A case for ranking heterodox journals and departments

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to present, for the first time, a case for ranking heterodox journals and departments.

Design/methodology/approach

The first section of the article briefly delineates the intellectual and social organization of heterodox economics as a social system of scientific activity. This background is then used to argue the case for ranking heterodox journals (section two) and heterodox departments (section three). An example of ranking journals that promote the development of heterodox theory, is not a zero‐sum game, and does not invite invidious comparisons is delineated in the fourth section. The final section summarizes the case for rankings.

Findings

There are two central issues facing heterodox economics: one is the development of a coherent, integrated economic theory that explains the social provisioning process; and the second is the making of economic departments that contribute to the development of heterodox theory and policy, and the training of heterodox economists. A case can be made for ranking journals and departments that deal with the two issues.

Originality/value

An example of ranking journals that promote the development of heterodox theory, is not a zero‐sum game, and does not invite invidious comparisons is delineated.

Citation

Lee, F.S. (2008), "A case for ranking heterodox journals and departments", On the Horizon, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 241-251. https://doi.org/10.1108/10748120810912565