Understanding the ABS journal ranking system: a critical review

Journal ranking systems have evolved from evaluative instruments into powerful mechanisms of research governance in higher education, shaping academic careers, institutional strategies, and accreditation outcomes. Within business and management education, the Association of Business Schools (ABS) journal ranking system has become one of the most influential and contested evaluative regimes. This article offers a critical-conceptual review of the ABS journal ranking system, reframing it not as a neutral technical device but as a governance mechanism that structures legitimacy, incentives, and conformity across business schools. Integrating scholarly literature, policy documents, and accreditation frameworks, the review examines the origins, evaluative logic, global diffusion, and consequences of the ABS journal ranking system. It shows how the system reinforces Anglo-American epistemic dominance, incentivizes conservative and prestige-driven research behavior, marginalizes interdisciplinary and practice-oriented scholarship, and contributes to global academic inequalities, particularly in non-Anglophone and Global South contexts. By linking debates on journal rankings to business-school accreditation regimes and contrasting them with outcome-based engineering accreditation models, the study reveals a misalignment between journal-centric evaluation and mission-driven, impact-oriented education. A regional analytical case from Turkey further illustrates how ABS-oriented governance logics interact with national quality-assurance and accreditation systems, highlighting mechanisms of adaptation and institutional tension. Overall, the article consolidates major critiques of the ABS journal ranking system to underscore the importance of responsible research assessment and to outline pathways toward more transparent, pluralistic, and mission-aligned research evaluation in business education.