Wing, C K (1997) The ranking of construction management journals. Construction Management and Economics, 15(4), pp. 387-398. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
The quality of construction management journals is assessed using a questionnaire survey approach. Construction management is broadly defined to include studies of the human aspects of the construction process. Twenty-two journals related to construction management are identified. Questionnaires were sent to potential respondents by e-mail. Respondents were asked to assess the quality of the journals that they are familiar with. Although there is some evidence showing that respondents who are editorial board members or authors of a journal tend to give a slightly higher score to that journal, the relative ranking of the journals is not affected substantially by such tendency. Some statistically significant results on the ranking of the journals are obtained irrespective of the relatively small sample size compared with some surveys of other main stream journals.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | academic discipline; attitude survey; construction management; journals |
| Index terms: | e-mail, evidence, stream, journal, survey, sample size, construction process, questionnaire, editorial |
| Subjects: | water management, research dissemination and communication, building construction, evaluation and assessment methods, research design and methodology, communication, data collection methods |
| Topics: | Information Management, Sustainability, Site Management, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here