Top ranking economics journals impact variability and a ranking update to the year 2002
In this paper I address four questions concerning the quality of scientific economic papers. First, I validate the ex-ante procedure of computing the average impact of economic papers by comparing its results with the expost values. Second, I calibrate an estimator of papers normalised impact. Third, I compute the ranking variability of journals using a bootstrap procedure. Fourth, I test the statistical hypothesis that journals’ ranking did not changed over the time interval between 1980 and 2000. I concluded that this hypothesis is rejected only for the ‘Quarterly Journal of Economics’ and ‘Econometrica’, which saw their citation impact improved.
|Date of creation:||Jun 2004|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Web page: http://www.fep.up.pt/Email:
More information through EDIRC
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.:
- David Laband & John Sophocleus, 1985. "Revealed preference for economics journals: Citations as dollar votes," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 46(3), pages 317-324, January.
- Christopher Barrett & Aliakbar Olia & Dee Von Bailey, 2000. "Subdiscipline-specific journal rankings: whither Applied Economics?," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(2), pages 239-252.
This item is featured on the following reading lists or Wikipedia pages:
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:por:fepwps:149. 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: ()
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.