|
on Sociology of Economics |
| By: | Chia-Lin Chang (National Chung Hsing University, Taiwan); Michael McAleer (National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan; Erasmus University Rotterdam, the Netherlands; and Complutense University of Madrid, Spain) |
| 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: | C18 C81 Y10 |
| Date: | 2014–05–23 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:tin:wpaper:20140062&r=sog |
| By: | Chia-Lin Chang (National Chung Hsing University, Taiwan); Michael McAleer (College of Technology Management, National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan; Econometric Institute, Erasmus University Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Complutense University of Madrid, Spain) |
| Abstract: | See also the article in the <I>Review of Economics</I> (2014). Volume 65(1), pages 35-52.<P> The paper analyses academic journal quality and impact using quality weighted citations that are based on the widely-used Thomson Reuters ISI Web of Science citations database (ISI). A recently developed Index of Citations Quality (ICQ), based on quality weighted citations, is used to analyse the top 276 Economics and top 10 Econometrics journals in the ISI Economics category using alternative quantifiable Research Assessment Measures (RAMs). It is shown that ICQ is a useful additional measure to the 2-Year Impact Factor (2YIF) and other well known RAMs available in ISI for the purpose of evaluating journal impact and quality, as well as ranking, of Economics and Econometrics journals as it contains information that has very low correlations with the information contained in alternative well-known RAMs. Among other findings, the top Econometrics journals have some of the highest ICQ scores in the ISI category of Economics. |
| Keywords: | Research assessment measures, Impact factors, Eigenfactor, Article Influence, Quality weighted citations, Index of citations quality, Economics journal rankings |
| JEL: | C18 C81 Y10 |
| Date: | 2014–02–25 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:tin:wpaper:20140026&r=sog |
| By: | Chia-Lin Chang (National Chung Hsing University, Taiwan); Michael McAleer (National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan; Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands; Complutense University of Madrid, Spain) |
| Abstract: | See also the article in <I>Econometrics</I> (2013). Volume 1(3), pages 217-235.<P> The paper focuses on the robustness of rankings of academic journal quality and research impact of 10 leading econometrics journals taken from the Thomson Reuters ISI Web of Science (ISI) Category of Economics, using citations data from ISI and the highly accessible Research Papers in Economics (RePEc) database that is widely used in economics, finance and related disciplines. The journals are ranked using quantifiable static and dynamic Research Assessment Measures (RAMs), with 15 RAMs from ISI and 5 RAMs from RePEc. The similarities and differences in various RAMs, which are based on alternative weighted and unweighted transformations of citations, are highlighted to show which RAMs are able to provide informational value relative to others. The RAMs include the impact factor, mean citations and non-citations, journal policy, number of high quality papers, and journal influence and article influence. The paper highlight robust rankings based on the harmonic mean of the ranks of 20 RAMs, which in some cases are closely related. It is shown that emphasizing the most widely-used RAM, the 2-year impact factor of a journal, can lead to a distorted evaluation of journal quality, impact and influence relative to the harmonic mean of the ranks. |
| Keywords: | Research assessment measures, citations, impact, influence, harmonic mean, robust journal rankings, econometrics |
| JEL: | C18 C81 Y10 |
| Date: | 2013–10–18 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:tin:wpaper:20130173&r=sog |
| By: | Chia-Lin Chang (National Chung Hsing University); Esfandiar Maasoumi (Emory University); Michael McAleer (Erasmus University Rotterdam, Complutense University of Madrid, Kyoto University) |
| Abstract: | The paper focuses on the robustness of rankings of academic journal quality and research impact in general, and in Economics, in particular, based on the widely-used Thomson Reuters ISI Web of Science citations database (ISI). The paper analyses 299 leading international journals in Economics using quantifiable Research Assessment Measures (RAMs), and highlights the similarities and differences in various RAMs, which are based on alternative transformations of citations and influence. All existing RAMs to date have been static, so two new dynamic RAMs are developed to capture changes in impact factor over time and escalating journal self citations. Alternative RAMs may be calculated annually or updated daily to determine When, Where and How (frequently) published papers are cited (see Chang et al. (2011a, b, c)). The RAMs are grouped in four distinct classes that include impact factor, mean citations and non-citations, journal policy, number of high quality papers, and journal influence and article influence. These classes include the most widely used RAMs, namely 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), Eigenfactor (or Journal Influence), Article Influence, h-index, and PI-BETA (Papers Ignored - By Even The Authors). As all existing RAMs to date have been static, two new dynamic RAMs are developed to capture changes in impact factor over time (5YD2 = 5YIF/2YIF) and Escalating Self Citations. We highlight robust rankings based on the harmonic mean of the ranks of RAMs across the 4 classes. It is shown that emphasizing the 2-year impact factor of a journal, which partly answers the question as to When published papers are cited, to the exclusion of other informative RAMs, which answer Where and How (frequently) published papers are cited, can lead to a distorted evaluation of journal quality, impact and influence relative to the harmonic mean of the ranks. |
| Keywords: | Research assessment measures, Impact factor, IFI, C3PO, PI-BETA, STAR, Eigenfactor, Article Influence, h-index, 5YD2, ESC, harmonic mean of the ranks, economics, journal rankings |
| JEL: | C18 C81 Y10 |
| Date: | 2013–06–20 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:tin:wpaper:20130081&r=sog |
| By: | Chia-Lin Chang (National Chung Hsing University, Taiwan); Michael McAleer (National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan, Erasmus University Rotterdam, the Netherlands, and Complutense University of Madrid, Spain) |
| Abstract: | The premise underlying the use of citations data is that higher quality journals generally have a higher number of citations. The impact of citations can be distorted in a number of ways. Journals can, and do, inflate the number of citations through self citation practices, which may be coercive. Another method for distorting journal impact is through a set of journals agreeing to cite each other, that is, by exchanging citations. This may be less coercive than self citations, but is nonetheless unprofessional and distortionary. Both journal self citations and exchanged citations have the effect of increasing a journal’s impact factor, which may be deceptive. The paper analyses academic journal quality and research impact using quality weighted citations versus total citations, based on the widely-used Thomson Reuters ISI Web of Science citations database (ISI). A new Index of Citations Quality (ICQ) is presented, based on quality weighted citations. The new index is used to analyse the leading 500 journals in both the Sciences and Social Sciences, as well as 58 leading journals in Finance and Accounting, using quantifiable Research Assessment Measures (RAMs) that are based on alternative transformations of citations. It is shown that ICQ is a useful additional measure to 2YIF and other well known RAMs for the purpose of evaluating the impact and quality, as well as ranking, of journals as it contains information that has very low correlations with the information contained in the well known RAMs for both the Sciences and Social Sciences, as well as in Finance and Accounting. |
| Keywords: | Research assessment measures, Impact factors, Eigenfactor, Article Influence, Quality weighted citations, Total citations, Index of citations quality, Journal rankings, Self citations, Coercive citations, Exchanged citations |
| JEL: | C18 C81 Y10 |
| Date: | 2015–01–13 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:tin:wpaper:20150005&r=sog |
| By: | Chia-Lin Chang (National Chung Hsing University, Taiwan); Michael McAleer (National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan; Erasmus University Rotterdam, the Netherlands; and Complutense University of Madrid, Spain) |
| Abstract: | The paper analyses academic journal quality and research impact using quality weighted citations versus total citations, based on the widely-used Thomson Reuters ISI Web of Science citations database (ISI). A new Index of Citations Quality (ICQ) is presented, based on quality weighted citations. The new index is used to analyse the leading 500 journals in both the Sciences and Social Sciences using quantifiable Research Assessment Measures (RAMs) that are based on alternative transformations of citations. It is shown that ICQ is a useful additional measure to 2YIF and other well known RAMs for the purpose of evaluating the impact and quality, as well as ranking, of journals as it contains information that has very low correlations with the information contained in the well known RAMs for both the Sciences and Social Sciences. |
| Keywords: | Research assessment measures, Impact factors, Eigenfactor, Article Influence, Quality weighted citations, Total citations, Index of citations quality, Journal rankings. |
| JEL: | C18 C81 Y10 |
| Date: | 2014–02–24 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:tin:wpaper:20140023&r=sog |
| By: | Chia-Lin Chang (National Chung Hsing University, Taiwan); Michael McAleer (National Tsing Hua University, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Complutense University of Madrid, Spain) |
| Abstract: | Virtually all rankings of journals are based on citations, including self citations by journals and individual academics. The gold standard for bibliometric rankings based on citations data is the widely-used Thomson Reuters Web of Science (2014) citations database, which publishes, among others, the celebrated Impact Factor. However, there are numerous bibliometric measures, also known as research assessment measures, based on the Thomson Reuters citations database, but they do not all seem to have been collected in a single source. The purpose of this paper is to present, define and compare the 16 most well-known Thomson Reuters bibliometric measures in a single source. It is important that the existing bibliometric measures be presented in any rankings papers as alternative bibliometric measures based on the Thomson Reuters citations database can and do produce different rankings, as has been documented in a number of papers in the bibliometrics literature. |
| Keywords: | Research assessment measures, Impact factors, Bibliometric measures |
| JEL: | C18 C81 Y10 |
| Date: | 2015–03–31 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:tin:wpaper:20150044&r=sog |
| By: | Nalan Basturk (Erasmus University Rotterdam); Cem Cakmakli (Koc University, Turkey); S. Pinar Ceyhan (Erasmus University Rotterdam); Herman K. van Dijk (Erasmus University Rotterdam, the Netherlands) |
| Abstract: | This paper starts with a brief description of the introduction of the likelihood approach in econometrics as presented in Cowles Foundation Monographs 10 and 14. A sketch is given of the criticisms on this approach mainly from the first group of Bayesian econometricians. Publication and citation patterns of Bayesian econometric papers are analyzed in ten major econometric journals from the late 1970s until the first few months of 2014. Results indicate a cluster of journals with theoretical and applied papers, mainly consisting of <I>Journal of Econometrics</I>, <I>Journal of Business and Economic Statistics</I> and <I>Journal of Applied Econometrics</I> which contains the large majority of high quality Bayesian econometric papers. A second cluster of theoretical journals, mainly consisting of <I>Econometrica</I> and <I>Review of Economic Studies</I> contains few Bayesian econometric papers. The scientific impact, however, of these few papers on Bayesian econometric research is substantial. Special issues from the journals <I>Econometric Reviews</I>, <I>Journal of Econometrics</I> and <I>Econometric Theory</I> received wide attention. <I>Marketing Science</I> shows an ever increasing number of Bayesian papers since the middle nineties. The <I>International Economic Review</I> and the <I>Review of Economics and Statistics</I> show a moderate time varying increase. An upward movement in publication patterns in most journals occurs in the early 1990s due to the effect of the 'Computational Revolution'. … More abstract in the paper. |
| Keywords: | History, Bayesian Econometrics |
| JEL: | C01 |
| Date: | 2014–07–08 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:tin:wpaper:20140085&r=sog |
| By: | Nalan Basturk (Erasmus University Rotterdam); Cem Cakmakli (University of Amsterdam); S. Pinar Ceyhan (Erasmus University Rotterdam); Herman K. van Dijk (Erasmus University Rotterdam) |
| Abstract: | After a brief description of the first Bayesian steps into econometrics in the 1960s and early 70s, publication and citation patterns are analyzed in ten major econometric journals until 2012. The results indicate that journals which contain both theoretical and applied papers, such as Journal of Econometrics, Journal of Business and Economic Statistics and Journal of Applied Econometrics, publish the large majority of high quality Bayesian econometric papers in contrast to theoretical journals like Econometrica and the Review of Economic Studies. These latter journals published, however, a few papers that had a substantial impact on Bayesian research. The journals Econometric Reviews and Econometric Theory published key invited papers and special issues that received wide attention, while Marketing Science shows an ever increasing number of papers since the middle n ineties. The International Economic Review and the Review of Economics and Statistics show a moderate time varying increase. The early nineties indicate an upward movement in publication patterns in most journals probably due to the effect of the ‘Computational Revolution'. Next, a visualization technique is used to connect papers and authors around important theoretical and empirical themes such as forecasting, macro models, marketing models, model uncertainty and sampling algorithms. The information distilled from this analysis shows the names of authors who contribute substantially to particular themes. This is followed by a discussion of those topics that pose interesting challenges for discussion amongst Bayesian econometricians, namely the computational revolution, unobserved component and flexible model structures, choice models, IV models, dynamic models and forecasting. Three issues are summarized where Bayesian and frequentist econometricians differ: Identification, the value of prior information and model evaluation; dynamic inference and nonstationarity; and vector autoregressive versus structural modeling. A major topic of debate amongst Bayesian econometricians is listed as objective versus subjective econometrics and communication problems and bridges between statistics and econometrics are summarized. The paper ends with a list of four important themes that will be a challenge for twenty-first century Bayesian econometrics: Sampling methods which are suitable for parallelization and GPU calculations, complex economic models which can account for nonlinearities, analysis of implied model features such as risk and instability and incorporating model incompleteness in econometric analysis. |
| Keywords: | History, Bayesian Econometrics |
| JEL: | C01 |
| Date: | 2013–11–03 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:tin:wpaper:20130191&r=sog |
| By: | Sanna Nivakoski (UCD Geary Institute for Public Policy); Philip O'Connell (UCD Geary Institute for Public Policy); Mark Hargaden (UCD Geary Institute for Public Policy) |
| Abstract: | University staff frequently engage in Public Service Activities (PSAs), over and above their core roles, making a valuable contribution to society and the economy, although little is known about such activity. This study examines the extent of PSA among university staff - both academic and non-academic. The data come from a survey carried out in 2014 of the staff of University College Dublin (UCD), an Irish research university with a wide disciplinary coverage. The survey collected information about whether staff have taken part in PSAs and the amount of time spent engaging in these activities. Overall, 59 per cent of UCD academics and senior administrative staff report having taken part in PSAs over the past 12 months. The most common type of PSA is public engagement which encompasses talks, lectures and involvement in public debate through various media. Academic staff are much more likely than administrative staff to engage in PSA, but there is a significant contribution also from senior administrative staff. PSA engagement varies by discipline (with Arts and Humanities staff having the highest rates of PSA), by seniority and by length of tenure. Among those who have taken part in PSAs, the mean total yearly number of hours engaged in these activities is 167, ranging from 122 hours among researchers to 218 hours among professors. We estimate that all academics and senior administrators at UCD contributed over 150,000 hours in PSA over the course of the 2013-14 academic year, with an estimated value of nearly €11.5 million. |
| Date: | 2015–04–21 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:ucd:wpaper:201504&r=sog |