Much has been written about the evaluation of faculty research productivity in promotion and tenure decisions, including many articles that seek to determine the rank of various marketing journals. Yet how faculty evaluators combine journal quality, quantity, and author contribution to form judgments of a scholar's performance is unclear. A mathematical model of faculty judgment is presented that estimates a scholar's research productivity that is surprisingly consistent with actual faculty evaluations. The model does not replace human judgment in evaluating a scholar's research performance, but the model enhances clarity and objectivity in the evaluation process. The method is demonstrated with marketing faculty at one university. (Contains 9 tables and 1 figure.)