The ranking of academic journals and the considerable impact of journal lists have been increasingly criticized, especially in management research. To assess the effectiveness of peer review selection versus bibliometric assessment, a benchmark of the best management and economic journals is performed. Based on multiple indicators, the Financial Times FT50 list is compared to the 100 best ranked journals. The position of the FT journals in our aggregate bibliometric ranking confirms the effectiveness of the peer review of the FT. It also highlights the complementarity of peer review for research assessment with the metrics. The h-index emerges as the best predictor for FT membership, followed by the average citation. The Journal Impact Factor is refuted as a predictor for FT inclusion, while the SJR indicator seems to be more representative only for economics journals. The FT50 confirms the stability of the top-tier journals. It crowns journals’ long-term reputation. The FT50 covers a good balance of subfields and also leaves room for a practitioner journal and openness for innovation. The dichotomy between economics and general management journals remains a concern for rankings and journal lists, as does the size of the selection and the quest for a balanced subdivision between subfields.

学术期刊的排名和期刊清单的巨大影响已受到越来越多的批评，特别是在管理研究中。为了评估同行评审选择与文献计量评估的有效性，执行了最佳管理和经济期刊的基准。根据多个指标，将《金融时报》 FT50排行榜与排名前100的期刊进行比较。《金融时报》期刊在我们的总书目排名中的位置证实了《金融时报》同行评审的有效性。它还强调了同行评议与研究评估之间的互补性。h指数成为FT成员资格的最佳预测指标，其次是平均引用率。期刊影响因子被驳斥为金融时报纳入的预测因素，而SJR指标似乎仅对经济学期刊更具代表性。FT50确认了顶级期刊的稳定性。它提高了期刊的长期声誉。FT50涵盖了子领域的良好平衡，也为从业者杂志和创新开放空间。经济学期刊和一般管理期刊之间的二分法仍然是排名和期刊列表关注的问题，选择的规模以及在子领域之间寻求平衡细分的追求也是如此。