In this rejoinder, Kenworthy and Hrivnak, recognized as thought leaders in the tertiary education domain, report their greatest concern with Arbaugh et al.'s (2016) work is its inherently narrow and restrictive nature. In their rejoinder they report, first, the search terms use to identify the BME top 100 are confined to business education. Second, they believe it is critical for people to look beyond the Arbaugh et al. (2016) top 100 list stems from our genuine commitment to, and appreciation of, the countless contributions to the BME literature that can be found in the pages of the "Journal of Management Education" (JME). Kenworthy and Hrivnak, share Arbaugh et al.'s (2016) view that "JME's influence is significant" (p. 22) and that it has a "reputation as a leading edge journal that is willing to tackle new topics before anyone else" (p. 21) with a "long-standing editorial commitment to publish works that will 'have a significant impact on thinking and/or practice in management education'" (p. 21). To use the metaphor of what foods to eat in which city: just because poutine is popular in a given geographical location doesn't mean we should have to eat it if we choose to live there. Alternatively, just because one works in the BME field doesn't mean they should view scholarly success as only accessible via the four topical areas for research identified in Arbaugh et al. (2016). Similarly, just because a chef has been awarded one or more Michelin stars doesn't mean we should all book a table at that restaurant or try to cook the same type of food. In this context, just because someone is a well-published scholar doesn't mean that we have to adopt his or her particular research areas for our own. [For "Identifying Research Topic Development in Business and Management Education Research Using Legitimation Code Theory," see EJ1118407.]