Journal Ranking

In this paper, citation analysis of the doctoral dissertations of the Electronics and Communication Engineering (E.C.E.) department of National Institute of Technology Durgapur (N.I.T. Durgapur), West Bengal, India, were analysed to understand the citation trends of the scholars. For this study, 47 doctoral dissertations available in the library are chosen as the study sample. These dissertations contain 6476 references referred from different kinds of literature. Journals are the most preferred literature with 3934 (60.75%) of the whole, followed by conference proceedings with 1572 (24.27%) and books with 675 (10.44%) references. 231 (3.57%) were referred from other resources, while 64 (0.99) could not find. IEEE has received maximum journal citations to 1572 (39.96%) of the total journals' citations followed by Elsevier B.V. and American Physical Society to 413 (10.50%) and 222 (5.64%) respectively. The rest of the journals references were from other publishers. Scholars cited 754 journals out of these IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation has received maximum occurrence to 337 followed by Physical Review B - Condensed Matter and Materials Physics by A.P.S. and Electronics Letters by I.E.T. to 108 and 107 times respectively. The U.S.A. is the top publishing country with 318 Publications. Followed by the United Kingdom, Netherlands & India with 134, 94,44 & 40 publications, respectively.

In this Research Commentary, we describe 3 journal metrics–the Web of Science's Impact Factor, Scopus's SCImago Journal Rank, and Google Scholar Metrics' h5-index—and compile the rankings (if they exist) for 69 mathematics education journals. We then discuss 2 paths that the mathematics education community should consider with regard to these citation-based metrics of journal quality: either working within the system to enhance our positioning or resisting or modifying the system itself.

This  survey  of  marketing  professionals’  readership  and  ratings  of  marketing-related journals/publications was conducted to compare their reading behavior and opinions with those from
past surveys of marketing academics. Although many professionals do read the academic journals and rate  them  much  like  academics,  most  professionals  read  more  frequently  and  rate  more  highly  marketing-related  news  publications  than  the  journals  academics  tend  to  esteem.  This  information
should be useful for business schools wishing to encourage marketing faculty to place more emphasis on  applied  research  and  is  indispensable  for  journal  editors  who  wish  to disseminate  knowledge effectively to practitioners.

It has become a common trend among academic professionals to check listing/ranking of academic journals in recognized journal ranking/quality lists before submitting their articles for review and possible publication. In addition, professional research evaluation committees in universities often consult many quality journals ranking lists. Although a majority of scholars/institutions consider for-profit indexing/abstracting databases like SSCI, SCI, Scopus, IBSS, PsycINFO etc. to assess quality of journals, this article focuses on the not-for-profit academic journal quality/ranking lists developed by various institutions or governments. This editorial presents a review of select journal quality lists produced by not-for-profit organizations because academic products developed by for-profit companies always reflect some degree of bias (Krimsky, 2013). Therefore, the lists/rankings like Clarivate Analytics (formerly Thomson Reuters) journal ranking, Cabell’s journals list, SCImago journal ranking (although it is free but it harvests data from for-profit database Scopus) will be excluded.

Increasingly, academics have to demonstrate that their research has academic impact. Universities normally use journal rankings and journal impact factors to assess the research impact of individual academics. More recently, citation counts for individual articles and the h-index have also been used to measure the academic impact of academics. There are, however, several serious problems with relying on journal rankings, journal impact factors and citation counts. For example, articles without any impact may be published in highly ranked journals or journals with high impact factor, whereas articles with high impact could be published in lower ranked journals or journals with low impact factor. Citation counts can also be easily gamed and manipulated and the h-index disadvantages early career academics. This paper discusses these and several other problems and suggests alternatives such as post-publication peer review and open-access journals.

This is a guide on choosing the right journal and conference for publishing a scholarly paper. All journal finders from different databases have been introduced; then recognizing the journal rank, journal impact factor, SJR, through Scopus and Clarivate Analytics and some other places have been explained; at the end, the characteristics of predatory, fake and hijacked journals have been presented. At the end ways to avoid fake conferences have been introduced.

It is 2018 and the year has started very, very well for the Journal of Marketing Management (JMM). The quality of the material that we publish is excellent and continues to improve; the citation rate of the JMM is constantly rising; and this has been registered. To get to the point, the JMM has just been accepted into the Clarivate
Analytics Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI). Put simply, this means that the JMM will receive an impact factor in due course.

This 2016 edition of the “top bioethics journals and articles” list includes updated rankings for bioethics journals and new citation metrics for articles published in 2015, as well as updates for previous years’ top articles. This is an updated citation analysis for 2011 through 2015 of the top 100 bioethics journals. I’ve included the top 50 journals and the top cited articles per year including the h5 ranking.  Just over 20,000 articles were analyzed in this dataset, shared here as a spreadsheet.

In this paper, we engage with the rising importance of journal
ranking lists. We explore the pressure these place on marketing
academics and the politics of knowledge production, stressing
academic game-playing, careerism, and paradigmatic homogeneity.
We appreciate that scholars are disciplined by these lists, their
line managers, and reaffirm list power through their own patterns of self-management. Nonetheless, marketing academics should avoid making the naïve assumption that the appearance of a paper in a highly rated journal necessarily serves as a proxy for ‘quality’. Publication in a particular outlet does not transform the ultimate contribution being made in any substantive fashion. We provide an extensive critique of the function and impact of journal lists. However, it is also recognised that these are very important for members of the marketing community. As such, we explain our reasons for contesting the recent regrading of the Journal of Marketing Management (JMM) by a prominent journal list and underline the changes that have been made to the Journal since
the beginning of the current editorial term. Finally, the support of prominent scholars among our thought community for the policies being implemented is highlighted and we underscore the rigour of contributions to the Journal, the review process, the rising citations, downloads and truly global readership of the JMM.

This study, based on systematic review and meta-analysis, aimed to collect and analyze evidence on correlation between perception-based journal rankings and the most popular citation-based measure, Thomson Reuters Journal Impact Factor (JIF). A search was conducted in the Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases. After the screening of titles, abstracts, and full text, 18 articles were selected as eligible for review and analysis. The included studies belonged to various subject areas in social sciences, science, and technology. The correlation coefficients found in most of the studies were statistically significant in a positive direction. The heterogeneity test was positive. Therefore, the random-effect method of meta-analysis was applied. The value of pooled correlation coefficient indicated a moderate positive relationship between two methods of assessing the quality of academic journals. The absence of a high correlation makes decision making based on a single ranking method dangerous. Therefore, a hybrid approach for journal assessment is recommended.

Changes are occurring in scholarly communication as scientific discourse and research activities spread across various social media platforms. In this paper, we study altmetrics on the article and journal levels, investigating whether the online attention received by research articles is related to scholarly impact or may be due to other factors. We define a new metric, Journal Social Impact (JSI), based on eleven data sources: CiteULike, Mendeley, F1000, blogs, Twitter, Facebook, mainstream news outlets, Google Plus, Pinterest, Reddit, and sites running Stack Exchange (Q&A). We compare JSI against diverse citation-based metrics, and find that JSI significantly correlates with a number of them. These findings indicate that online attention of scholarly articles is related to traditional journal rankings and favors journals with a longer history of scholarly impact. We also find that journal-level altmetrics have strong significant correlations among themselves, compared with the weak correlations among article-level altmetrics. Another finding is that Mendeley and Twitter have the highest usage and coverage of scholarly activities. Among individual altmetrics, we find that the readership of academic social networks have the highest correlations with citation-based metrics. Our findings deepen the overall understanding of altmetrics and can assist in validating them.

Journal impact factor (IF) as a gauge of influence and impact of a particular journal comparing with other journals in the same area of research, reports the mean number of citations to the published articles in particular journal. Although, IF attracts more attention and being used more frequently than other measures, it has been subjected to criticisms, which overcome the advantages of IF. Critically, extensive use of IF may result in destroying editorial and researchers behaviour, which could compromise the quality of scientific articles. Therefore, it is the time of the timeliness and importance of a new invention of journal ranking techniques beyond the journal impact factor.

This report presents a review of the statistical practices of 30 journals representative of the second language field. A review of 150 articles showed a number of prevalent statistical violations including incomplete reporting of reliability, validity, non-significant results, effect sizes, and assumption checks as well as making inferences from descriptive statistics and failing to correct for multiple comparisons. Scopus citation analysis metrics and whether a journal is SSCI-indexed were predictors of journal statistical quality. No clear evidence was obtained to favor the newly introduced CiteScore over SNIP or SJR. Implications of the results are discussed.

Information systems (IS) has a well-known tradition of being multi-disciplinary. IS research has been published in a diversity of outlets. As the discipline has evolved, there have been several scientometric studies aimed at identifying and ranking a core set of high quality IS-centric journals. This effort has spawned additional investigations aimed at profiling IS research in different regions and countries across the globe. The purpose of this study is to add to the body of knowledge in this domain by investigating the international visibility of South African IS research. The scope of the study was limited to investigating journal publications. The approach used was to identify from the literature a basket of IS-centric journals ranked as the top set in the field. The affiliations of authors in these journals for the period 2003 to 2007 were examined, and South African-authored publications identified. The analysis revealed that South African-affiliated authors have published in only a small portion of these IS-centric journals. The total number of articles published has also been small. These findings may explain why South African IS research has been perceived as largely unknown by the international IS academic community. This is despite numerous publications in outlets outside of the commonly ranked IS-centric journal set. If South African IS researchers are to increase international visibility, one strategy is to explicitly target the commonly accepted top-ranked IS-centric journals. Other strategies for achieving this are proffered in this paper, and ideas for future research are put forward.

The evaluation of scientific output has a key role in the allocation of research funds and academic positions. Decisions are often based on quality indicators for academic journals and over the years a handful of scoring methods have been proposed for this purpose. Discussing the most prominent methods (de facto standards) we show that they do not distinguish quality from quantity at article level. The systematic bias we find is analytically tractable and implies that the methods are manipulable. We introduce modified methods that correct for this bias, and use them to provide rankings of economic journals. Our methodology is transparent; our results are replicable.

Studies have found Educational Studies in Mathematics (ESM) and the Journal for Research in Mathematics Education (JRME) to be more highly regarded by mathematics education scholars than the other journals. However, these survey studies provide only a snapshot in time, and only from a subset of the researchers in the field. Scholarly databases, such as the Social Science Citation Index, keep a current list of journals that can be helpful for scholars to see the reputation of journals in their field. This can be helpful, since researchers usually know intimately only a subset, which might introduce regional bias or impartial comparisons based only on second-hand experience with some journals. Additionally, these databases are updated yearly. This article presents our research study in analyzing the current status of journal rankings in mathematics education, focused on the following question: To what extent do journal rankings and representation change over time, in particular the years 2010 – 2013?

Los objetivos de este estudio son caracterizar las revistas latinoamericanas indexadas en Scopus, Journal Citation Reports (JCR), y Latindex dentro del área de los recursos naturales, y explicar las diferencias observadas entre países a través de variables económicas, de inversión en investigación y medio ambientales. Como resultado se obtiene que el número de revistas latinoamericanas indexadas tanto en Scopus como en JCR se ha incrementado considerablemente durante la última década, aunque estas revistas tienen un índice de impacto bajo. El hecho de que un país tenga revistas indexadas en Scopus, y un mayor número de revistas en Latindex está relacionado con variables económicas y no con la riqueza de los recursos naturales que alberga un país.

The paper emerges from extensive and in-depth reflection on being an academic. It illustrates the benefits of economy of expression, which, besides producing a paper that is shorter than the abstract, focuses attention on a certain academic mode of being and the accompanying sensibility. A perusal of many sources (well, mainly Nick and Sverre) reveals that academics are playing a game that masters them and have more capital in gaming skills than in scholarship. They can rapidly be excellent and then ex-excellent. They become “excellent” academics through chance, freaks of circumstance, a mix of networking and nepotism, doing deals with mates, tailoring their work to meet expectations, creating self-serving entities, self-publishing, forsaking a normal life, stifling their imaginations, limiting their expressions of thought, licking the asses of their employers, accepting being colonized, selfplagiarizing, prostituting themselves, knowingly producing work that they think is disgustin...

KTI/IE Discussion Papers are circulated to promote discussion and provoque comments. Any references to discussion papers should clearly state that the paper is preliminary. Materials published in this series may subject to further publication.

The quality of academic journals can be assessed in several ways—through acceptance rates, prestige of editors and editorial board members, and a track record of publishing landmark studies in a field. • One of the most important characteristics of a journal is the impact its contents make on subsequent scholarship as measured by citations. In the modern age of technology and “big data,” it is now easier than ever to generate a publication’s citation count—that is, how many times it has been cited by other peer-reviewed publications (Garfield, 1963). • The sources and targets of the citations can be identified and aggregated in various ways (e.g., Jiménez-Fanjul, Maz-Machado, & Bracho-López, 2013), allowing for complex measures of journal quality and impact to be constructed. • These measures are relevant to scholars as they seek to disseminate their work and maximize impact on the field. • It is also relevant to university administrators as they decide how to use these technologi...

The study aims to detect publication contributions of editorial board members (EBMs) to ranks of academic journals as exemplified by Russian Library and Information Science serials. We failed to find any relationship between journal rank and a share of EBMs papers in a parent journal. Citation analyses of papers by EBMs as well as citations of a parent journal made by EBMs from other sources revealed a significant effect of EBM on the rank of top-tiered and low-tiered journals. Zero or negative impact of EBMs papers on the journal rank was registered in the middle-tiered group.

Journal impact factor (IF) as a gauge of influence and impact of a particular journal comparing with other journals in the same area of research, reports the mean number of citations to the published articles in particular journal. Although, IF attracts more attention and being used more frequently than other measures, it has been subjected to criticisms, which overcome the advantages of IF. Critically, extensive use of IF may result in destroying editorial and researchers ’ behaviour, which could compromise the quality of scientific articles. Therefore, it is the time of the timeliness and importance of a new invention of journal ranking techniques beyond the journal impact factor.

Using a case study of the Economic and Law Department of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, we find that domestic rankings greatly distort researchers' publication preferences. This finding is contrary to the importance of international journal rankings, such as the SCOPUS Scimago journal ranking or the Web of Science Impact Factor. We found inconsistencies between international and domestic standards and differences between the eight committees of the academic department. Based on an exploratory empirical analysis of 4213 journals spanning eight different scientific committees of social science areas (business, law, demography, sociology, regional studies, world economics, military science and political science), we prove that a key reason for Hungary's decreasing rank in international visibility is the inconsistently strong bias for domestic journals. We show that inconsistency of ranking fairness determines the behavior of researchers; this motivational effect is especially important in small countries in which local relevance often offsets the importance of mainstream international discourses. This problem is attenuated with the digital transformation of science; online repositories, indexing systems and online visibility have become key enablers of evidence-based assessments of publication performance.

The ranking of academic journals continues to be a contentious issue in the tertiary education environment. Academics dependency on journal ranking for tenure and promotion, based on perceived quality and prestige of journals, ensures debate over what constitutes a 'good' journal publication. This study utilises the vox populi MAG score established in previous research in order to continue the assessment of journal ranking and impact in the field of marketing. The current findings are consistent with the previous 2009 study; the top six journals remain the same, there is little variation within the top 30 journal rankings, although regional differences are apparent. The ranking results from a broad range of academics continue to provide a comprehensive measure of journal impact from the perspective of academics.

The ranking of academic journals continues to be a contentious issue in the tertiary education environment. Academics dependency on journal ranking for tenure and promotion, based on perceived quality and prestige of journals, ensures debate over what constitutes a 'good' journal publication. This study utilises the vox populi MAG score established in previous research in order to continue the assessment of journal ranking and impact in the field of marketing. The current findings are consistent with the previous 2009 study; the top six journals remain the same, there is little variation within the top 30 journal rankings, although regional differences are apparent. The ranking results from a broad range of academics continue to provide a comprehensive measure of journal impact from the perspective of academics.

The present is study is the analysis of citations appended on doctoral dissertations in Crop Physiology submitted to University of Agricultural Sciences Dharwad. There are total 36 doctoral theses awarded in the duration 1987 to 2013 and these 36 theses yielded 7499 citations. These citations were analyzed to find the information seeking pattern of Crop Physiology researchers in UAS Dharwad. Citations are analyzed to find the bibliographic forms approached by researchers, chronological distribution of citations, geographic distribution of citations, and to prepare the ranked list of journals. Methodology: Methodology opted for study is simple counting of citations Findings: • Researchers of crop physiology prefer journal articles. 75.5% of total citations are journal articles. • Researchers cited Indian originated publications more than other countries.

For over a decade, the Australian Political Studies Association (APSA) has maintained a list ranking journals into A*, A, B and C bands. However, we know little about how Politics scholars use and view the list. In this study, we firstly discuss the history of the APSA list, before then presenting the results of an original survey conducted in March 2017 with over 250 members of the discipline. While the APSA list seems to enjoy overall support, we find that there are concerns about its purpose, its assessment of journal quality and how it treats different subfields and methodologies. In the discussion section, we address some of the main criticisms that have been made of the list and offer a number of suggestions for revisions. These include widening the consultation process, making submissions to the ranking committee public and extending the range of journals included in the list.

The goal of this paper is to present the ranking of the journals in the field of technology forecasting (TF) through the application of the Data Envelopment Analysis - DEA. Over the past four decades, we have witnessed a rapid development in the field of technology forecasting. This development, both in theory and in practice, has been fuelled by the increase in complexity, even greater competition, and rapid changes in the business environment. Back in the past, little attention was paid to the importance and conceptual development in the field of TF, which caused numerous overlaps of the forms of TF development and its influence. The changes that have resulted in the emergence of information technology and modern manufacturing technology have actually increased the need for application of technology forecasting, as well as for explosive growth in scientific and engineering literature worldwide. The paper shows the ranking of 39 journals in the field of TF over the period from 1999...

ABSTRACT This study, based on systematic review and meta-analysis, aimed to collect and analyze evidence on correlation between perception-based journal rankings and the most popular citation-based measure, Thomson Reuters Journal Impact Factor (JIF). A search was conducted in the Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases. After the screening of titles, abstracts, and full text, 18 articles were selected as eligible for review and analysis. The included studies belonged to various subject areas in social sciences, science, and technology. The correlation coefficients found in most of the studies were statistically significant in a positive direction. The heterogeneity test was positive. Therefore, the random-effect method of meta-analysis was applied. The value of pooled correlation coefficient indicated a moderate positive relationship between two methods of assessing the quality of academic journals. The absence of a high correlation makes decision making based on a single ranking method dangerous. Therefore, a hybrid approach for journal assessment is recommended.

The paper emerges from extensive and in-depth reflection on being an academic. It illustrates the benefits of economy of expression, which, besides producing a paper that is shorter than the abstract, focuses attention on a certain academic mode of being and the accompanying sensibility. A perusal of many sources (well, mainly Nick and Sverre) reveals that academics are playing a game that masters them and have more capital in gaming skills than in scholarship. They can rapidly be excellent and then ex-excellent. They become “excellent” academics through chance, freaks of circumstance, a mix of networking and nepotism, doing deals with mates, tailoring their work to meet expectations, creating self-serving entities, self-publishing, forsaking a normal life, stifling their imaginations, limiting their expressions of thought, licking the asses of their employers, accepting being colonized, selfplagiarizing, prostituting themselves, knowingly producing work that they think is disgustin...

The present study is based on 234 citations, appended to the 47 PhD theses of
Socialogy submitted to Devi Ahilya Vishwavidyalaya, Indore for the award of
doctoral degree during the period 2000-2006. The main purpose of this study
was to investigate the subject areas of research in sociology. To identify the
different style manual used in the theses. To know language wise, country wise
and age wise distribution of the citations. To study the authorship pattern and
forms of literature cited. Identified the frequently cited journals. Study finally
conclude that such studies will be helpful to researcher‘s information needs and
serve as feedback to the librarians in the acquisition of useful books and
subscribe core journals within the budget.

The ranking of academic journals is a contentious issue in the current higher education environment. Across the world, peers judge academics for tenure and promotion on the basis of the quality or prestige of the journals in which they publish. This research proposes a new metric (i.e., the MAG score) to assess journal impact and ranking in the field of marketing using the vox populi approach. The findings show that the vox populi approach provides a more comprehensive measure of journal impact than other impact factor metrics from the perspective of academics.