Ranking Taiwanese management journals: A case study

Kao, Chiang; Lin, Hsiou Wei; Chung, San‐Lin; Tsai, Wei Chi; Chiou, Jyh‐Shen; Chen, Yen-Liang; Chen, Liang Hsuan; Fang, Shih Chieh; Pao, Hwei Lan

doi:10.1007/s11192-007-1895-5

Cited by 15 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…E.g., Social Service Review was ranked #1 by experts, but scored only # 13 on h-index. Kao et al (2008) 345 professors from Taiwan rated 46 Taiwanese journals in humanities and social sciences.…”

Section: Appendix a Comparison Of Rankings Based On Expert Surveys Amentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing the expert survey and citation impact journal ranking methods: Example from the field of Artificial Intelligence

Serenko

Dohan

2011

Journal of Informetrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Appendix a Comparison Of Rankings Based On Expert Surveys Amentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing the expert survey and citation impact journal ranking methods: Example from the field of Artificial Intelligence

Serenko

Dohan

2011

Journal of Informetrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Due to the shortcomings of the above two approaches, the hybrid listswhich in some way combine subjective and/or objective datahave gained attention in the literature (e.g. [13,29,30]). Indeed, pooling data that originates from different sources helps to produce a more balanced view and is seen as a desired approach [13,27,31].…”

Section: Review Of Objective Subjective and Hybrid Approaches To Joumentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[13,29,30]). Indeed, pooling data that originates from different sources helps to produce a more balanced view and is seen as a desired approach [13,27,31]. However, hybrid ranking lists typically have a particular disciplinary or geographical focus; they usually combine a few rankings or ratings and involve handcollection of perceptual data, and, with a few exceptions, use unsophisticated and less principled techniques for data aggregation (cf.…”

Section: Review Of Objective Subjective and Hybrid Approaches To Joumentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recently, a fourth Contents lists available at ScienceDirect journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/omega approach has gained momentumthe 'meta'-ranking approachwhich, like the hybrid approach, is intended to provide a balanced view by delivering a composite journal ranking (cf. [12,13]). In contrast to the hybrid studies, which usually combine a few rankings or ratings and often involve the hand-collection of perceptual data, meta-analyses typically rely on a comprehensive selection of existing, in many cases reputable, rankings or ratings, and aim to deliver a reproducible outcome (cf.…”

Section: Introduction and Objectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Towards a Consolidation of Worldwide Journal Rankings A Classification Using Random Forests and Aggregate Rating via Data Envelopment Analysis

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The question of how to assess research outputs published in journals is now a global concern for academics. Numerous journal ratings and rankings exist, some featuring perceptual and peer-reviewbased journal ranks, some focusing on objective information related to citations, some using a combination of the two. This research consolidates existing journal rankings into an up-to-date and comprehensive list. Existing approaches to determining journal rankings are significantly advanced with the application of a new classification approach, 'random forests', and data envelopment analysis. As a result, a fresh look at a publication's place in the global research community is offered. While our approach is applicable to all management and business journals, we specifically exemplify the relative position of 'operations research, management science, production and operations management' journals within the broader management field, as well as within their own subject domain.

show abstract

“…For a long time, academics have endeavoured to find a measure which reflects the quality of journals, and much effort has been devoted to this task [BONNEVIE-NEBELONG, 2006;BUTLER, 2002;DUL & AL., 2005;KAO & AL., 2008;NISONGER, 1999;TURBAN & AL., 2004]. Despite its multicriteria nature and subjectivity, most studies agree that cross-citation, that is, the number of times that a journal is being cited by other journals, is the most appropriate indicator.…”

Section: Impact Factormentioning

confidence: 99%