IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wpa/wuwpgt/0502070.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Academic Evaluation and Ranking of Economic Journals

Author

Listed:
  • Ianina Rossi

    (Departamento de Economía, Facultad de Ciencias Sociales, Universidad de la República)

  • Alvaro Forteza

    (Departamento de Economía, Facultad de Ciencias Sociales, Universidad de la República)

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to serve as an input in the revision of the evaluation guidelines of the Department of Economics FCS – UDELAR (dECON). With this aim, we report on what is taken into account in academic evaluation around the world, and which are the most frequently used methods of evaluation and the sources of information related to them. Finally, we present the evaluation guidelines used in economic departments in Brazil, Chile, Spain and the United States and compare them with those currently used in dECON. This paper has three files attached with detailed information on references and points granted to journals in several academic institutions(http://www.decon.edu.uy/publica/publicac_.html).

Suggested Citation

  • Ianina Rossi & Alvaro Forteza, 2005. "Academic Evaluation and Ranking of Economic Journals," General Economics and Teaching 0502070, EconWPA.
  • Handle: RePEc:wpa:wuwpgt:0502070 Note: Type of Document - pdf; pages: 28
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://econwpa.repec.org/eps/get/papers/0502/0502070.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ofer H. Azar, 2007. "The Slowdown In First-Response Times Of Economics Journals: Can It Be Beneficial?," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 45(1), pages 179-187, January.
    2. Ofer H. Azar, 2004. "Rejections and the importance of first response times," International Journal of Social Economics, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 31(3), pages 259-274, March.
    3. Juin-jen Chang & Ching-chong Lai, 2001. "Is It Worthwhile to Pay Referees?," Southern Economic Journal, Southern Economic Association, vol. 68(2), pages 457-463, October.
    4. David N. Laband, 1990. "Is There Value-Added from the Review Process in Economics?: Preliminary Evidence from Authors," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 105(2), pages 341-352.
    5. Thomson, William, 2011. "A Guide for the Young Economist," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 2, volume 1, number 026251589x, January.
    6. Daniel S. Hamermesh, 1994. "Facts and Myths about Refereeing," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(1), pages 153-163, Winter.
    7. Glenn Ellison, 2002. "The Slowdown of the Economics Publishing Process," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 110(5), pages 947-993, October.
    8. Glenn Ellison, 2002. "Evolving Standards for Academic Publishing: A q-r Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 110(5), pages 994-1034, October.
    9. Ofer H. Azar, 2005. "The Review Process in Economics: Is It Too Fast?," Southern Economic Journal, Southern Economic Association, vol. 72(2), pages 482-491, October.
    10. David N. Laband & Michael J. Piette, 2000. "Perceived Conduct and Professional Ethics among College Economics Faculty," The American Economist, Sage Publications, vol. 44(1), pages 24-33, March.
    11. Engers, Maxim & Gans, Joshua S, 1998. "Why Referees Are Not Paid (Enough)," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 88(5), pages 1341-1349, December.
    12. Joshua S. Gans & George B. Shepherd, 1994. "How Are the Mighty Fallen: Rejected Classic Articles by Leading Economists," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(1), pages 165-179, Winter.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    academic evaluation; bibliographic references; bibliometric indicators; citation analysis; journal ranking; opinion surveys.;

    JEL classification:

    • A14 - General Economics and Teaching - - General Economics - - - Sociology of Economics

    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:wpa:wuwpgt:0502070. 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: (EconWPA). General contact details of provider: http://econwpa.repec.org .

    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 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.

    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.