Does the Financial Times FT50 journal list select the best management and economics journals?

The ranking of academic journals and the considerable impact of journal lists have been increasingly criticized, especially in management research. To assess the effectiveness of peer review selection versus bibliometric assessment, a benchmark of the best management and economic journals is performed. Based on multiple indicators, the Financial Times FT50 list is compared to the 100 best ranked journals. The position of the FT journals in our aggregate bibliometric ranking confirms the effectiveness of the peer review of the FT. It also highlights the complementarity of peer review for research assessment with the metrics. The h-index emerges as the best predictor for FT membership, followed by the average citation. The Journal Impact Factor is refuted as a predictor for FT inclusion, while the SJR indicator seems to be more representative only for economics journals. The FT50 confirms the stability of the top-tier journals. It crowns journals' long-term reputation. The FT50 covers a good balance of subfields and also leaves room for a practitioner journal and openness for innovation. The dichotomy between economics and general management journals remains a concern for rankings and journal lists, as does the size of the selection and the quest for a balanced subdivision between subfields.

Automated summary

The effectiveness of peer review selection versus bibliometric assessment in research evaluation is compared, with the h-index identified as the best predictor for FT membership. The Journal Impact Factor is not suitable for predicting FT inclusion, while the SJR indicator seems to be more representative for economics journals. The FT50 demonstrates stability in top-tier journal rankings, covering a good balance of subfields and allowing for innovation and practitioner journals.