A new approach to journal ranking: social structure in hospitality and tourism journals

Abstract

Purpose This study introduces a new approach, called the social structure approach, for ranking academic journals by focusing on hospitality and tourism journals; and a hybrid metric, including the combination of the journal impact factor via citations and a social network metric, called the journal knowledge domain index (JKDI). Design/methodology/approach Twenty-five hospitality and tourism journals were selected to test this approach. Collaboration-based metrics, productivity-based metrics, and network-based metrics are considered components of the social structure approach. Additionally, a hybrid metric, including the combination of the journal impact factor via citations and a social network metric, JKDI, is developed. Findings The study’s findings show that top or leading journals have a weaker position in some social structure approach metrics compared to other (or follower) journals. However, according to the JKDI, leading journals have remained constant with the other ranking studies. Practical implications The ranking of academic journals is vital for the stakeholders of academia. Consequently, the findings of this study may help stakeholders to design an optimal ranking system and formulate and implement effective research strategies for knowledge creation and dissemination. Originality/value As one of the first in the journal-ranking literature, this study has significant implications, as it introduces a new ranking approach.

Ranking Hospitality and Tourism Journals

“…However, this study did not provide any empirical findings or actual rankings. Koseoglu (2018) introduced a novel approach that ranks hospitality and tourism journals based on the journals’ IFs and social network metrics. The approach takes into consideration the development of authorship patterns, collaboration patterns, and journal networks.…”

“…Despite the scholarly efforts expanded on the ranking practices, no commonly agreed hospitality and tourism journal ranking exists. With the exception of a few leading journals, such as Annals of Tourism Research, Tourism Management , and Journal of Travel Research , which consistently occupy the top ranks, clear distinctions exist among journals depending on the ranking methods that each study employed (Gursoy & Sandstrom, 2016; Koseoglu, 2018). Apparently, a comprehensive and accurate ranking of journals in hospitality and tourism is yet to be available.…”

“…Scholarly works also tend to rank a selective number of journals. For example, Koseoglu (2018) ranked 25 hospitality and tourism journals, whereas Law and van der Veen (2008) ranked only eight hospitality journals. McKercher et al’s (2006) work may have the widest coverage of 70 journals, but it still does not represent the full picture.…”

“…The purpose of this commentary is not to suggest a new method of ranking journals but to disapprove the heavy reliance on such rankings. While more comprehensive and balanced methods came to light recently (Koseoglu, 2018; Okumus et al, 2018) and more ranking practices will likely emerge, the implications of such methods and rankings should be carefully considered by authors and editors before their publications. The Research Excellence Framework (http://www.ref.ac.uk/) in the United Kingdom and Research Assessment Exercise (https://www.ugc.edu.hk/eng/ugc/index.html) in Hong Kong adopt a holistic approach to assess the research performance of individual scholars based on research outputs, research grants, and esteem measures.…”

Proposing researcher brand equity index in hospitality and tourism

“…There are a number of studies ranking authors or researchers in various disciplines (Bouyssou & Marchant, 2016;Li, Wang, Zhang, Lei, Ma, & Chen, 2014;Marchant, 2009;Soutar, Wilkinson, & Young, 2015;Zhou, Orshanskiy, Zha, & Giles, 2007). As shown in the journal ranking literature (Koseoglu, 2018), research on ranking individuals has generated its own literature and academic community due to the importance of individual rankings on researchers' performance appraisals and headhunting for institutions, government agencies, and publishers. These studies have focused on developing new ranking models, experimenting with these models in different disciplines, or discussing the usefulness of these models (Law, 2017;Rickman & Winters, 2016;Yang, Hong, Yin, & Davison, 2015).…”