为了正常的体验网站,请在浏览器设置里面开启Javascript功能!

经济学杂志排名

2011-03-13 28页 pdf 180KB 66阅读

用户头像

is_818297

暂无简介

举报
经济学杂志排名 Rankings of Academic Journals and Institutions in Economics∗ Pantelis Kalaitzidakis University of Crete and University of Cyprus Theofanis P. Mamuneas University of Leicester and University of Cyprus Thanasis Stengos University of Guelph October 2001 ∗We like...
经济学杂志排名
Rankings of Academic Journals and Institutions in Economics∗ Pantelis Kalaitzidakis University of Crete and University of Cyprus Theofanis P. Mamuneas University of Leicester and University of Cyprus Thanasis Stengos University of Guelph October 2001 ∗We like to thank D. Laband who provided us with his index of characters per page and Elena Ketteni for excellent research assistance. Financial support from European Economic Association is gratefully acknowledged. 1 Introduction There has been a lot of recent research literature on rankings of economics departments throughout the world. They serve as signals tools for attracting new faculty and retaining older in highly ranked institutions and also help at- tract the best graduate students who have academic aspirations. Many times these rankings are used by university administrators to allocate scarce educa- tion funds to different departments according to their success in these rankings. There has been a long standing tradition for US economic departments to be ranked (see Scott and Mitias (1996) and Dusansky and Vernon (1998) for recent such rankings). Recent European studies of this kind include Kirman and Dahl (1994) and Kalaitzidakis, Mamuneas and Stengos (1999). There have been also rankings of departments in Asia (see Jin and Yau (1999)), Canada (see Lucas (1995)), as well as Australia (see Harris (1990)). Rankings are also constructed in other related disciplines such as finance for the same reasons outlined above, (see Chung and Cox, (1990)). Coupé (2000) provides a comprehensive ranking of economic departments world-wide. His ranking methodology is based on employing various perfor- mance measures from the existing literature, such as the citations weighted journal ranking by Laband and Piette (1994), to assess the output of individ- ual researchers and then according to their affiliation compute the department rankings. He reports the rankings from the different methodologies and he also presents a ranking based on the average of these different methods. However, the latter ranking is based on averaging rank statistics and as such it is not very informative. A common drawback that permeates most of the studies that produce de- partment rankings is that they are based on a certain ranking of economic journals that was itself constructed over a certain time period that typically is different from the corresponding period of the department rankings. Hence, a typical list of journals that is citations weighted uses weights that correspond to an earlier period from the current one. That means that the most current research outlets that are used by the profession (new journals, improved older journals etc.) are not used with their true weights for the period under inves- tigation. Hence, potentially rankings that use a list of research journals with weights from a different period may produce biased and unreliable rankings for the current period. In this paper we try to rectify this deficiency in the litera- ture by both computing an updated list of journal rankings with current weights computed from their citations impact and then use those to produce a world 1 wide ranking of academic institutions. The paper is organized as follows. The next section provides the methodol- ogy that we employ to arrive at the new journal rankings. We provide details of the way that we arrive at these journal rankings that form the weights to be used for the derivation of the institutional rankings as well as the methodology that is used to construct the latter. In the next section we discuss the results. Finally we conclude. 2 Methodology 2.1 Journal Rankings The ranking of economics departments based on research output requires two important ingredients. First, the choice of the set of research output outlets, journals and second the choice of the weights to adjust the different journals in terms of quality, age and size. In our proposal the set of journals we choose consists of the thirty top eco- nomic academic journals based on the number of 1998 citations of articles pub- lished in previous periods. There are already some relatively recent rankings of journals based on 1990 citations of articles published in 1985-1989 by Laband and Piette (1994). However, we felt that these rankings should be updated given the rapid expansion of publications, new entrants, and changes in emphasis in the profession. In fact our findings suggest that the earlier journal rankings do not accurately reflect the current trends in the profession and hence all existing studies using them as a basis of constructing department rankings would lead to unreliable and inaccurate results. Below we outline in more detail the methodol- ogy we have employed in arriving at a more representative and accurate journal ranking. One source of valuable information of the citations received by the economic journals is Journal of Citation Reports (JCR). JCR also ranks economic journals based on the number of citations received. For instance in Table 1 last column we report the ranking of economic journals based on the number of citations received in 1998 of articles published in previous years (more than 10 years). We have standardized the top journal, American Economic Review to be equal to 100. This ranking is based on the category “economics”. Note also that we have exclude journals that are not academic, for example The Economist. That does not include journals that are core journals in other related disciplines, such as the Journal of Finance. However, the Journal of Financial Economics 2 is included in this category. Even though this ranking as a first approximation seems reasonable, is in general unsatisfactory for the following reasons: a) Self-citations are included, something that biases the rankings (due to the common tendency of journals to cite their own articles more often). b) There is no correction for the age of a journal (older journals tend to accumulate more citations). c) “Bigger” journals that tend to publish more articles, also attract more citations, and most importantly d) citations are not adjusted for the impact that the most influential journals have on the profession. In order to correct for self-citations and the age of a journal we have con- structed a new ranking of journals by excluding self-citations and all the cita- tions of articles published before 1994. In other words, the index of the seventh column is based on citations of 1998 of articles published in 1994-1998 period excluding self-citations (see 6th column of Table 1). The rest of our ranking of journals is based on citations of 1998 of articles published in 1994-1998 period excluding self-citations and adjusted for the im- pact (influence) and size. To correct of the impact of the journal we have broadly followed the methodology of Liebowitz and Palmer (1984) (see also Laband and Piette, 1994). This methodology is based on an iterative procedure which we briefly outline below. Let Cij be the number of citations to journal i from journal j, n the number of journals in our list, Zi a factor adjusting for the size of a journal and δj taking values one usually or zero when there is no information and it will be discussed shortly. The t iteration is given by Ii,t = Pn j=1 δjCij Zi Ij,t−1, where Ii,0 = Pn j=1 δjCij Zi This process usually converges after 10 to 15 iterations The results reported in Table 1 are based on 50 iterations. The adjusted rankings for self-citations and age of journal are presented in column 4 of Table 1. Column 5 of Table 1 reports the ranking of journals by the impact adjusted citations without adjusting for the journal size, i.e., Zi = 1 (δj = 1 for all journals). The rest of the columns are based on different types of Zi. These are the average number of articles a journal had published in the period from 1996-1998 (this was the only available information of JCR), the average number of pages published in the same period taken from ECONLIT, and finally the 3 number of characters published. The total number of characters published per year is calculated by the number of characters per page times the average number of pages published. An index of character per page (American Economic Review equal to one) for seventy journals were made available to us by Laband and Piette and has also been cross-checked and supplemented with our calculations. In total we are able to have information of the characters per page for ninety two journals. For the journals that we do not have information we set δj = 0 (otherwise δj = 1). Thus we do not count these journals as a source of citations but we count them as receivers. Note that this does not constitute a large source of bias for our rankings of the top journals since the lack of information about the characters per page is concentrated in the lower ranked journals, where the impact contribution is very small. (It can also be verified that rankings do not change much using the different measures of size). It is interesting to note that comparing the rankings of Table 1 with the previous journal rankings of Laband and Piette (1994), the relative positions of top journals have not changed much. However, the weights have changed considerably. It seems that the distance of most journals from the American Economic Review has increased, with the notable exception of Econometrica which now appears to be the leading economic journal when we use characters per page as a measure of size. In addition, more empirically oriented or applied journals have risen in the rankings, e.g. the Journal of Business and Economic Statistics and the Journal of Applied Econometrics. A surprising result is the appearance of Econometric Theory and Economic Theory in the group of the 30 top journals, when we correct for journal impact. One possible explanation is that these journals receive a lot of citations from top ranked journals like Econometrica, Journal of Econometrics and Journal of Economic Theory re- spectively. Finally, it is interesting to note that the European Economic Review has risen considerably in statue and it is included in the group of thirty top journals, while in the study of Laband and Piette (1994) it occupied the 50th position. Note that there is an overall agreement between all rankings methods for the top group of journals at least as far as the composition of this group is concerned. 2.2 Institutional Rankings The analysis is based on publications in the top 30 journals according to our pages adjusted rankings (column 2 of Table 1) for the five year period 1995 to 1999. Given that we lacked information on characters per page for the whole 4 set of journals and given the similarities of the weights of both journal rank- ings methods (columns 1 and 2 of Table 1), we opted for the construction of institutional rankings using pages as the measure of size. The selection of the top 30 journals provides a rich group of research outlets for the core of eco- nomic theory and econometrics as well as the most respected field journals. It is an updated ”Diamond List”, (see Burton and Phimister (1995)) that has been extensively used in the rankings literature as the standard list of quality journals. The last journal that is included in the list, the Journal of Interna- tional Economics, has an impact factor of 0.0784 compared with 1.00 for the American Economic Review. The list of journals that are included account for more than 90% of all citations. For these journals there is a broad agree- ment among all ranking criteria that they belong to the top group, see Table 1. The impact factors for the journals that are excluded from the list are quite small and even if they were included in the calculations they would not make much difference in the overall construction of rankings especially for the top 200 economic departments that we report. The included journals are: Ameri- can Economic Review, Journal of Political Economy, Econometrica, Quarterly Journal of Economics, Journal of Econometrics, Journal of Economic Perspec- tives, Journal of Economic Theory, Journal of Monetary Economics, Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economics and Statistics, The Economic Journal, European Economic Review, Games and Economic Behavior, Journal of Busi- ness and Economic Statistics, Journal of Public Economics, Journal of Human Resources, Journal of Economic Literature, Econometric Theory, Journal of Labor Economics, International Economic Review, Economic Theory, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Rand Journal of Economics, Journal of Financial Economics, Economics Letters, Journal of Applied Econo- metrics, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control and the Journal of International Economics. We allocate article pages to the affiliation of the authors at the time of publi- cation. Affiliations taken from the published articles reflect the actual research output produced, in contrast to the current affiliation of the authors which might serve as a proxy for future research output for the institution where the researcher currently resides. In papers with n co-authors, each co-author is al- located 1/n pages of the article. In addition, when m affiliations are listed by some author, then we allocate to each affiliation 1/m of the pages that corre- spond to the specific author. We do not include among the various affiliations those that correspond to certain research centers that act as umbrellas for var- 5 ious researches but do not offer a permanent home base, such as NBER in the USA and CEPR in the UK. In case authors include the above as joint affiliations then all the weight is attached to their primary affiliations. We also excluded from the calculation of rankings the research output that is produced primarily at non academic centers such as the various central banks, the World Bank and the IMF. Since our primary task is to evaluate research carried out at acad- emic institutions including non academic research centers would not constitute a valid comparison, since academics usually have also teaching duties that oc- cupy much of their time. We have included as part of the institutional research output the published research that has been produced by faculty members of business schools that belong to these institutions. That gives an advantage to institutions with large vibrant business schools, such as the top US universities. However, since our task was to record the research output in economics carried out in academic institutions in general, excluding business school output would have left out a significant part of current research. For the same reason we also include as part of a given institution research centers that are located in these institutions and are frequented by researchers. For example, the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) has been included as part of University College, London. There has been a trend in the recent literature, see Baltagi (1999), Coupé (2000) to also produce rankings of individuals in the same way as institutional rankings are produced. In so far as these individual rankings simply state the number of total pages published by individuals we are not sure that they ad- dress the issue of impact in the profession that various individual researchers may have. Institutional rankings are based on citations adjusted pages with the adjustments factors coming from overall averages. Yet an individual researcher has an impact on the profession because of his specific contribution. To conduct a proper and meaningful comparison of individuals one should look at the cita- tions of specific articles that each researches has published. Also in that case one would like to take a long-run view of this impact and hence examine the rate of citations over time, something that is not apparent from a total number of published pages calculation. To offer such a ranking would require tracking down each individual’s citations record, something that is well beyond the scope of the present study. 6 3 The Results 3.1 World Rankings Table 2 presents the world-wide rankings of economic departments. Since the current literature is quite exhaustive in the construction of rankings with ad- justments based on previous studies (see Kalaitzidakis et al (1999) and Coupé (2000)) we only present the rankings based on the current impact factors for the list of the 30 journals that we discussed in the previous section. The first column presents rankings based on the adjusted pages produced using as weights those of column 2 of Table 1. Concentrating on a single methodology gives a clearer impression about the institutional standings. Presenting results with different methodologies and then averaging out the different ranks obscures the trends that are taking place in the research output of the profession. Column 3 of Table 2 simply presents the unadjusted total pages produced by each institution and column 4 the weighted adjusted pages using the weights from the 2 column of Table 1 for the chosen set of journals. Table 2 presents the top 200 institutions in the world. There are some very interesting facts that emerge from Table 2. The US institutions are not in the majority (they constitute 44 percent of the total (87 placements in the group of 200)). The European affiliations constitute 35 percent. Including Israel among the European institutions as in Kalaitzidakis et al (1999) raises the above number to 38 percent. There is 8 percent allocated to Canadian institutions (15 institutions). The Asian profession shows a credible presence with 8 percent or 15 institutions in the top 200 group. The rest is made up from 6 universities from Australia, 1 from New Zealand and 1 from Chile. The picture is more skewed towards the US dominance if one looks at the group of the top 50 universities, where the US schools make up 70 percent of the total. In that group there are 7 European institutions (9 if one adds the tow universities from Israel), 5 Canadian and 1 from Hong Kong. Harvard, Chicago and MIT make up the top three universities. There are 18 US schools in the top 20 with only Tilburg University and the London School of Economics make it in the group of the top 20.1 The US presence falls to 54 percent in the group of the top 100 and further to 44 in the top 200. In that case the European presence (with the inclusion of Israeli schools) doubles from 16 to 33 percent for the top 100 group and it increases further to 37 for the top 200 group. It 1 It should be noted that the top US institutions benefit from the presence of very strong business schools. A lot of economic research takes place at these business schools. In Europe business schools typically stand on their own as separate entities. 7 seems that it is in the group between 50 and 100 that European universities have improved and are doing relatively quite well. It is the group that consists of many institutions that are producing excellent research that competes favorably with their US counterparts who belong to that group. In previous studies that only considered the top 20 North American universities, it was asserted that Europe was lagging behind significantly North America and the US in particular in terms of research produced by the top regional institutions respectively, (see Kalaitzidakis et al, (1999)). This may be true for the top 20 institutions as it was noted earlier but as a general statement this is simply not true as it is evident from the discussion above. In the comparison that takes place after the group of the top 20, European institutions are overall at par in terms of research output with their US counterparts. Furthermore, it is interesting to note the presence of the Asian universities that appears in the group of the top 200. In particular, we note that one university f
/
本文档为【经济学杂志排名】,请使用软件OFFICE或WPS软件打开。作品中的文字与图均可以修改和编辑, 图片更改请在作品中右键图片并更换,文字修改请直接点击文字进行修改,也可以新增和删除文档中的内容。
[版权声明] 本站所有资料为用户分享产生,若发现您的权利被侵害,请联系客服邮件isharekefu@iask.cn,我们尽快处理。 本作品所展示的图片、画像、字体、音乐的版权可能需版权方额外授权,请谨慎使用。 网站提供的党政主题相关内容(国旗、国徽、党徽..)目的在于配合国家政策宣传,仅限个人学习分享使用,禁止用于任何广告和商用目的。

历史搜索

    清空历史搜索