IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cbt/econwp/12-02.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

What do Experts Know About Ranking Journal Quality? A Comparison with ISI Research Impact in Finance

Author

Listed:

Abstract

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, PIBETA (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.

Suggested Citation

  • Chia-Lin Chang & Michael McAleer, 2012. "What do Experts Know About Ranking Journal Quality? A Comparison with ISI Research Impact in Finance," Working Papers in Economics 12/02, University of Canterbury, Department of Economics and Finance.
  • Handle: RePEc:cbt:econwp:12/02
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.econ.canterbury.ac.nz/RePEc/cbt/econwp/1202.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:spr:scient:v:87:y:2011:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-010-0335-0 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Chia-Lin Chang & Michael Mcaleer, 2012. "Aggregation, Heterogeneous Autoregression And Volatility Of Daily International Tourist Arrivals And Exchange Rates," The Japanese Economic Review, Japanese Economic Association, pages 397-419.
    3. Chia-Lin Chang & Michael McAleer & Les Oxley, 2011. "How are journal impact, prestige and article influence related? An application to neuroscience," Journal of Applied Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, pages 2563-2573.
    4. Chia-Lin Chang & Michael McAleer & Les Oxley, 2011. "Great Expectatrics: Great Papers, Great Journals, Great Econometrics," Econometric Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, pages 583-619.
    5. 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.
    6. Michael McAleer & Chia-Lin Chang, 2011. "Citations and Impact of ISI Tourism and Hospitality Journals," KIER Working Papers 781, Kyoto University, Institute of Economic Research.
    7. Chen, P-Y. & Chang, C-L. & Chen, C-C. & McAleer, M.J., 2010. "Modeling the Volatility in Global Fertilizer Prices," Econometric Institute Research Papers EI 2010-42, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Erasmus School of Economics (ESE), Econometric Institute.
    8. Chia‐Lin Chang & Michael McAleer & Les Oxley, 2011. "What Makes A Great Journal Great In Economics? The Singer Not The Song," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(2), pages 326-361, April.
    9. 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.
    10. Chang, Chia-Lin & de Bruijn, Bert & Franses, Philip Hans & McAleer, Michael, 2013. "Analyzing fixed-event forecast revisions," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, pages 622-627.
    11. Chia-Lin Chang & Michael McAleer & Les Oxley, 2011. "What makes a great journal great in the sciences? Which came first, the chicken or the egg?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, pages 17-40.
    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


    Cited by:

    1. Bernardo Batiz-Lazo & Rasol Eskandari & John Goddard, 2013. "Online publishing and citation success in the business and economic history of Spain, 1997-2011," Working Papers 13003, Bangor Business School, Prifysgol Bangor University (Cymru / Wales).
    2. Bernardo Batiz-Lazo & Rasol Eskandari & John Goddard, 2013. "Online publishing and citation success in the business and economic history of Spain, 1997-2011," Working Papers 13003, Bangor Business School, Prifysgol Bangor University (Cymru / Wales).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Expert scores; Journal quality; Research assessment measures; Impact factor; IFI; C3PO; PI-BETA; STAR; Eigenfactor; Article Influence; h-index;

    JEL classification:

    • C18 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Methodolical Issues: General
    • C81 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs - - - Methodology for Collecting, Estimating, and Organizing Microeconomic Data; Data Access
    • C83 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs - - - Survey Methods; Sampling Methods

    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:cbt:econwp:12/02. 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). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/decannz.html .

    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 CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service 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.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.