The paper discusses the evaluation of journal quality in the context of research performance evaluation, reviewing six quantitative indicators including the h-index, SJR, SNIP, and the Eigenfactor. The study evaluates these metrics both theoretically and empirically using a sample of business and management journals, finding that these indicators are highly correlated but result in significant differences in journal rankings, suggesting that no single indicator is superior. The conclusion highlights that the h-index and SNIP may currently be the most effective indicators, emphasizing the importance of using accurate, robust, transparent, and unbiased metrics in conjunction with or instead of peer review, within large-scale research evaluations like the UK's REF.