Deans Decry Journals’ Removal From Influential Financial Times List

The Financial Times has sparked concern among European business school leaders after removing three journals focused on ethics, society, and qualitative research from its influential FT50 rankings list

Deans of prominent European business schools have expressed dismay over The Financial Times’ decision to delist three top business journals from its influential rankings.

In late April, the publisher removed three prominent journals from its influential FT50 list assessing “high-quality research” out of the world’s leading business schools. The FT has swapped out Human Relations, Journal of Business Ethics and Organization Studies in favor of three journals it says are more relevant.

The reorganization struck a chord among deans and administrators attending an event on AI at Oxford University this week. Mette Morsing, dean of Oxford’s Saïd Business School, said there that she was “particularly concerned” about the decision.

“This moment in history is not the time to narrow our intellectual lens,” Morsing said in her opening statement, drawing murmurs of agreement.

FEARS OF A NARROWER RESEARCH FUTURE

The FT has said its decision was based on metrics, following a poll of 200 business leaders.

“The new journals all have high impact factors, top ratings from academic bodies … and contain a significant number of articles contributed by faculty from leading ranked institutions,” said the FT of its revised list, which includes the recent addition of the titles Academy of Management Annals, American Sociological Review and Psychological Science.

The decision comes within days of an announcement to halt the 67-year run of the influential MIT Sloan Management Review. Taken together, these two changes have “redrawn the map of business research,” writes Matt Symonds, co-founder and CEO of BlueSky Education.

“This development is troubling in an AI context,” says Marie Taillard, UK dean of ESCP Business School.

“Recent comments in social media suggest that this is the beginning of a process that may augur a more analytically driven selection process, resulting in a downgrading of more complex and richer research traditions and less attention to the human and social dimensions of business.”

WHY THE STAKES GO BEYOND 3 JOURNALS

Taillard believes the move goes “far” beyond a “mere administrative adjustment,” reflecting “significant tensions” in business-related academic research.

“In many business schools, publishing in FT50 journals is an important factor in tenure decisions and is also rewarded with special bonuses … removal of these three journals from the list will push researchers to target other journals unless their schools make a deliberate decision to continue to (prioritize) these journals.”

 While there is disagreement over how influential a rankings-style list should ultimately be in determining the shape of business research, a number of staff and faculty gathered at Oxford registered concern around a move seen to deprioritise values-centered research.

“The second and probably most disturbing controversy for many, is that the removed journals tend to represent a more cross-disciplinary and qualitative kind of research, using a broader and richer lens through which researchers think about the moral, social, and societal implications of business,” says Taillard.

She predicts there will be a two- to three-year lag before the delisted journals feel the full brunt of the decision.

The FT has said that its review of research rankings is “ongoing, and is expected to lead to more modifications in the future.”

DON’T MISS MIT SLOAN MANAGEMENT REVIEW TO SHUT DOWN AFTER 67 YEARS and FINANCIAL TIMES LAUNCHES REVIEW OF RESEARCH MEASURE IN MBA & EMBA RANKINGS

© Copyright 2026 Poets & Quants. All rights reserved. This article may not be republished, rewritten or otherwise distributed without written permission. To reprint or license this article or any content from Poets & Quants, please submit your request HERE.