studies

Abstract

Publication in the top journals of management studies is highly skewed. Very few authors publish in these top journals. They are said to be the best few, on the assumption that skew indicates quality. Yet, skew is natural in any distribution and would occur in the absence of all quality. Peer review is supposed to ensure that this cannot happen, but pressure to publish in top journals puts demands on the peer review system it was never intended to bear. One result is that the skewed few tend to be the same few. We look at how this is arranged. We investigate the citation of the skewed few. We find much self citation, mutual citation and group citation. This behaviour is encouraged by the paramount importance of the journal impact factor. The article looks at how this indicator has been contrived for commercial rather than academic reasons, and considers some of the consequences.