What's familiar is excellent: The impact of exposure effect on perceived journal quality

The purpose of this study is to test the existence of the exposure effect in journal ranking decisions. The exposure effect emerges when participants of journal ranking surveys assign higher scores to some journals merely because they are more familiar with them rather than on their objective assessment of the overall journal's contribution to the field. Analysis of the journal ranking data from a survey of 233 active researchers in the field of knowledge management and intellectual capital confirmed the existence of the exposure effect. Specifically, it was found that: (1) those who previously published in a particular journal rated it higher than those who did not; (2) those who previously served as a reviewer or editor for a particular journal also rated it higher than those who did not; and (3) a very strong correlation was found between the respondents’ perceptions of overall contribution of a journal and the degree of their familiarity with this outlet. This investigation confirmed a major limitation of the stated preference journal ranking approach that should be taken into consideration in future research and results interpretation.

[1]  Nick Bontis,et al.  Global ranking of knowledge management and intellectual capital academic journals , 2009, J. Knowl. Manag..

[2]  Nick Bontis,et al.  A scientometric analysis of knowledge management and intellectual capital academic literature (1994-2008) , 2010, J. Knowl. Manag..

[3]  Christoph Stahl,et al.  Mix me a list: Context moderates the truth effect and the mere-exposure effect , 2009 .

[4]  Moshe Adler,et al.  Stardom and Talent , 1985 .

[5]  Gur Huberman,et al.  Familiarity Breeds Investment , 1999 .

[6]  N. Adler,et al.  When Knowledge Wins: Transcending the Sense and Nonsense of Academic Rankings , 2009 .

[7]  D. Hebb.  Textbook of psychology , 1958 .

[8]  Timothy D. Wilson,et al.  The halo effect: Evidence for unconscious alteration of judgments. , 1977 .

[9]  Ilian A. Bonev.  Should we take journal impact factors seriously , 2009 .

[10]  Duane P. Truex,et al.  Assessing Scholarly Influence: Using the Hirsch Indices to Reframe the Discourse , 2009, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[11]  Sean L. Humpherys,et al.  A Scientometric Study of the Perceived Quality of Business and Technical Communication Journals , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication.

[12]  R. Zajonc.  Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. , 1968 .

[13]  Scott Highhouse,et al.  Familiarity Breeds Ambivalence , 2006 .

[14]  Nick Bontis,et al.  A follow-up ranking of academic journals , 2009, J. Knowl. Manag..

[15]  Alexander Serenko,et al.  The Development of an AI Journal Ranking List Based on the Revealed Preference Approach , 2010, AMCIS.

[16]  A. Tourani-Rad,et al.  Investigation of Investors' Overconfidence, Familiarity and Socialization , 2005 .

[17]  Mourad Touzani,et al.  Ranking marketing journals using the Google Scholar-based hg-index , 2010, J. Informetrics.

[18]  Steven P. Brown,et al.  Effects of Brand Awareness on Choice for a Common, Repeat-Purchase Product , 1990 .

[19]  Timothy D. Wilson,et al.  Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. , 1977 .

[20]  David A. Griffith,et al.  The Fallacy of the Level Playing Field , 2002 .

[21]  R. Bornstein.  Exposure and affect: Overview and meta-analysis of research, 1968–1987. , 1989 .