IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/21579.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Neophilia Ranking of Scientific Journals

Author

Listed:
  • Mikko Packalen
  • Jay Bhattacharya

Abstract

The ranking of scientific journals is important because of the signal it sends to scientists about what is considered most vital for scientific progress. Existing ranking systems focus on measuring the influence of a scientific paper (citations)—these rankings do not reward journals for publishing innovative work that builds on new ideas. We propose an alternative ranking based on the proclivity of journals to publish papers that build on new ideas, and we implement this ranking via a text-based analysis of all published biomedical papers dating back to 1946. Our results show that our neophilia ranking is distinct from citation-based rankings. Prior theoretical work suggests an active role for our neophilia index in science policy. Absent an explicit incentive to pursue novel science, scientists under-invest in innovative work because of a coordination problem: for work on a new idea to flourish, many scientists must decide to adopt it in their work. Rankings that are based purely on influence thus do not provide sufficient incentives for publishing innovative work. By contrast, adoption of the neophilia index as part of journal-ranking procedures by funding agencies and university administrators would provide an explicit incentive for journals to publish innovative work and thus help solve the coordination problem by increasing scientists’ incentives to pursue innovative work.

Suggested Citation

  • Mikko Packalen & Jay Bhattacharya, 2015. "Neophilia Ranking of Scientific Journals," NBER Working Papers 21579, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:21579
    Note: EH PR
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w21579.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alison Abbott & David Cyranoski & Nicola Jones & Brendan Maher & Quirin Schiermeier & Richard Van Noorden, 2010. "Metrics: Do metrics matter?," Nature, Nature, vol. 465(7300), pages 860-862, June.
    2. Carlsson, Hans & van Damme, Eric, 1993. "Global Games and Equilibrium Selection," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 61(5), pages 989-1018, September.
    3. József Sákovics & Jakub Steiner, 2012. "Who Matters in Coordination Problems?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(7), pages 3439-3461, December.
    4. Bruno S. Frey & Katja Rost, 2010. "Do rankings reflect research quality?," Journal of Applied Economics, Universidad del CEMA, vol. 13, pages 1-38, May.
    5. Damien Besancenot & Radu Vranceanu, 2015. "Fear Of Novelty: A Model Of Scientific Discovery With Strategic Uncertainty," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 53(2), pages 1132-1139, April.
    6. Ignacio Palacios-Huerta & Oscar Volij, 2004. "The Measurement of Intellectual Influence," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 72(3), pages 963-977, May.
    7. Henk F. Moed, 2008. "UK Research Assessment Exercises: Informed judgments on research quality or quantity?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 74(1), pages 153-161, January.
    8. Dewatripont,Mathias & Hansen,Lars Peter & Turnovsky,Stephen J. (ed.), 2003. "Advances in Economics and Econometrics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521818742, October.
    9. Dewatripont,Mathias & Hansen,Lars Peter & Turnovsky,Stephen J. (ed.), 2003. "Advances in Economics and Econometrics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521524117, October.
    10. Mikko Packalen & Jay Bhattacharya, 2015. "New Ideas in Invention," NBER Working Papers 20922, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Mikko Packalen & Jay Bhattacharya, 2015. "Cities and Ideas," NBER Working Papers 20921, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Kristie M. Engemann & Howard J. Wall, 2009. "A journal ranking for the ambitious economist," Review, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, vol. 91(May), pages 127-140.
    13. Dewatripont,Mathias & Hansen,Lars Peter & Turnovsky,Stephen J. (ed.), 2003. "Advances in Economics and Econometrics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521818735, October.
    14. Dewatripont,Mathias & Hansen,Lars Peter & Turnovsky,Stephen J. (ed.), 2003. "Advances in Economics and Econometrics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521524124, October.
    15. Mathias Dewatripont & Lars Peter Hansen & Stephen Turnovsky, 2003. "Advances in economics and econometrics :theory and applications," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/9557, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    16. Lee Fleming, 2001. "Recombinant Uncertainty in Technological Search," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(1), pages 117-132, January.
    17. Dewatripont,Mathias & Hansen,Lars Peter & Turnovsky,Stephen J. (ed.), 2003. "Advances in Economics and Econometrics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521818728, October.
    18. Dewatripont,Mathias & Hansen,Lars Peter & Turnovsky,Stephen J. (ed.), 2003. "Advances in Economics and Econometrics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521524131, October.
    19. Lee, You-Na & Walsh, John P. & Wang, Jian, 2015. "Creativity in scientific teams: Unpacking novelty and impact," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 684-697.
    20. Peter Weingart, 2005. "Impact of bibliometrics upon the science system: Inadvertent consequences?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 62(1), pages 117-131, January.
    21. Palacios-Huerta, Ignacio & Volij, Oscar, 2014. "Axiomatic measures of intellectual influence," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 85-90.
    22. David Adam, 2002. "The counting house," Nature, Nature, vol. 415(6873), pages 726-729, February.
    23. Kevin J. Boudreau & Eva C. Guinan & Karim R. Lakhani & Christoph Riedl, 2016. "Looking Across and Looking Beyond the Knowledge Frontier: Intellectual Distance, Novelty, and Resource Allocation in Science," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(10), pages 2765-2783, October.
    24. Mikko Packalen & Jay Bhattacharya, 2015. "Age and the Trying Out of New Ideas," NBER Working Papers 20920, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    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. Joseph Gerald Hirschberg & Jeanette Ngaire Lye, 2020. "Grading Journals In Economics: The Abcs Of The Abdc," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(4), pages 876-921, September.
    2. Mikko Packalen, 2019. "Edge factors: scientific frontier positions of nations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(3), pages 787-808, March.
    3. Juan Miguel Campanario, 2018. "Are leaders really leading? Journals that are first in Web of Science subject categories in the context of their groups," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(1), pages 111-130, April.
    4. Mingyang Wang & Shijia Jiao & Kah-Hin Chai & Guangsheng Chen, 2019. "Building journal’s long-term impact: using indicators detected from the sustained active articles," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(1), pages 261-283, October.
    5. Bornmann, Lutz & Tekles, Alexander & Zhang, Helena H. & Ye, Fred Y., 2019. "Do we measure novelty when we analyze unusual combinations of cited references? A validation study of bibliometric novelty indicators based on F1000Prime data," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(4).
    6. Rebecca McKibbin & Bruce A. Weinberg, 2021. "Does Research Save Lives? The Local Spillovers of Biomedical Research on Mortality," NBER Working Papers 29420, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Brunnermeier, Markus & Abadi, Joseph, 2018. "Blockchain Economics," CEPR Discussion Papers 13420, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    2. Guimaraes, Bernardo & Machado, Caio, 2013. "Demand expectations and the timing of stimulus policies," MPRA Paper 48895, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Guimaraes, Bernardo & Pereira, Ana Elisa, 2017. "Dynamic coordination among heterogeneous agents," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 13-33.
    4. Basteck, Christian & Daniëls, Tijmen R. & Heinemann, Frank, 2010. "Characterising equilibrium selection in global games with strategic complementarities," SFB 649 Discussion Papers 2010-008, Humboldt University Berlin, Collaborative Research Center 649: Economic Risk.
    5. Lucian A. Bebchuk & Itay Goldstein, 2011. "Self-fulfilling Credit Market Freezes," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 24(11), pages 3519-3555.
    6. Pereira, Ana Elisa, 2021. "Rollover risk and stress test credibility," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 370-399.
    7. Basteck, Christian & Daniëls, Tijmen R. & Heinemann, Frank, 2013. "Characterising equilibrium selection in global games with strategic complementarities," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 148(6), pages 2620-2637.
    8. Iijima, Ryota, 2015. "Iterated generalized half-dominance and global game selection," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 159(PA), pages 120-136.
    9. Karp, Larry, 2008. "Correct (and misleading) arguments for using market based pollution control policies," Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley, Working Paper Series qt8rw5801j, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley.
    10. Yoo, Seung Han, 2014. "Learning a population distribution," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 188-201.
    11. Chassang, Sylvain, 2008. "Uniform selection in global games," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 139(1), pages 222-241, March.
    12. Kasahara, Tetsuya, 2009. "Coordination failure among multiple lenders and the role and effects of public policy," Journal of Financial Stability, Elsevier, vol. 5(2), pages 183-198, June.
    13. Ahnert, Toni & Martinez-Miera, David, 2021. "Bank Runs, Bank Competition and Opacity," VfS Annual Conference 2021 (Virtual Conference): Climate Economics 242348, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    14. Aldashev, Gani, 2010. "Political Information Acquisition for Social Exchange," Quarterly Journal of Political Science, now publishers, vol. 5(1), pages 1-25, April.
    15. Stephen Morris & Ming Yang, 2016. "Coordination and the Relative Cost of Distinguishing Nearby States," Working Papers 079_2016, Princeton University, Department of Economics, Econometric Research Program..
    16. Bruno Jullien & Alessandro Pavan, 2013. "Platform Competition under Dispersed Information," Discussion Papers 1568, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
    17. repec:hum:wpaper:sfb649dp2016-045 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Koenig, Philipp & Pothier, David, 2016. "Information acquisition and liquidity dry-ups," SFB 649 Discussion Papers 2016-045, Humboldt University Berlin, Collaborative Research Center 649: Economic Risk.
    19. George-Marios Angeletos & Christian Hellwig & Alessandro Pavan, 2006. "Signaling in a Global Game: Coordination and Policy Traps," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 114(3), pages 452-484, June.
    20. Gehlbach, Scott & Keefer, Philip, 2011. "Investment without democracy: Ruling-party institutionalization and credible commitment in autocracies," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 123-139, June.
    21. Camille Cornand & Frank Heinemann, 2009. "Speculative Attacks with Multiple Sources of Public Information," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 111(1), pages 73-102, March.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • I1 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health
    • O3 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights
    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:nbr:nberwo:21579. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nberrus.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.