Rankings of Economics Faculties and Representation on Editorial Boards of Top Journals

Gibbons, Jean Dickinson; Fish, Mary

doi:10.2307/1183356

Cited by 22 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This point was stressed by some empirical papers which ranked academic institutions on the basis of their representation on the editorial boards of top journals (Braun et al 2007;Gibbons and Fish 1991;Kaufman 1984); Braun and Diospatonyi (2005) proposed to rank nations according to the strength of their research systems using quantitative indicators of the presence of national editor in international journals. Interestingly, Gibbons and Fish (1991) found that there is a correlation between the ranking of institutions based on the membership of their affiliated scholars on editorial boards and those based on citations and publications in top journals. At national level Braun and Diospatonyi (2005) found similar results: the number of editors in international scientific journals is correlated with the numbers of papers and the numberg of citations.…”

Section: Editorial Boardsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interlocking editorship. A network analysis of the links between economic journals

Baccini

Barabesi

2009

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The exploratory analysis developed in this paper relies on the hypothesis that each editor possesses some power in the definition of the editorial policy of her journal. Consequently if the same scholar sits on the board of editors of two journals, those journals could have some common elements in their editorial policies. The proximity of the editorial policies of two scientific journals can be assessed by the number of common editors sitting on their boards. A database of all editors of ECONLIT journals is used. The structure of the network generated by interlocking editorship is explored by applying the instruments of network analysis. Evidence has been found of a compact network containing different components. This is interpreted as the result of a plurality of perspectives about the appropriate methods for the investigation of problems and the construction of theories within the domain of economics

show abstract

Section: Editorial Boardsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interlocking editorship. A network analysis of the links between economic journals

Baccini

Barabesi

2009

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, it should be noted that our sample does not provide a comprehensive overview of all research communities within economics. In particular, heterodox research communities embracing contested knowledge are excluded (Lee 2008 Following Gibbons and Fish (1991), the absolute number of memberships on editorial boards was calculated ( Board Membership). As the board size varies from three to 232 members (e.g., Management Science), we also …”

Section: B Samplementioning

confidence: 99%

Do Rankings Reflect Research Quality?

Frey

Rost

2008

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Publication and citation rankings have become major indicators of the scientific worth of universities and determine to a large extent the career of individual scholars. Such rankings do not effectively measure research quality, which should be the essence of any evaluation. These quantity rankings are not objective; two citation rankings, based on different samples, produce entirely different results. For that reason, an alternative ranking is developed as a quality indicator, based on membership on academic editorial boards of professional journals. It turns out that the ranking of individual scholars based on that measure is far from objective. Furthermore, the results differ markedly, depending on whether research quantity or quality is considered. Thus, career decisions based on rankings are dominated by chance and do not reflect research quality. We suggest that evaluations should rely on multiple criteria. Public management should return to approved methods such as engaging independent experts who in turn provide measurements of research quality for their research communities. Do RankingsReflect Research Quality? (mit Katja Rost) Journal of Applied Economics XIII(1) (Mai 2010): 1-38 1 DO RANKINGS REFLECT RESEARCH QUALITY? BRUNO S. FREY, KATJA ROST * University of ZurichPublication and citation rankings have become major indicators of the scientific worth of universities and determine to a large extent the career of individual scholars. Such rankings do not effectively measure research quality, which should be the essence of any evaluation. These quantity rankings are not objective; two citation rankings, based on different samples, produce entirely different results. For that reason, an alternative ranking is developed as a quality indicator, based on membership on academic editorial boards of professional journals. It turns out that the ranking of individual scholars based on that measure is far from objective. Furthermore, the results differ markedly, depending on whether research quantity or quality is considered. Thus, career decisions based on rankings are dominated by chance and do not reflect research quality. We suggest that evaluations should rely on multiple criteria. Public management should return to approved methods such as engaging independent experts who in turn provide measurements of research quality for their research communities. JEL classification codes: H43, L15, O38

show abstract

“…The method is also used by to assess research stature in international business programs. These recent studies build on prior related research by Kaufman (1984) in finance, Mittermaier (1991) and Volkan et al (1993) in accounting, and Gibbons and Fish (1991) in economics. Additionally, in an assessment of business school reputations, Trieschmann et al (2000) show that there is a correlation between annual business school rankings and editorial board memberships.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 63%