|
on Sociology of Economics |
| By: | Chang, C-L.; McAleer, M.J. |
| Abstract: | __Abstract__ The paper is concerned with ranking academic journal quality and research impact in Finance, based on the widely-used Thomson Reuters ISI (2013) Web of Science citations database (hereafter ISI). The paper analyses the 89 leading international journals in the ISI category of “Business – Finance” using quantifiable Research Assessment Measures (RAMs). The analysis highlights the similarities and differences in various RAMs, all of which are based on alternative transformations of journal citations and impact. Alternative RAMs may be calculated annually or updated daily to determine the citations frequency of published papers that are cited in journals listed in ISI. The RAMs include 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 including journal self citations, Eigenfactor (or Journal Influence), Article Influence, h-index, PI-BETA (Papers Ignored - By Even The Authors), Self-citation Threshold Approval Rating (STAR), 5YD2 (namely, 5YIF divided by 2YIF), Escalating Self Citations (ESC), and ICQ (Index of Citation Quality). The paper calculates the harmonic mean of the ranks of up to 16 RAMs. It is shown that emphasizing 2YIF to the exclusion of other informative RAMs can lead to a misleading evaluation of journal quality and impact relative to the harmonic mean of the ranks. The analysis of the 89 ISI journals in Finance makes it clear that there are three leading journals in Finance, namely Journal of Finance, Journal of Financial Economics and Review of Financial Studies, which form an exclusive club in terms of the RAMs that measure journal quality and impact based on alternative measures of journal citations. The next two journals in Finance in terms of overall quality and impact are Journal of Accounting and Economics and Journal of Monetary Economics. |
| Keywords: | Research assessment measures, Impact factor, IFI, C3PO, PI-BETA, STAR, Eigenfactor, Article Influence, h-index, 5YD2, ICQ, ESC, harmonic mean of the ranks, finance, journal rankings |
| JEL: | C10 C81 Y10 |
| Date: | 2014–05–01 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:ems:eureir:51744&r=sog |
| By: | Hottenrott, Hanna; Lawson, Cornelia (University of Turin) |
| Abstract: | Academic researchers face mobility related decisions throughout their careers. We study the importance of team and organisational characteristics of the home departments for career choices of departing researchers in the fields of science and engineering at higher education institutions in Germany. We find that the organisational environments–the nests–shape career paths. Research funding, research performance in terms of patents and publications as well as the industry ties of department heads shape job choices. In particular, public research grants increase the probability that departing researchers take a research job at a university or public research centre, while grants from industry increase the likelihood that they take a job in industry. Publication performance of the department head relates to R&D jobs in public, but not in industry and patents predict the probability that departing researchers will move to small and medium-sized firms. For these firms seeking technological knowledge from former university employees may be particularly crucial. Academic start-ups are more likely to be a job destination for departing researchers from technical universities, from departments with higher publication output and with a research focus on experimental development. |
| Date: | 2014–07 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:uto:labeco:201409&r=sog |
| By: | Andrea Bonaccorsi (DESTEC, University of Pisa, Italy); Cinzia Daraio (Department of Computer, Control and Management Engineering, Universita' degli Studi di Roma "La Sapienza") |
| Abstract: | The need for new indicators on universities is growing as governments and decision makers at all levels are faced with the huge opportunities generated by new knowledge, but at the same time are pressed hard by budget constraints. University rankings are attracting policy and media attention, but at the same time receive harsh methodological criticism. After reviewing the critical literature on rankings, we suggest that a change in the paradigm of design and production of indicators is needed. The traditional approach is one that leverages on existing data but also suggests heavy investment to integrate existing databases and build up tailored indicators. We show how the intelligent integration of existing data may lead to an open linked data platform that permits the construction of new indicators. The power of the approach derives from the ability to combine heterogeneous sources of data in order to derive indicators that address a variety of user needs,without designing the indicators on a custom basis. |
| Keywords: | university; rankings; indicators design; data integration |
| Date: | 2014 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:aeg:report:2014-12&r=sog |