IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/ajagec/v97y2015i2p490-509..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Journals, Preferences, and Publishing in Agricultural and Environmental Economics

Author

Listed:
  • Dan Rigby
  • Michael Burton
  • Jayson L. Lusk

Abstract

Research quality is an increasingly important metric for determining funding allocations, promotion and tenure, and professional prestige. A key metric often used as a proxy for research quality is the ranking of the journal in which a manuscript appears. While citation-based measures of journal quality are commonly used, less is known about other dimensions of journal quality and prestige. We report results from an international study using Best-Worst Scaling to investigate researchers' journal preferences. Respondents used two criteria to assess journals: the impact a paper in the journal would have on career progression, and the impact beyond academia of papers in the journal. Among the sample of journals studied, the American Journal of Agricultural Economics is ranked at the top for career progression for the aggregate sample, while Science was rated at the top for broader impact. We find no significant correlation between the journal scores based on the two criteria, nor between them and the journals' impact factors. These results suggest that impact beyond academia is poorly aligned with career incentives and that citation measures reflect poorly, if at all, peers' esteem of journals. Heteroscedastic scale-adjusted latent class models reveal marked heterogeneity in journal preferences related to researchers' institutional affiliation and geographic region. We find significant differences in error variance over people and choices: people were less consistent when choosing their least, as opposed to their most, preferred journal. This finding has broader implications given the burgeoning use of best-worst surveys.

Suggested Citation

  • Dan Rigby & Michael Burton & Jayson L. Lusk, 2015. "Journals, Preferences, and Publishing in Agricultural and Environmental Economics," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 97(2), pages 490-509.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:ajagec:v:97:y:2015:i:2:p:490-509.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/ajae/aau102
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Robert Finger & Nils Droste & Bartosz Bartkowski & Frederic Ang, 2022. "A note on performance indicators for agricultural economic journals," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 73(2), pages 614-620, June.
    2. Johan Lyhagen & Per Ahlgren, 2020. "Uncertainty and the ranking of economics journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 2545-2560, December.
    3. Yang, J. & Chen, F., 2021. "How are social-psychological factors related to consumer preferences for plug-in electric vehicles? Case studies from two cities in China," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 149(C).
    4. Soto, José R. & Adams, Damian C. & Escobedo, Francisco J., 2016. "Landowner attitudes and willingness to accept compensation from forest carbon offsets: Application of best–worst choice modeling in Florida USA," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 35-42.
    5. Daniel R. Petrolia & Matthew G. Interis & Joonghyun Hwang, 2018. "Single-Choice, Repeated-Choice, and Best-Worst Scaling Elicitation Formats: Do Results Differ and by How Much?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 69(2), pages 365-393, February.
    6. Petrolia, Daniel R., 2016. "Risk preferences, risk perceptions, and risky food," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 37-48.
    7. Oriana Gava & Fabio Bartolini & Francesca Venturi & Gianluca Brunori & Alberto Pardossi, 2020. "Improving Policy Evidence Base for Agricultural Sustainability and Food Security: A Content Analysis of Life Cycle Assessment Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-29, February.

    More about this item

    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:oup:ajagec:v:97:y:2015:i:2:p:490-509.. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.html .

    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.