Measuring economic journals’ citation efficiency: a data envelopment analysis approach

Abstract

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in AbstractThis paper by using Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) and statistical inference evaluates the citation performance of 229 economic journals. The paper categorizes the journals into four main categories (A to D) based on their efficiency levels. The results are then compared to the 27 "core economic journals" as introduced by Dimond (1989). The results reveal that after more than twenty years Diamonds' list of "core economic journals" is still valid. Finally, for the first time the paper uses data from four well-known databases (SSCI, Scopus, RePEc, Econlit) and two quality ranking reports (Kiel Institute internals ranking and ABS quality ranking report) in a DEA setting and in order to derive the ranking of 229 economic journals.

Uncertainty Measures for Economics Journal Impact Factors

“…A cademic economists appear to be intensely interested in rankings of journals, institutions, and individuals. This is evidenced by the popularity of the rankings provided by RePEc (Zimmermann 2009) and academic articles providing rankings for each of these categories (e.g., Coupé 2003;Kalaitzidakis, Mamuneas, and Stengos 2003;Dusanky and Vernon 1998;Laband and Piette 1994;Liebowitz and Palmer 1984;Halkos and Tzeremes 2011). Yet, with a few exceptions (Oswald 2007;Wall 2009;Halkos and Tzeremes 2011), there is little discussion of the uncertainty associated with these rankings.…”

What are the top five journals in economics? A new meta-ranking

“…For example, Chang and McAleer (2011) and Chang et al (2016), aggregate 12 and 15 different rankings, respectively, using the harmonic mean. Implicit meta-rankings, by using different approaches or data sources, can be found in Halkos and Tzeremes (2011). The authors employ a data envelopment analysis approach to measure efficiency of economics journals.…”

“…Data from GS is used only in the study by Combes and Linnemer (2010). RePEc and Scopus were utilized by Halkos and Tzeremes (2011). Beside surveys, as a measure of the perceived journal quality, citations are still the most important basis for the quality measurement.…”

Research Productivity in Management Schools of India: A Directional Benefit-of-Doubt Model Analysis

“…Authors working on niche areas get cited less [30]. Worse, citation counts may at times be more a fashion within the academic community than a true indicator of the impact of the journal [47][48][49][50]. Citation-based analyses can also be biased due to selective citations or self-and mutual citations which render the association between the quality of a journal and that of an individual article in it rather uninformative [50][51][52].…”