Beschreibung:
<jats:sec><jats:title>Purpose:</jats:title><jats:p> The purpose of this study was to (1) evaluate the overall quality and prestige of all currently active disciplinary social work periodicals and (2) determine whether perceptions of quality among the top 10 journals varied by age, gender, race/ethnicity, and academic rank. </jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Method:</jats:title><jats:p> To perform this cross-sectional study, we used a national sample of tenure-track faculty ( N = 307) affiliated with PhD granting social work programs. </jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results:</jats:title><jats:p> Journals ( N = 64) were rank ordered based upon perceptions of overall quality and prestige. Analysis revealed overall quality and prestige scores were highly correlated ( r<jats:sub>s</jats:sub> = .93, p < .001). Race/ethnicity was unrelated to perceptions of quality among top-tier journals, but age, gender, and academic rank were significantly associated with perceptions of quality in some cases, although the effect sizes were relatively small. </jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Discussion:</jats:title><jats:p> The results provide guidance for faculty seeking to disseminate their work in highly regarded disciplinary periodicals, especially junior faculty seeking tenure and promotion. </jats:p></jats:sec>