Search results

Despite the general recommendation of using a combination of multiple criteria for research assessment and faculty promotion decisions, the raise of quantitative indicators is generating an emerging trend in Business Schools to use single journal impact factors (IFs) as key (unique) drivers for those relevant school decisions. This paper aims to investigate the effects of using single Web of Science (WoS)-based journal impact metrics when assessing research from two related disciplines: Business and Economics, and its potential impact for the strategic sustainability of a Business School.

This study collected impact indicators data for Business and Economics journals from the Clarivate Web of Science database. We concentrated on the IF indicators, the Eigenfactor and the article influence score (AIS). This study examined the correlations between these indicators and then ranked disciplines and journals using these different impact metrics.

Consistent with previous findings, this study finds positive correlations among these metrics. Then this study ranks the disciplines and journals using each impact metric, finding relevant and substantial differences, depending on the metric used. It is found that using AIS instead of the IF raises the relative ranking of Economics, while Business remains basically with the same rank.

This study contributes to the research assessment literature by adding substantial evidence that given the sensitivity of journal rankings to particular indicators, the selection of a single impact metric for assessing research and hiring/promotion and tenure decisions is risky and too simplistic. This research shows that biases may be larger when assessment involves researchers from related disciplines – like Business and Economics – but with different research foundations and traditions.

Consistent with the literature, given the sensibility of journal rankings to particular indicators, the selection of a single impact metric for assessing research, assigning research funds and hiring/promotion and tenure decisions is risky and simplistic. However, this research shows that risks and biases may be larger when assessment involves researchers from related disciplines – like Business and Economics – but with different research foundations and trajectories. The use of multiple criteria is advised for such purposes.

This is an applied work using real data from WoS that addresses a practical case of comparing the use of different journal IFs to rank-related disciplines like Business and Economics, with important implications for faculty tenure and promotion committees and for research funds granting institutions and decision-makers.

This study introduces a new approach, called the social structure approach, for ranking academic journals by focusing on hospitality and tourism journals; and a hybrid metric, including the combination of the journal impact factor via citations and a social network metric, called the journal knowledge domain index (JKDI).

Twenty-five hospitality and tourism journals were selected to test this approach. Collaboration-based metrics, productivity-based metrics, and network-based metrics are considered components of the social structure approach. Additionally, a hybrid metric, including the combination of the journal impact factor via citations and a social network metric, JKDI, is developed.

The study’s findings show that top or leading journals have a weaker position in some social structure approach metrics compared to other (or follower) journals. However, according to the JKDI, leading journals have remained constant with the other ranking studies.

The ranking of academic journals is vital for the stakeholders of academia. Consequently, the findings of this study may help stakeholders to design an optimal ranking system and formulate and implement effective research strategies for knowledge creation and dissemination.

As one of the first in the journal-ranking literature, this study has significant implications, as it introduces a new ranking approach.

The purpose of this paper is to reflect upon the focus and changing nature of measuring academic accounting research quality. The paper addresses contemporary changes in academic publishing, metrics for determining research quality and the possible impacts on accounting scholars. These are considered in relation to the core values of interdisciplinary accounting research ‒ that is, the pursuit of novel, rigorous, significant and authentic research motivated by a passion for scholarship, curiosity and solving wicked problems. The impact of changing journal rankings and research citation metrics on the traditional and highly valued role of the accounting academic is further considered. In this setting, the paper also provides a summary of the journal’s activities for 2018, and in the future.

Drawing on contemporary data sets, the paper illustrates the increasingly diverse and confusing array of “evidence” brought to bear on the question of the relative quality of accounting research. Commercial products used to rate and rank journals, and judge the academic impact of individual scholars and their papers not only offer insight and visibility, but also have the potential to misinform scholars and their assessors.

In the move from simple journal ranking lists to big data and citations, and increasingly to concerns with impact and engagement, the authors identify several challenges facing academics and administrators alike. The individual academic and his or her contribution to scholarship are increasingly marginalised in the name of discipline, faculty and institutional performance. A growing university performance management culture within, for example, the UK and Australasia, has reached a stage in the past decade where publication and citation metrics are driving allocations of travel grants, research grants, promotions and appointments. With an expanded range of available metrics and products to judge their worth, or have it judged for them, scholars need to be increasingly informed of the nuanced or not-so-nuanced uses to which these measurement systems will be put. Narrow, restricted and opaque peer-based sources such as journal ranking lists are now being challenged by more transparent citation-based sources.

The issues addressed in this commentary offer a critical understanding of contemporary metrics and measurement in determining the quality of interdisciplinary accounting research. Scholars are urged to reflect upon the challenges they face in a rapidly moving context. Individuals are increasingly under pressure to seek out preferred publication outlets, developing and curating a personal citation profile. Yet such extrinsic outcomes may come at the cost of the core values that motivate the interdisciplinary scholar and research.

This paper provides a forward-looking focus on the critical role of academics in interdisciplinary accounting research.

The purpose of the study is to evaluate the relationship of Journal Publication Timeline (submission to first decision and submission to final decision) with various Journal Metrics (citing half-life, article influence score, the immediacy index, the acceptance rate, the impact factor (IF), five years IF, Eigenfactor and cited half-life) of top 600 journals retrieved from Journal Citation Report (JCR) 2020 under the tag, Elsevier Unified.

Top 600 journals in the decreasing order of the IFs under the tag, “Elsevier Unified” were retrieved from JCR 2020 of Clarivate Analytics. Information about “Journal Metrics” was ascertained using “Customized Service” of JCR, while information about the “Publication Timeline” of each journal was obtained using Elsevier's “Journal Insights Service.” It was found that only 177 journals provided the complete information regarding the “Publication Timeline” and hence considered for the study. Descriptive statistics and correlation analysis was conducted to test the different hypotheses.

It was found that submission to first decision has a significant relationship with the immediacy index, citing half-life and the acceptance rate. Submission to final decision has a significant relationship with Journal Impact Factor (JIF), the immediacy index, Eigenfactor, citing half-life and the acceptance rate.

The study will provide the authors with sound and valuable information to support their selection of journals. Inferences in light of fluctuations in the scholarly communication process in terms of Publication Timelines and Journal Metrics can be deeply understood with the aid of the current study's findings. What considerations authors have to take before submitting their papers is the main implication of the study. Journal administrators can also benefit from the findings of the current study as it can help recruit and manage reviewers, which will ensure a successful publication timeline.

The study correlates Publication Timeline Indicators with Journal Metrics Indicators using secondary cross-sectional data. Though most previous studies only examine the relationship of the Publication Timeline with the Journal Impact Factor (JIF), there is very scarce literature that deciphers the influence of Publication Timeline indicators on different Journal Metrics indicators (including JIF).

The peer review history for this article is available at: https://publons.com/publon/10.1108/OIR-02-2022-0108.

The purpose of the study is to analyze the impact of the Publication Timeline, i.e. Submission to First Decision and Submission to Acceptance on Journal Metrics, i.e. Impact Factor (IF) and 5-year IF.

Data related to the IF and 5-year IF were retrieved from Clarivate Analytics’ Journal Citation Report 2020. The Publication Timeline of each journal was ascertained through their respective websites. To attain the model fit summary, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) test was performed. Regression analysis was also performed on the models using SPSS 21 software to ascertain the nature and degree of impact the Publication Timeline (Submission to First Decision and Submission to Acceptance) has on Journal Metrics (IF and 5-year IF).

Submission to First Decision has a significant inverse relationship with both the IF and 5-year IF, whereas Submission to Acceptance has a significant direct relation with 5-year IF and an inverse but insignificant relationship with IF.

Journals published by Springer Nature and of multidisciplinary nature have been considered for the study. Only those journals were selected that provided the information regarding the Publication Timeline, whereas those which did not provide the same, were excluded. However, new insights can be revealed if the journals published by different publishers and belonging to one particular discipline are studied.

The study helps to ascertain the impact of the Publication Timeline on the Impact Metrics of the journals. It can help the authors select the journals as their publishing venues considering the Publication Timeline. Publishers can also be benefitted from the findings of this study since improvisations and modifications in their Publication Timelines can positively influence the impact metrics of their respective journals.

The study attempts to measure the impact of the Publication Timeline on Journal Metrics using cross-sectional secondary data, by performing regression analysis. Though various studies have examined the influence of the Publication Timeline on the IF using correlation analysis, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first of its kind to use regression analysis to check the relation, as well as the degree of impact the Publication Timeline, has on Journal Metrics.

Scholarly interest in carrying out impactful research continues to remain high. Yet, given that citations of scholarly work can never decrease with time, traditional measures of research impact (such as raw counts of citations) unwittingly discriminate against early career researchers and also make it hard to identify future high impact scholars. In the current study, the paper compares several commonly used measures of research impact to identify one that best normalizes for the effect of career stage. The measure thus applies equally across most career stages, providing a usable impact benchmark for logistics scholars irrespective of seniority level. The paper also aims to present benchmarks on that metric to help logistics scholars identify their research impact vis-à-vis their peers.

Bibliometric data on the research of 702 logistics scholars were collected and analyzed by dividing the scholars into different cohorts based on seniority. Comparisons of different citation metrics were then made.

The h-rate provides the most appropriate basis for comparing research impact across logistics scholars of various career stages. Benchmark h-rates are provided for scholars to identify their research impact.

The authors are unaware of any other work in the logistics field that measures the research impact of logistics scholars in this manner.