ERA's rankings of conferences and journals. JournalSeek. Journal List. JournalTOCs. Journal Rate. SciPlore. Scholars Portal Journal. Altmetric. Scimago Journal & Country Rank. SHERPA. SHERPA/RoMEO - Publisher copyright policies & self-archiving. EconBiz. Journal ranking. Journal ranking is widely used in academic circles in the evaluation of an academic journal's impact and quality. Journal rankings are intended to reflect the place of a journal within its field, the relative difficulty of being published in that journal, and the prestige associated with it.
They have been recently introduced as official research evaluation tools in some countries such as Norway, Australia and France.[1] Measures[edit] References[edit] External links[edit] Journal Citation Reports® JRG Journals. JEL classification codes. Articles in economics journals are usually classified according to the JEL classification codes, a system originated by the Journal of Economic Literature.
The JEL is published quarterly by the American Economic Association (AEA) and contains survey articles and information on recently published books and dissertations. The AEA maintains EconLit, a searchable data base of citations for articles, books, reviews, dissertations, and working papers classified by JEL codes for the years from 1969. A recent addition to EconLit is indexing of economics-journal articles from 1886 to 1968[1] parallel to the print series Index of Economic Articles.[2] There are 20 primary JEL categories: Each JEL primary category has secondary and tertiary subcategories, for example, under JEL: D – Microeconomics: JEL: D1 – Household Behavior and Family Economics JEL: D11 – Consumer Economics: Theory.[3] • National Bureau of Economic Research Working Papers abstracts by year via links Category:Economics JEL: F1 – Trade.
Impact factor. Calculation[edit] In any given year, the impact factor of a journal is the average number of citations received per paper published in that journal during the two preceding years.[1] For example, if a journal has an impact factor of 3 in 2008, then its papers published in 2006 and 2007 received 3 citations each on average in 2008. The 2008 impact factor of a journal would be calculated as follows: A = the number of times that articles published in that journal in 2006 and 2007, were cited by articles in indexed journals during 2008. B = the total number of "citable items" published by that journal in 2006 and 2007. ("Citable items" are usually articles, reviews, proceedings, or notes; not editorials or letters to the editor.) 2008 impact factor = A/B. (Note that 2008 impact factors are actually published in 2009; they cannot be calculated until all of the 2008 publications have been processed by the indexing agency.)
Use[edit] Criticisms[edit] Validity as a measure of importance[edit] H-index. G-index. The g-index is an index for quantifying scientific productivity based on publication record. It was suggested in 2006 by Leo Egghe.[1] The index is calculated based on the distribution of citations received by a given researcher's publications: Given a set of articles ranked in decreasing order of the number of citations that they received, the g-index is the (unique) largest number such that the top g articles received (together) at least g2 citations. Just as with the h-index, the g-index is a number which is the same for two different quantities: g is (1) the number of highly cited articles, such that each of them has brought (2) on average g citations.
This is in fact a rewriting of the definition as An example of a g-index (the raw citation data, plotted with stars, allows the h-index to also be extracted for comparison). In other words, this means that in order to have a g-index of n an author that produces n articles should have, on average, n citations for each of them. See also[edit] ▱ Harzing. ⎚ EBSCO. ✊ ERA. ⬛ CABS. ▱ FT. ▱ VHB. ☗ Aston. ☗ Cranfield. ☗ ESSEC. ☗ WU. ☗ ALBA. ☗ Pune. ☗ Louvain. ✌️ 0000-0175. ✌️ 0149-2063.
ERIM Journals List (EJL) The EJL consists of two sub lists: the Primary Set of ERIM journals and the Secondary Set of ERIM journals. The primary set (P journals) contains the best journals in the field of management. There is a list of such journals that cover the whole field of research in management, and there are lists for each of the domains of management represented in ERIM research programmes. A subset of the journals in the Primary Set, the so called STAR journals (P*), is considered to contain the real top ones among the best journals in the field.
These STAR journals are widely considered as truly distinctive. All the ERIM STAR journals are listed in the ISI Journal Citation Reports (JCR). A second subset of the journals in the Primary Set are not (yet) listed in the ISI Journal Citation Reports (JCR) but are expected to receive such a listing in the near future. A third subset of the journals in the Primary Set is the newly created category for Top Managerial Journals (M STAR or M*). AERES 2012. ABDC Journal Quality List 2013 · Australian Business Deans Council. CNRS 2013 — Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique. ✉️ Levy & Ellis. 2015 - (Tüselmanna et al) Towards a consolidation of worldwide journal rankings – A classification using random forests and aggregate rating via data envelopment analysis. Open Access Highlights Existing journal rankings are consolidated into an up-to-date and comprehensive list. ‘Random forests’, an advanced classification approach, and data envelopment analysis are applied.
A new look at a publication׳s place in the global research community is offered. Abstract The question of how to assess research outputs published in journals is now a global concern for academics. Numerous journal ratings and rankings exist, some featuring perceptual and peer-review-based journal ranks, some focusing on objective information related to citations, some using a combination of the two. Keywords Citation indices; Journal rankings; Journal lists; Research assessment; Data envelopment analysis 1. The ranking of academic journals is a highly contentious element of research assessment, and thus a widely debated foundation stone for the ranking of individual research outputs and university rankings [1] and [2]. Table 1. P – Perceptual rankings published in academia. Full-size table. 2009 - (Morris et al) Journal rankings and the <IT>ABS Journal Quality Guide</IT>
Author(s): Huw Morris (Manchester Metropolitan Business School, Manchester, UK) Charles Harvey (Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle, UK) Aidan Kelly (Department of Sociology, University of London, London, UK) Citation: Huw Morris, Charles Harvey, Aidan Kelly, (2009) "Journal rankings and the ABS Journal Quality Guide", , Vol. 47 Iss: 9, pp.1441 - 1451 Downloads: The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1319 times since 2009 Abstract: The purpose of this paper is to provide an outline of the arguments for and against different types of journal ranking lists, and, against this background, an account of the development of the Association of Business Schools' (ABS) Journal Quality Guide. Design/methodology/approach The paper identifies recent trends in academic journal publication that have increased the need for mechanisms to assess the overall quality of academic journals.
Research limitations/implications. 2009 - (Wu et al) Rankings of Academic Journals in Accounting, Finance, and Information System Perception from the College Chairpersons by Ji Wu, Qian Hao, Michelle Y.M. Yao. Ji Wu Institute for Financial and Accounting Studies Qian Hao Wilkes University Michelle Y.M. Yao Tulane UniversityMarch 23, 2009 International Journal of Accounting and Information Management, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 66-105, 2009 Abstract: Purpose – The purpose of this paper is report the importance of research publications for the tenure promotion and for faculty in accounting, finance, and information system (IS) areas, developing valid criteria for the assessment of quality in related journals is necessary.
Design/methodology/approach – Existing rankings are usually based on a survey among faculty members, while ignoring the chairs’ critical role in tenure evaluation. Findings – It is found that the rankings in accounting and finance areas are consistent with the prior research, but the rankings in the IS have changed significantly. Number of Pages in PDF File: 40 Keywords: Publications, Research, Accounting, Finance, Information Systems Accepted Paper Series Suggested Citation. 2007 - (Mingers & Harzing) European Journal of Information Systems - Abstract of article: Ranking journals in business and management: a statistical analysis of the Harzing data set. 2005 - (Davison et al) On Peer Review Standards For the Information Systems Literature. Abstract The quality of research published in journals is not only dependent on the work performed by authors, but also on the service undertaken by peer reviewers.
In this paper, we take a two-pronged qualitative approach to establish an integrated set of criteria for reviewers, for the reviews they produce, and for the papers they review in the IS domain. These criteria are intended to be of value to three sets of stakeholders: authors, reviewers and editors. Authors should find them useful as they write, knowing in advance how reviewers are evaluating their work; reviewers should find them useful to improve the quality of the reviews of manuscripts; editors should use them to ensure that manuscripts are well written and that reviewers performed their tasks effectively.
We discuss the implications of these criteria for the review process and identify areas for future research. Recommended Citation. 2004 - (Geary et al) Journal Rankings in Business and Management and the 2001 Research Assessment Exercise in the UK. 2003 - (Ballas & Theoharakis) Exploring Diversity in Accounting through Faculty Journal Perceptions - Ballas - 2010 - Contemporary Accounting Research. 2003 - (Axarloglou & Theoharakis) DIVERSITY IN ECONOMICS: AN ANALYSIS OF JOURNAL QUALITY PERCEPTIONS - Axarloglou - 2010 - Journal of the European Economic Association.
2003 - Ranking Journals Using Social Science Research Network Downloads. Ballas, A. and V. Theoharakis, Faculty Perceptions and Readership Patterns of Accounting Journals: A Global View. Working paper, Athens Laboratory of Business Administration, 2002.Borde, S., J. Cheney and J. Madura, “A Note on Perceptions of Finance Journal Quality. ” Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting 12(1), 89–96, (1999).Brinn, T., M. Jones and M. Pendlebury, “UK Accountants' Perceptions of Research Journal Quality. ” Accounting and Business Research 26(3), 265–278, (1996).Brown, L.
D. and J. 2002 - (Theoharakis & Hirst) Perceptual Differences of Marketing Journals: A Worldwide Perspective. 2001 - (Mylonopoulos & Theoharakis) On site: global perceptions of IS journals | September 2001. By Nikolaos A. Mylonopoulos, Vasilis Theoharakis Communications of the ACM, Vol. 44 No. 9, Pages 29-33 10.1145/383694.383701 Comments Where is the best IS research published?
The full text of this article is premium content Need Access? Please select one of the options below for access to premium content and features. Create a Web Account If you are already an ACM member, Communications subscriber, or Digital Library subscriber, please set up a web account to access premium content on this site. Join the ACM Become a member to take full advantage of ACM's outstanding computing information resources, networking opportunities, and other benefits.