Journal quality lists are becoming omnipresent and omnipotent. Using the Foucauldian concept of the panopticon, this study critically assesses the proclaimed impartiality and objectivity of three of these lists. It does so by: (a) identifying the seven marketing scholars that have contributed to the construction of these three lists; and (b) implementing an analysis that is rarely used in marketing; namely, a Curriculum Vitae (CV) analysis. The names of the identified seven scholars are kept concealed as the case is not to castigate/question a specific academic, but rather to rouse the debate on the usefulness(less) of these lists. The CV analysis ascertains that the three scrutinised lists are way less impartial and objective than they may seem. This study’s results are in stark contrast with any argument advocating the impartiality and objectivity of these journal quality lists. Seen from a Foucauldian standpoint, these lists appear as panoptic power/knowledge tools.