Les revues d'excellence en économie et en gestion (original) (raw)
Related papers
Catégorisation des revues en Économie et en Gestion
La liste des revues, héritée des mandatures précédentes de la section 37 du Comité National de la Recherche Scientifique est désormais devenue un outil de référence incontournable et largement reconnu au plan français mais aussi international.
Great Expectatrics: Great Papers, Great Journals, Great Econometrics
Econometric Reviews, 2011
The paper discusses alternative Research Assessment Measures (RAM), with an emphasis on the Thomson Reuters ISI Web of Science database (hereafter ISI). Some analysis and comparisons are also made with data from the SciVerse Scopus database. The various RAM that are calculated annually or updated daily are defined and analysed, including the classic 2-year impact factor (2YIF), 2YIF without journal self citations (2YIF*), 5-year impact factor (5YIF), Immediacy (or zero-year impact factor (0YIF)), Impact Factor Inflation (IFI), Selfcitation Threshold Approval Rating (STAR), Eigenfactor score, Article Influence, C3PO (Citation Performance Per Paper Online), h-index, Zinfluence, and PI-BETA (Papers Ignored-By Even The Authors). The RAM are analysed for 10 leading econometrics journals and 4 leading statistics journals. The application to econometrics can be used as a template for other areas in economics, for other scientific disciplines, and as a benchmark for newer journals in a range of disciplines. In addition to evaluating high quality research in leading econometrics journals, the paper also compares econometrics and statistics, alternative RAM, highlights the similarities and differences of the alternative RAM, finds that several RAM capture similar performance characteristics for the leading econometrics and statistics journals, while the new PI-BETA criterion is not highly correlated with any of the other RAM, and hence conveys additional information regarding RAM, highlights major research areas in leading journals in econometrics, and discusses some likely future uses of RAM, and shows that the harmonic mean of 13 RAM provides more robust journal rankings than relying solely on 2YIF.
Great Papers, Great Journals, Great Econometrics
2010
The paper discusses alternative Research Assessment Measures (RAM), with an emphasis on the Thomson Reuters ISI Web of Science database (hereafter ISI). The various ISI RAM that are calculated annually or updated daily are defined and analysed, including the classic 2-year impact factor (2YIF), 5-year impact factor (5YIF), Immediacy (or zero-year impact factor (0YIF)), Eigenfactor score, Article Influence, C3PO (Citation Performance Per Paper Online), h-index, Zinfluence, and PI-BETA (Papers Ignored-By Even The Authors). The ISI RAM data are analysed for 8 leading econometrics journals and 4 leading statistics journals. The application to econometrics can be used as a template for other areas in economics, for other scientific disciplines, and as a benchmark for newer journals in a range of disciplines. In addition to evaluating high quality research in leading econometrics journals, the paper also compares econometrics and statistics, alternative RAM, highlights the similarities and differences in alternative RAM criteria, finds that several ISI RAM capture similar performance characteristics for the leading econometrics and statistics journals while the new PI-BETA criterion is not highly correlated with any of the other ISI RAM, and hence conveys additional information regarding ISI RAM, highlights major research areas in leading journals in econometrics, and discusses some likely future uses of RAM.
Canadian Journal of Economics-revue Canadienne D Economique, 2011
Abstract We conduct an update of the ranking of economic journals by Kalaitzidakis, Mamuneas, and Stengos (2003). However, our present study differs methodologically from that earlier study in an important dimension. We use a rolling window of years between 2003 and 2008, for each year counting the number of citations of articles published in the previous 10 years. This allows us to obtain a smoother longer view of the evolution of rankings in the period under consideration and avoid the inherent randomness that may exist at any particular year, because of new entrants.Les auteurs font une mise à jour de l'ordonnancement des revues d'économie rapporté dans Kalaitzidakis, Mamuneas, et Stengos (2003). Cependant, l'étude présentée ici diffère méthodologiquement de l'étude antérieure d'une manière importante. On utilise une fenêtre mobile (couvrant le nombre de citations d'articles publiés dans les derniers dix ans) pour chacune des années entre 2003 et 2008. Voilà qui permet d'obtenir une perspective plus longue et lisse de l'évolution des rangs dans la période étudiée, et d'éviter les aléas qui peuvent exister dans toute année particulière à cause de l'entrée de nouveaux arrivants.
The Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization is devoted to theoretical and empirical research concerning economic decision, organization and behavior and to economic change in all its aspects. Its speci䁏鿿c purposes are to foster an improved understanding of how human cognitive, computational and informational characteristics in㷧 the working of economic organizations and market economies and how an economy's structural features lead to various types of micro and macro behavior, to changing patterns of development and to institutional evolution. Research with these purposes that explore the interrelations of economics with other disciplines such as biology, psychology, law, anthropology, sociology and mathematics is particularly welcome. The journal is eclectic as to research method; systematic observation and careful description, simulation modeling and mathematical analysis are all within its purview. Empirical work, including controlled laboratory experimentation, that probes close to the core of the issues in theoretical dispute is encouraged. Journal Impact: 1.90*
From Zero to Infinity: The Use of Impact Factors in the Evaluation of Economic Research in Spain
SSRN Electronic Journal, 2000
Studies on assessments of research performance in economic departments largely rely upon such bibliometric tools as impact factors to rank a short list of journals. In the present study, we examine the use of short lists of journals in order to assess research performance in Spain -a country that features a rare combination of a thin and incomplete academic market along with an elite of eminent economists. Our analysis reveals that the implementation of bibliometric tools to produce short lists of journals for assessment purposes entail problems with the statistical significance of cutoff rates, neglect of the interdisciplinary nature of economics, and an inability to track progress in academic markets that move towards internationalization and publications in top-tier, premier outlets.
Productivity and its impact in the ISI and Scopus citation databases from 1996 to 2005
Beyond the myths about the natural and …, 2009
Bibliometric research of the productivity of all doctors of natural and social sciences is presented in this paper. Due to selectiveness, and particularly due to the orientation towards scientific periodicals and the English language, scientific output indexed in WoS and Scopus databases favours hard science publications, and consequently manifests even greater differences among the observed domains. To be more precise, the natural sciences greatly surpass the social sciences in terms of productivity, citation rate and the h-index. According to WoS, the average number of papers per natural scientist was ten times the number of papers per social scientist. Practically three quarters of the social scientists did not publish a single paper referenced in these databases over a period of ten years, compared to slightly over one tenth of the natural scientists. The average citation rate of a natural science paper was almost three times the citation rate per paper from the social sciences. In contrast to the social sciences that still lag behind the world average for its area, the natural sciences in general are less far behind, while some of the disciplines are on a par with their international counterparts. The defects in the international bibliometric and citation databases and the mentioned differences in patterns of scientific communication strongly suggest that the bibliometric monitoring of publications in the social sciences and humanities should not rest on the same methodological assumptions that apply to the hard sciences (Nederhof, 2006). In addition, significant disciplinary oscillations were determined in the natural and social sciences. Scientific fields show specific publication practices, making the levelling of criteria in any of the two observed scientific areas utterly questionable.