Abstract
As a leading measure of journal quality, acceptance rates of journals can influence faculty recruitment, salary, tenure and promotion decisions; subscription decisions; and authors’ intention to submit manuscripts. Recent literature from both the Communication and Hospitality Management disciplines suggests that there are wide differences in the formulas used by editors to calculate acceptance rates. Because differing methods of acceptance rate calculation potentially impact significant decisions, a universally accepted and applied standard could be developed. A normative standard, grounded in a specific core ethical principle, is generally preferable to a nonfoundational approach. Two primary approaches to the study of ethics have prevailed through time, teleological ethics with a focus on consequences as represented by Mill’s Utilitarian ideals and deontological ethics with a focus on duty as represented by Kant’s Categorical Imperative. This analysis applies these two ethical frameworks, utility and duty, to the journal editors’ dilemma of finding a common, normative method to calculate acceptance rates.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Amare, N., & Manning, A. (2009). Examining editor-author ethics: Real-world scenarios from interviews with three journal editors. Journal of Technical Writing & Communication, 39(3), 285–303.
Askar, M., Imam, S., & Prabhaker, P. R. (2009). Business metrics: A key to competitive advantage. Advances in Competitiveness Research, 17(2), 90–108.
Barrows, C. (2011). Ethical standards of hospitality and tourism management journals: Three editors discuss three ethical issues. Ethical Editing, 3, 5–6.
Bowen, S. A. (2005). A practical model for ethical decision making in issues management and public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 17(3), 191–216.
Brinson, S. L. (2009). Editor’s report. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 53, 685–688.
Carraway, L. N. (2009). Ethics for and responsibilities of authors, reviewers and editors in science. American Midland Naturalist, 161(1), 146.
Clancy, K. J., & Stone, R. L. (2005). Don’t blame the metrics. Harvard Business Review, 83(6), 26–28.
Committee on Publication Ethics. COPE best practice guidelines for journal editors. Retrieved January 28, 2011, from http://publicationethics.org/files/u2/Best_Practice.pdf.
Editor’s Page [Editorial]. (2004). Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47, 1225–1226.
Editor’s Page [Editorial]. (2009). Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 52, 1389.
Elliott, D. (2007). Getting mill right (pp. 100–112). Taylor & Francis Ltd.
Haensly, P. J., Hodges, P. E., & Davenport, S. A. (2009). Acceptance rates and journal quality: An analysis of journals in economics and finance. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 14(1), 2–31.
Kant, I. (1999). Critique of pure reason (P. Guyer, Trans.). Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1781).
Krell, F. (2010). Should editors influence journal impact factors? Learned Publishing, 23(1), 59–62.
Lane, J. (2010). Let’s make science metrics more scientific. Nature, 242(25), 488–489.
Lewis, P. V., & Speck, H. E., III. (1990). Ethical orientations for understanding business ethics. Journal of Business Communication, 27(3), 213–232.
Marino, G. D. (2010). Ethics: The essential writings (Modern Library pbk ed.). New York: Modern Library.
Mill, J. S. (2003; 2008). On liberty. Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Mitrook, M., & Danner, B. (2006, June). Ethical discussion in three U.S. public relations trade publications: A content analysis. Paper presented at the International Communication Association Conference, Dresden, Germany.
Perry, S. D. (2010). Health in mass communication and society: The field and the journal. Mass Communication & Society, 13, 1–2.
Perry, S. D. (2011). Mass communication and society continues growth and strength. Mass Communication & Society, 14, 1–2.
Perry, S. D., & Michalski, L. (2010). Common acceptance rate calculation methods in communication journals: Developing best practices. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 65(2), 168–186.
Plaisance, P. L. (2007). Transparency: An assessment of the Kantian roots of a key element in media ethics practice. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 22(2), 187–207.
Reynolds, S. J., & Bowie, N. E. (2004). A Kantian perspective on the characteristics of ethics programs. Business Ethics Quarterly, 14(2), 275–292.
Rogers, P. S., Campbell, N., Louhiala-Salminen, L., Rentz, K., & Suchan, J. (2007). The impact of perceptions of journal quality on business and management communication academics. Journal of Business Communication, 44(4), 403–426.
Rotton, J., Levitt, M. J., & Foos, P. (1993). Citation impact, rejection rates, and journal value. American Psychologist, 48(8), 911–912.
Schminke, M. (2009). Editor's comments: The better angels of our nature--Ethics and integrity in the publishing process. Academy Of Management Review, 34(4), 586–591.
Suchan, J. (2008). How academic organizational systems and culture undermine scholarship and quality research. Journal of Business Communication, 45(3), 349–356.
Teixeira, A. A. C. (2010). Who rules the ruler? on the misconduct of journal editors. Journal of Academic Ethics, 8(2), 111.
Usher, A., & Savino, M. (2006). A world of difference: A global survey of university league tables. Toronto: Educational Policy Institute.
Wurz, J. (2011). Theme: Evaluating current ethical practices. Ethical Editing, 3, 1.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Moore, M.A., Perry, S.D. Oughts v. Ends: Seeking an Ethical Normative Standard for Journal Acceptance Rate Calculation Methods. J Acad Ethics 10, 113–121 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-012-9158-3
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-012-9158-3