Chang, Chia-Lin and McAleer, Michael (2012) Ranking Journal Quality by Harmonic Mean of Ranks: An Application to ISI Statistics & Probability. [Working Paper or Technical Report] (Unpublished)
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial.
Official URL: http://eprints.ucm.es/15419/
As the preponderance of journal rankings becomes increasingly more frequent and prominent in academic decision making, such rankings in broad discipline categories is taking on an increasingly important role. The paper focuses on the robustness of rankings of academic journal quality and research impact using on the widely-used Thomson Reuters ISI Web of Science citations database (ISI) for the Statistics & Probability category. The paper analyses 110 ISI international journals in Statistics & Probability using quantifiable Research Assessment Measures (RAMs), and highlights the similarities and differences in various RAMs, which are based on alternative transformations of citations and influence. Alternative RAMs may be calculated annually or updated daily to determine When, Where and How (frequently) published papers are cited (see Chang et al. (2011a, b, c), Chang et al. (2012)). The RAMs are grouped in four distinct classes that include impact factor, mean citations and non-citations, journal policy, number of high quality papers, and journal influence and article influence. These classes include the most widely used RAMs, 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), Eigenfactor (or Journal Influence), Article Influence, h-index, PI-BETA (Papers Ignored - By Even The Authors), 5YD2 (= 5YIF/2YIF) as a measure of citations longevity, and Escalating Self Citations (ESC) as a measure of increasing journal self citations. The paper highlights robust rankings based on the harmonic mean of the ranks of RAMs across the 4 classes. It is shown that focusing solely on the 2-year impact factor (2YIF) 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 quality, impact and influence relative to the more robust harmonic mean of the ranks.
|Item Type:||Working Paper or Technical Report|
|Additional Information:||JEL Classifications: C18, C43, C81, Y10. The authors wish to thank Philip Hans Franses and Essie Maasoumi for helpful discussions. 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:||Research assessment measures, impact factor, IFI, C3PO, PI-BETA, STAR, Eigenfactor, Article Influence, h-index, 5YD2, ESC, harmonic mean of the ranks, Statistics & Probability, robust journal rankings.|
|Subjects:||Social sciences > Library science and documentation > Databases|
Social sciences > Economics > Econometrics
Social sciences > Library science and documentation > Information retrieval
|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., E. Maasoumi and M. McAleer (2012), Robust ranking of journal quality: An application to economics, Emory Economics 1204, Department of Economics, Emory
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.
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.
van Nierop, E. (2009), Why do statistics journals have low impact factors?, Statistica Neerlandica, 63(1), 52-62.
van Nierop, E. (2010), The introduction of the 5-year impact factor: Does it benefit statistics journals?, Statistica Neerlandica, 64(1), 71-76.
|Deposited On:||31 May 2012 11:33|
|Last Modified:||06 Feb 2014 10:24|
Repository Staff Only: item control page