Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login

What Do Experts Know About Forecasting Journal Quality? A Comparison with ISI Research Impact in Finance

Contents:

Author Info

Abstract

Experts possess knowledge and information that are not publicly available. The paper is con¬cerned with forecasting academic journal quality and research impact using a survey of inter¬na¬tion¬al experts from a national project on ranking academic finance journals in Taiwan. A com¬par¬i¬son is made with publicly available bibliometric data, namely the Thomson Reuters ISI Web of Sci¬ence citations database (hereafter ISI) for the Business - Finance (hereafter Finance) category. The paper analyses the leading international journals in Finance using expert scores and quantifiable Re¬search 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 an¬swer 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 Thresh¬old 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 ana¬lysed for 21 highly-cited journals in Finance. The harmonic mean of the ranks of the 10 RAMs for the 34 highly-cited journals are also presented. It is shown that emphasizing the 2-year impact fac¬tor of a journal, which partly answers the question as to When published papers are cited, to the ex¬clu¬sion 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 linear regression model is used to forecast expert scores on the basis of RAMs that capture journal impact, journal policy, the number of high quality papers, and quantitative in¬form¬ation about a journal. The robustness of the rankings is also analysed.

Download Info

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
File URL: http://www.econ.canterbury.ac.nz/RePEc/cbt/econwp/1310.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Paper provided by University of Canterbury, Department of Economics and Finance in its series Working Papers in Economics with number 13/10.

as in new window
Length: 38 pages
Date of creation: 13 Feb 2013
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:cbt:econwp:13/10

Contact details of provider:
Postal: Private Bag 4800, Christchurch, New Zealand
Phone: 64 3 369 3123 (Administrator)
Fax: 64 3 364 2635
Web page: http://www.econ.canterbury.ac.nz
More information through EDIRC

Related research

Keywords: Expert scores; Journal quality; RAMs; Impact factor; IFI; C3PO; PI-BETA; STAR; Eigenfactor; Article Influence; h-index; harmonic mean; robustness;

Other versions of this item:

Find related papers by JEL classification:

References

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
as in new window
  1. Chang, C-L. & McAleer, M.J. & Maasoumi, E., 2012. "Robust Ranking of Journal Quality: An Application to Economics," Econometric Institute Research Papers EI 2012-05, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Erasmus School of Economics (ESE), Econometric Institute.
  2. Chang, C-L. & McAleer, M.J. & Oxley, L., 2010. "What Makes a Great Journal Great in Economics? The Singer Not the Song," Econometric Institute Research Papers EI 2010-45, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Erasmus School of Economics (ESE), Econometric Institute.
  3. Chia-Lin Chang & Michael McAleer & Les Oxley, 2010. "What Makes a Great Journal Great in the Sciences? Which Came First, the Chicken or the Egg?," KIER Working Papers 746, Kyoto University, Institute of Economic Research.
  4. Chang, C-L. & McAleer, M.J., 2012. "Ranking Journal Quality by Harmonic Mean of Ranks: An Application to ISI Statistics & Probability," Econometric Institute Research Papers EI 2012-16, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Erasmus School of Economics (ESE), Econometric Institute.
  5. Chia-Lin Chang & Michael McAleer & Les Oxley, 2011. "Great Expectatrics: Great Papers, Great Journals, Great Econometrics," Documentos del Instituto Complutense de Análisis Económico 2011-14, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Empresariales.
  6. Chia-Lin Chang & Michael McAleer & Les Oxley, 2011. "How are Journal Impact, Prestige and Article Influence Related? An Application to Neuroscience," KIER Working Papers 756, Kyoto University, Institute of Economic Research.
  7. Philip Hans Franses & Michael McAleer & Rianne Legerstee, 2009. "Expert opinion versus expertise in forecasting," Statistica Neerlandica, Netherlands Society for Statistics and Operations Research, vol. 63(3), pages 334-346.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

Citations

Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
as in new window

Cited by:
  1. Chia-Lin Chang & Michael McAleer, 2013. "Ranking Leading Econometrics Journals Using Citations Data from ISI and RePEc," Econometrics, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 1(3), pages 217-235, November.

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cbt:econwp:13/10. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Albert Yee).

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.