<p>I investigate how different academic subjects are rated in the UK Academic Journal Guide (AJG) in comparison with other guides for evaluating the quality of business-related journals. I use appropriate non-parametric statistical methods to allow for the different journal rating systems in use worldwide. I compare the AJG ratings with both an average measure of academic journal quality derived from all the other guides and the ratings in each individual guide. The empirical investigations show significant differences in the relative value placed on different subjects in the AJG compared to the global average and to the values in other individual guides. Interestingly, in the AJG, the group of subjects covered in the guide which are not primarily business school related, which I term non-core subjects, are much better valued than in other guides. The findings are clearly positive/negative for the careers of academics working in favoured/unfavoured subjects in areas where the AJG is the dominant list. Encouraging non-core activity in business schools may, however, have a beneficial effect of increasing interdisciplinary research.</p>