Resumo

Research and development in a country is advanced by higher education institutions (HEI) in the shape of master’s degree and PhDs, otherwise known as stricto sensu post-graduate programs. Those research are evaluated by a system called Qualis, in which classify papers based on the journals that they are published in, ranking journals based on their relevance in each specific field and serves as the main guideline for funding agencies and to evaluate researchers from the academia but there are inconsistencies in those guidelines that should be considered and analyzed.

How the inconsistencies in the Qualis guidelines for management, accountancy and tourism affect the journals that comprises the ranking and what can we propose in order to better adjust these disparities?

Quality as value for money: Notion of accountability to funders as provision fits the institution's mission, but this is contingent upon the accountability implicit in quality as value for money, such as Performance indicators that are used to monitor efficiency and provide a measure of accountability for the treasury. in this case, scientific production quality is value as return on investment, have accountability in its core, using performance indicators to measure and monitor efficiency and customer charters to illustrate what they to expect for the money they pay.

Qualitative in nature, and we sought to analyze the inconsistencies within Qualis guidelines created by CAPES for the field of management, accounting and tourism. We used secondary data retrieved from the CAPES website, including data manuals, field documents, documents, ministerial bulletins and other sources that constitute the bases to determine the criteria and supports the collection and analysis of data and information, aimed to investigate how intellectual production is evaluated in the field of management, accounting and tourism and what criteria are given more importance

Based on the data, we see that the upper strata (A1 and A2 journals) have the criteria of JCR and h-Scopus only, meaning that in order for a journal to be classified as A1 or A2 it must meet JCR >1.4 (67%) or H-Scopus > 24 (75%) and 1,4 >= JCR > 0.7 (33%) or 24 >= H-Scopus > 9 (50%) respectively. This limits several journals making them being in the Qualis/CAPES Management ranking, mainly those that are published in Portuguese and, because of the language, are not listed neither in databases that calculate JCR (ISI Web of Science) nor in H-Scopus (Scopus).

other criteria should be considered in the upper strata as one of the methods to fix the inconsistencies found in our analysis, such as the use of measurements and indexes that do give space to Brazilian journals, such as Spell and Redalyc, of which is already used in the lower strata. Considering them as part of criteria used in the strata A1 and A2, we argue it could benefit both the field and the journals, making the criteria more proper for the reality of the Brazilian academia and eliminating journals that are in the upper strata because of their language and not because of their scope.

(Maccari, Hsu, Storopoli, & Silva, 2018); (CAPES, 2016a; Lucena & Tibúcio, 2009); (Beuren & Souza, 2008; CAPES, 2015a); (Harvey & Green, 1993); (Crespi, Preusler, Luna, & Ferreira, 2017).