Academic in-group bias in the top five economics journals

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carmela Lutmar ◽  
Yaniv Reingewertz
Keyword(s):  
2021 ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Carlos O. Trejo-Pech ◽  
Sharon V. Thach ◽  
Jada M. Thompson ◽  
John Manley

Author(s):  
Fayaz Ahmad LOAN ◽  
Refhat- UN-NISA ◽  
Asmat ALI

The main purpose of the paper is to study the publishing trends of the open access business and economics journals available in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). The online survey was conducted for collection of data and quantitative method was applied for data analysis. The data were collected from the December 10-20, 2013 about more than six hundred business and economic journals and later presented in tabular forms to reveal the findings in accordance with desired objectives. The findings show that 607 business and economics journals are listed in the DOAJ and are published fromthe 67 countries of the world. The maximum number of journals (88, 14.50%) is published from Brazil, and during the first decade (2001-2010) of the 21st century (382, 62.93%). The linguistic assessment shows that the open access business and economics journals are mostly monolingual (405, 66.72%) and the majority of these are published in English language (498, 82.04%). The results also reveal that the majority of the business and economics journals (415, 68.37%) doesn’t charge publication fees to authors whereas almost one-fourth (147, 24.22%) of the journals demand article processing charges. The study does not explore the whole World Wide Web, but only the DOAJ and therefore, figures do not represent the actual number of the open access business and economics journals available online. The study is very beneficial for the business and economics scientists, academicians, researchers, information experts and open access advocates across the globe.


2021 ◽  
Vol 50 (2) ◽  
pp. 205-215
Author(s):  
А.Ya. Rubinstein ◽  
◽  
N.A. Burakov ◽  

The paper discusses the ranking of journals based on the alternative to Scientometrics, where the basic unit of information is not the citation rate of publications, but their qualitative characteristics, obtained on the basis of the regular sociological survey of the economists’ community conducted by the “Journal of NEA” in 2020. The empirical data obtained made it possible to determine the size of the audience of each journal. The paper shows that the size of the journals’ readership has a direct impact on the respondents’ assessments of the quality of publications and scientific authority of the journals. The ranking of economics journals by each particular criterion — “Interest in Journal Publications”, “Scientific Level of Journals” and “Public Prestige of Journals” is presented. Use of the “Multiway data analysis” methodology has provided measurement not only of particular criteria that reflect hidden relations between their characteristics, but also determined the weight function of their aggregation in the aggregate ranking of journals — the “Ranking-2020”. The article also contains a comparative analysis of ranking the journals on the basis of the “Rating-2020” and re-rating of the RSCI and criticizes RSCI criteria “Science Index” and “Public Examination”.


2007 ◽  
Vol 74 (3) ◽  
pp. 439-451 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tove Faber Frandsen
Keyword(s):  

2013 ◽  
Vol 51 (1) ◽  
pp. 173-189 ◽  
Author(s):  
David I Stern

Academic economists appear to be intensely interested in rankings of journals, institutions, and individuals. Yet there is little discussion of the uncertainty associated with these rankings. To illustrate the uncertainty associated with citations-based rankings, I compute the standard error of the impact factor for all economics journals with a five-year impact factor in the 2011 Journal Citations Report. I use these to derive confidence intervals for the impact factors as well as ranges of possible rank for a subset of thirty journals. I find that the impact factors of the top two journals are well defined and set these journals apart in a clearly defined group. An elite group of 9–11 mainstream journals can also be fairly reliably distinguished. The four bottom ranked journals are also fairly clearly set apart. For the remainder of the distribution, confidence intervals overlap and rankings are quite uncertain. (JEL A14)


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document