IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ebl/ecbull/eb-04a00001.html

The Measurement of Intellectual Influence: the Views of a Sceptic

Author

Listed:
  • Roberto Serrano

    (Brown University)

Abstract

In an extremely interesting paper, Palacios-Huerta and Volij (2004) [PV] introduce the axiomatic method to the problem of how to rank academic journals on the basis of their mutual citations. They characterize the invariant method as the only one satisfying a list of five appealing properties. In this note, I show an impossibility result, by identifying a sixth property that is violated by the invariant method. Further, I question the appeal of the PV axioms, when applied over larger domains of problems that take into account making distinctions among types of citations.

Suggested Citation

  • Roberto Serrano, 2004. "The Measurement of Intellectual Influence: the Views of a Sceptic," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 1(3), pages 1-6.
    • Handle: RePEc:ebl:ecbull:eb-04a00001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.accessecon.com/pubs/EB/2004/Volume1/EB-04A00001A.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. J. Atsu Amegashie, 2020. "Citations And Incentives In Academic Contests," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 58(3), pages 1233-1244, July.
    2. Albers Sönke, 2009. "Misleading Rankings of Research in Business," German Economic Review, De Gruyter, vol. 10(3), pages 352-363, August.
    3. Roberto Serrano, 2004. "The Measurement of Intellectual Influence: the Views of a Sceptic," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 1(3), pages 1-6.
    4. Carmen Herrero & Antonio Villar, 2013. "On the Comparison of Group Performance with Categorical Data," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(12), pages 1-7, December.
    5. Klaus Ritzberger, 2008. "Eine invariante Bewertung wirtschaftswissenschaftlicher Fachzeitschriften," Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 9(3), pages 267-285, August.
    6. Albers, Sönke, 2008. "Three Failed Attempts of Joint Rankings of Research in Economics and Business," MPRA Paper 12868, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 16 Jan 2009.
    7. repec:bla:germec:v:10:y:2009:i::p:364-367 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Albers, Sönke, 2009. "Discriminating Rankings of Research in Business," EconStor Preprints 24827, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    9. Ritzberger Klaus, 2008. "A Ranking of Journals in Economics and Related Fields," German Economic Review, De Gruyter, vol. 9(4), pages 402-430, December.
    10. Ritzberger Klaus, 2009. "Misleading Rankings of Research in Business: A Reply," German Economic Review, De Gruyter, vol. 10(3), pages 364-367, August.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • A0 - General Economics and Teaching - - General
    • C7 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ebl:ecbull:eb-04a00001. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: John P. Conley (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.