Chang, Chia-Lin and McAleer, Michael (2012) What do Experts Know About Ranking Journal Quality? A Comparison with ISI Research Impact in Finance. [Working Paper or Technical Report] (Submitted)
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial.
Official URL: http://eprints.ucm.es/14091/
Experts possess knowledge and information that are not publicly available. The paper is concerned with the ranking of academic journal quality and research impact using a survey of experts from a national project on ranking academic finance journals. A comparison is made with publicly available bibliometric data, namely the Thomson Reuters ISI Web of Science citations database (hereafter ISI) for the Business - Finance category. The paper analyses the leading international journals in Finance using expert scores and quantifiable Research Assessment Measures (RAMs), and highlights the similarities and differences in the expert scores and alternative RAMs, where the RAMs are based on alternative transformations of citations taken from the ISI database. Alternative RAMs may be calculated annually or updated daily to answer the perennial questions as to When, Where and How (frequently) published papers are cited (see Chang et al. (2011a, b, c)). The RAMs include the most widely used RAM, namely the classic 2-year impact factor including journal self citations (2YIF), 2-year impact factor excluding journal self citations (2YIF*), 5-year impact factor including journal self citations (5YIF), Immediacy (or zero-year impact factor (0YIF)), Eigenfactor, Article Influence, C3PO (Citation Performance Per Paper Online), h-index, PI-BETA (Papers Ignored - By Even The Authors), 2-year Self-citation Threshold Approval Ratings (2Y-STAR), Historical Self-citation Threshold Approval Ratings (H-STAR), Impact Factor Inflation (IFI), and Cited Article Influence (CAI). As data are not available for 5YIF, Article Influence and CAI for 13 of the leading 34 journals considered, 10 RAMs are analysed for 21 highly-cited journals in Finance. Harmonic mean rankings of the 10 RAMs for the 34 highly-cited journals are also presented. It is shown that emphasizing the 2-year impact factor of a journal, which partly answers the question as to When published papers are cited, to the exclusion of other informative RAMs, which answer Where and How (frequently) published papers are cited, can lead to a distorted evaluation of journal impact and influence relative to the Harmonic Mean rankings. A simple regression model is used to predict expert scores on the basis of RAMs that capture journal impact, journal policy, the number of high quality papers, and quantitative information about a journal.
|Item Type:||Working Paper or Technical Report|
|Additional Information:||JEL Classifications: C18, C81, C83. The authors are grateful to Shing-yang Hu (National Taiwan University) for providing the data on Expert Scores. For financial support, the first author wishes to thank the National Science Council, Taiwan, and the second author wishes to acknowledge the Australian Research Council, National Science Council, Taiwan, and the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science.|
|Uncontrolled Keywords:||Expert scores, Journal quality, Research assessment measures, Impact factor, IFI, C3PO, PI-BETA, STAR, Eigenfactor, Article Influence, h-index.|
|Subjects:||Social sciences > Economics > Finance|
Social sciences > Library science and documentation > Databases
Social sciences > Economics > Econometrics
Social sciences > Library science and documentation > Information retrieval
Social sciences > Library science and documentation > Information management
|Series Name:||Documentos de Trabajo del Instituto Complutense de Análisis Económico (ICAE)|
Bergstrom C. (2007), Eigenfactor: Measuring the value and prestige of scholarly journals, C&RL News, 68, 314-316.
Bergstrom, C.T. and. J.D. West (2008), Assessing citations with the Eigenfactor™ metrics, Neurology, 71, 1850–1851.
Bergstrom, C.T., J.D. West and M.A. Wiseman (2008), The Eigenfactor™ metrics, Journal of Neuroscience, 28(45), 11433–11434 (November 5, 2008).
Chang, C.-L., M. McAleer and L. Oxley (2011a), What makes a great journal great in economics? The singer not the song, Journal of Economic Surveys, 25(2), 326-361.
Chang, C.-L., M. McAleer and L. Oxley (2011b), What makes a great journal great in the sciences? Which came first, the chicken or the egg?, Scientometrics, 87(1), 17-40.
Chang, C.-L., M. McAleer and L. Oxley (2011c), Great expectatrics: Great papers, great journals, great econometrics, Econometric Reviews, 30(6), 583-619.
Chang, C.-L., M. McAleer and L. Oxley (2011d), How are journal impact, prestige and article influence related? An application to neuroscience, Journal of Applied Statistics, 38(11), 2563-2573.
Fersht, A. (2009), The most influential journals: Impact factor and Eigenfactor, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106(17), 6883-6884 (April 28, 2009).
Franses, P.H., M. McAleer and R. Legerstee (2009), Expert opinion versus expertise in forecasting, Statistica Neerlandica, 63, 334-346.
Hirsch, J.E. (2005), An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102(46), 16569-15572 (November 15, 2005).
ISI Web of Science (2011), Journal Citation Reports, Essential Science Indicators, Thomson Reuters ISI.
Seglen, P.O. (1997), Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research, BMJ: British Medical Journal, 314(7079), 498-502.
|Deposited On:||10 Jan 2012 15:14|
|Last Modified:||06 Feb 2014 09:59|
Repository Staff Only: item control page