Home  About us  Contact
 

Journal Rankings (journal + ranking)

Distribution by Scientific Domains
Business, Economics, Finance and Accounting60%

Selected Abstracts

Scopus's source normalized impact per paper (SNIP) versus a journal impact factor based on fractional counting of citations

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, Issue 11 2010
Loet Leydesdorff
Impact factors (and similar measures such as the Scimago Journal Rankings) suffer from two problems: (a) citation behavior varies among fields of science and, therefore, leads to systematic differences, and (b) there are no statistics to inform us whether differences are significant. The recently introduced "source normalized impact per paper" indicator of Scopus tries to remedy the first of these two problems, but a number of normalization decisions are involved, which makes it impossible to test for significance. Using fractional counting of citations,based on the assumption that impact is proportionate to the number of references in the citing documents,citations can be contextualized at the paper level and aggregated impacts of sets can be tested for their significance. It can be shown that the weighted impact of Annals of Mathematics (0.247) is not so much lower than that of Molecular Cell (0.386) despite a five-f old difference between their impact factors (2.793 and 13.156, respectively). [source]

Journal Rankings in Business and Management and the 2001 Research Assessment Exercise in the UK

BRITISH JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, Issue 2 2004
Janet Geary
The public availability of detailed data from the 2001 Research Assessment Exercise in the UK allows an analysis of the publications cited in submissions to the Business and Management panel. Eighty per cent of the 9,942 publications submitted were journal articles. Submissions to the RAE can be scored in terms of the number of citations they make to journals that appear on various lists, such as the Financial Times list. The concentration of articles in a minority of journals, with 50% of all citations to just 126 journals, means that a core list of business and management journals can be compiled. The core list presented contains 562 journals out of the 1582 journal titles that were cited in Business and Management submissions. It includes all journals with more than two citations overall at least one citation in a 5*, 5 or 4 rated submission. It also includes all journals cited in the RAE from Starbuck's ranked lists of journals and the Financial Times list. [source]

A Ranking of Journals in Economics and Related Fields

GERMAN ECONOMIC REVIEW, Issue 4 2008
Klaus Ritzberger
Journal ranking; economics journals; business administration journals; finance journals; citations Abstract. This paper presents an update of the ranking of economics journals by the invariant method, as introduced by Palacio-Huerta and Volij, with a broader sample of journals. By comparison with the two other most prominent rankings, it also proposes a list of ,target journals', ranked according to their quality, as a standard for the field of economics. [source]

An Examination of the Reliability of Prestigious Scholarly Journals: Evidence and Implications for Decision-Makers

ECONOMICA, Issue 293 2007
ANDREW J. OSWALD
Scientific-funding bodies are increasingly under pressure to use journal rankings to measure research quality. Hiring and promotion committees routinely hear an equivalent argument: ,this is important work because it is to be published in prestigious journal X'. But how persuasive is such an argument? This paper examines data on citations to articles published 25 years ago. It finds that it is better to write the best article published in an issue of a medium-quality journal such as the OBES than all four of the worst four articles published in an issue of an elite journal like the AER. Decision-makers need to understand this. [source]

Definition and identification of journals as bibliographic and subject entities: Librarianship versus ISI Journal Citation Reports methods and their effect on citation measures

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, Issue 6 2009
Stephen J. Bensman
This paper explores the ISI Journal Citation Reports (JCR) bibliographic and subject structures through Library of Congress (LC) and American research libraries cataloging and classification methodology. The 2006 Science Citation Index JCR Behavioral Sciences subject category journals are used as an example. From the library perspective, the main fault of the JCR bibliographic structure is that the JCR mistakenly identifies journal title segments as journal bibliographic entities, seriously affecting journal rankings by total cites and the impact factor. In respect to JCR subject structure, the title segment, which constitutes the JCR bibliographic basis, is posited as the best bibliographic entity for the citation measurement of journal subject relationships. Through factor analysis and other methods, the JCR subject categorization of journals is tested against their LC subject headings and classification. The finding is that JCR and library journal subject analyses corroborate, clarify, and correct each other. [source]