Uncertainty Measures for Economics Journal Impact Factors

Stern, David I.

doi:10.1257/jel.51.1.173

Cited by 64 publications

(47 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These differences may be due to: (1) a delayed update of the database (the IPPs were published by Scopus in June 2015), and (2) a larger set of citing sources and documents (with Scopus, it is not possible to limit the citation report to particular citing sources or documents). Similar differences between official and observed values have been found and discussed, for instance, by Leydesdorff and Opthof (2010), Stern (2013) and Seiler and Wohlrabe (2014). Nonetheless, in this case the ACPP should, theoretically, represent a 3-year synchronous impact factor for the year 2014 (Ingwersen et al 2001; Ingwersen 2012) in that we considered only citations received during 2014 of papers published within the previous 3 years.…”

Section: Two Empirical Studiessupporting

confidence: 88%

A theoretical model of the relationship between the h-index and other simple citation indicators

Barsotti

Lando

2017

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Of the existing theoretical formulas for the h-index, those recently suggested by Burrell (J Informetr 7:774–783, 2013b) and by Bertoli-Barsotti and Lando (J Informetr 9(4):762–776, 2015) have proved very effective in estimating the actual value of the h-index Hirsch (Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102:16569–16572, 2005), at least at the level of the individual scientist. These approaches lead (or may lead) to two slightly different formulas, being based, respectively, on a “standard” and a “shifted” version of the geometric distribution. In this paper, we review the genesis of these two formulas—which we shall call the “basic” and “improved” Lambert-W formula for the h-index—and compare their effectiveness with that of a number of instances taken from the well-known Glänzel–Schubert class of models for the h-index (based, instead, on a Paretian model) by means of an empirical study. All the formulas considered in the comparison are “ready-to-use”, i.e., functions of simple citation indicators such as: the total number of publications; the total number of citations; the total number of cited paper; the number of citations of the most cited paper. The empirical study is based on citation data obtained from two different sets of journals belonging to two different scientific fields: more specifically, 231 journals from the area of “Statistics and Mathematical Methods” and 100 journals from the area of “Economics, Econometrics and Finance”, totaling almost 100,000 and 20,000 publications, respectively. The citation data refer to different publication/citation time windows, different types of “citable” documents, and alternative approaches to the analysis of the citation process (“prospective” and “retrospective”). We conclude that, especially in its improved version, the Lambert-W formula for the h-index provides a quite robust and effective ready-to-use rule that should be preferred to other known formulas if one’s goal is (simply) to derive a reliable estimate of the h-index.

show abstract

Section: Two Empirical Studiessupporting

confidence: 88%

A theoretical model of the relationship between the h-index and other simple citation indicators

Barsotti

Lando

2017

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The results found were consistent with common knowledge -the most influential journals included the American Economic Review, Econometrica and the Journal of Political Economy. Recently, several similar studies have been developed (Card and DellaVigna 2013;Laband 2013;Stern 2013). Some other studies have analysed the influence of authors and institutions (Autor 2012;Kocher and Sutter 2001;Süssmuth et al 2006).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accounting Research: A Bibliometric Analysis

Merigó

Yang

2016

Australian Accounting Review

178

126

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bibliometrics is a fundamental field of information science that studies bibliographic material quantitatively. It is very useful for organising available knowledge within a specific scientific discipline. This study presents a bibliometric overview of accounting research using the Web of Science database, identifying the most relevant research in the field classified by papers, authors, journals, institutions and countries. The results show that the most influential journals are: The Journal of Accounting and Economics, Journal of Accounting Research, The Accounting Review and Accounting, Organizations and Society. It also shows that US institutions are the most influential worldwide. However, it is important to note that some very good research in this area, including a small number of papers and citations, may not show up in this study due to the specific characteristics of different subtopics.

show abstract

“…So whilst all would likely agree on which journals make up the top six or so, beyond that the correlation between studies falls sharply. This is made even clearer by noting the rankings of our journals in Stern (2013), who computed standard errors for the 5-year impact factors for 230 journals in the 2011 Journal Citations report 14 We have included these rankings in the fourth column of Table 2. Whilst these rankings are based on a short citation window, there are nevertheless substantial differences of opinion between our list and the rankings in Stern (2013).…”

Section: The World's Best Economics Journalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…25 This could be viewed as cause for concern given that none of the three Australian journal rankings studies discussed above ranked this journal as A*. Also, neither Pieters and Baumgartner (2002) nor Kim et al (2006) included this journal in their list of top journals, whilst Stern (2013) ranked it at only 190. Other important outlets for Australian economics research include Journal of Economic Behavior and Organisation (7 per cent of Australian articles), Journal of Econometrics (7 per cent) and Journal of Health Economics (6.4 per cent).…”

Section: Australia's Contribution To the World's Bestmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Contribution of Australian Academia to the World's Best Economics Research: 2001 to 2010

Neri

Rodgers

2014

Economic Record

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We investigate the output of top economics research by Australian academics from 2001 to 2010. By constructing a unique database of 26,219 publications in 45 top journals, we compare Australia's output internationally, determine whether Australia's output increased, and rank Australian universities based on their output. We find that Australia's output, in absolute and relative terms, and controlling for differences in page size and journal quality, increased and, on a per capita basis, is converging to the levels of the most research‐intensive countries. Finally, we find that the historical dominance of the top four universities is diminishing.

show abstract

Uncertainty Measures for Economics Journal Impact Factors

Cited by 64 publications

References 40 publications

A theoretical model of the relationship between the h-index and other simple citation indicators

A theoretical model of the relationship between the h-index and other simple citation indicators

Accounting Research: A Bibliometric Analysis

The Contribution of Australian Academia to the World's Best Economics Research: 2001 to 2010

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About