A journal ranking for the ambitious economist

The authors devise an "ambition-adjusted" journal ranking based on citations from a short list of top general-interest journals in economics. Underlying this ranking is the notion that an ambitious economist wishes to be acknowledged not only in the highest reaches of the profession, but also outside his or her subfield. In addition to the conceptual advantages that they find in their ambition adjustment, they see two main practical advantages: greater transparency and a consistent treatment of subfields. They compare their 2008 ranking based on citations from 2001 to 2007 with a ranking for 2002 based on citations from 1995 to 2001.Research ; Economics ; Economists

The utilization of paper-level classification system on the evaluation of journal impact

CAS Journal Ranking, a ranking system of journals based on the bibliometric indicator of citation impact, has been widely used in meso and macro-scale research evaluation in China since its first release in 2004. The ranking's coverage is journals which contained in the Clarivate's Journal Citation Reports (JCR). This paper will mainly introduce the upgraded version of the 2019 CAS journal ranking. Aiming at limitations around the indicator and classification system utilized in earlier editions, also the problem of journals' interdisciplinarity or multidisciplinarity, we will discuss the improvements in the 2019 upgraded version of CAS journal ranking (1) the CWTS paper-level classification system, a more fine-grained system, has been utilized, (2) a new indicator, Field Normalized Citation Success Index (FNCSI), which ia robust against not only extremely highly cited publications, but also the wrongly assigned document type, has been used, and (3) the calculation of the indicator is from a paper-level. In addition, this paper will present a small part of ranking results and an interpretation of the robustness of the new FNCSI indicator. By exploring more sophisticated methods and indicators, like the CWTS paper-level classification system and the new FNCSI indicator, CAS Journal Ranking will continue its original purpose for responsible research evaluation

A Note About The Finance Journal Rankings And Citation Counts

The purpose of this study is to examine the (rank) correlation coefficient of five finance journal ranking methods from Harzing's Journal Quality List in 2016 and one citation count method from the Association Business Schools (ABS) Academic Journal Quality Guide in 2010. We also propose a new way of comparing the actual ranks from the above six journal ranking methods with the random ranks generated from Excel to address which finance ranking method deviates the most from a random ranking

Reflections on a First Anniversary and Journal Ranking

Journal ranking reflections on this journal's first anniversary

At the sharp end : journal ranking and the dreams of academics

Purpose &ndash; The purpose of this article is to review and comment on the Australian Government\u27s entry into the journal ranking domain. Design/methodology/approach &ndash; A review and reflection on the approach and potential impact of the direction taken. Findings &ndash; This project is arguably the largest of its type and the effects on academic publishing and the survival of journals could be far reaching. Originality/value &ndash; The article draws together current material on the Australian Government\u27s activities and provides details of the scope of the journal ranking project.<br /

Does Criticism Overcome the Praises of Journal Impact Factor?

Journal impact factor (IF) as a gauge of influence and impact of a particular journal comparing with other journals in the same area of research, reports the mean number of citations to the published articles in particular journal. Although, IF attracts more attention and being used more frequently than other measures, it has been subjected to criticisms, which overcome the advantages of IF. Critically, extensive use of IF may result in destroying editorial and researchers’ behaviour, which could compromise the quality of scientific articles. Therefore, it is the time of the timeliness and importance of a new invention of journal ranking techniques beyond the journal impact factor

FoR Codes pendulum: Publishing choices within Australian research assessment

This paper reports on an exploratory case study that considered the impacts of journal ranking and Fields of Research codes on the publishing decisions of Australian authors. The study also considered the level of alignment between authors’ allocation of Fields of Research codes and the codes assigned to the journals in which they were published. The conclusion is reached that authors are still coming to an understanding of the impact of research assessment on their publishing choices and the process of scholarly communication within their discipline. Findings point to a number of concerns about the impact of both journal ranking and discipline-specific research codes

Publication patterns of award-winning forest scientists and implications for the ERA journal ranking

Publication patterns of 79 forest scientists awarded major international forestry prizes during 1990-2010 were compared with the journal classification and ranking promoted as part of the 'Excellence in Research for Australia' (ERA) by the Australian Research Council. The data revealed that these scientists exhibited an elite publication performance during the decade before and two decades following their first major award. An analysis of their 1703 articles in 431 journals revealed substantial differences between the journal choices of these elite scientists and the ERA classification and ranking of journals. Implications from these findings are that additional cross-classifications should be added for many journals, and there should be an adjustment to the ranking of several journals relevant to the ERA Field of Research classified as 0705 Forestry Sciences.Comment: 12 pages, 4 figures, 3 tables, 49 references; Journal of Informetrics (2011

You cannot judge a book by its cover: the problems with journal rankings

Journal rankings lists have impacted and are impacting accounting educators and accounting education researchers around the world. Nowhere is the impact positive. It ranges from slight constraints on academic freedom to admonition, censure, reduced research allowances, non-promotion, non-short-listing for jobs, increased teaching loads, and re- designation as a non-researcher, all because the chosen research specialism of someone who was vocationally motivated to become a teacher of accounting is, ironically, accounting education. University managers believe that these journal ranking lists show that accounting faculty publish top-quality research on accounting regulation, financial markets, business finance, auditing, international accounting, management accounting, taxation, accounting in society, and more, but not on what they do in their ‘day job’ – teaching accounting. These same managers also believe that the journal ranking lists indicate that accounting faculty do not publish top-quality research in accounting history and accounting systems. And they also believe that journal ranking lists show that accounting faculty write top-quality research in education, history, and systems, but only if they publish it in specialist journals that do not have the word ‘accounting’ in their title, or in mainstream journals that do. Tarring everyone with the same brush because of the journal in which they publish is inequitable. We would not allow it in other walks of life. It is time the discrimination ended