Characterizing the Top Journals in Strategic Management: Orientation, Style, Originality, and Readability
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper characterizes the top journals in strategic management forum with respect to their orientation, style, originality, and readability. Data for the study were obtained from the Emerald Management Reviews database of Emerald Group Publishing Ltd. We analysed the period between 1996 and 2003. The main conclusions to be drawn from the analysis include the increasingly clear research orientation and academic style of the publications. Harvard Business Review figured prominently for its practical orientation, a predominantly professional/journalistic style, together with its readability. The journals that stand out for their originality are Strategic Management Journal and Academy of Management Journal. Although academic, Academy of Management Review also occasionally includes papers with a professional/journalistic style. Finally, we compare experts' views on the orientation and style of the journals with objective information gathered from the journals about their readership. We observed agreement in some of these, but noticed differences in Strategic Management Journal and in Administrative Science Quarterly.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.033 | 0.065 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it