Evaluating the quality of academic journals is becoming increasing important within the context of re- search performance evaluation. Traditionally, journals have been ranked by peer review lists such as that of the Association of Business Schools (UK) or though their journal impact factor (JIF). However, several new indicators have been developed, such as the h-index, SJR, SNIP and the Eigenfactor which take into account different factors and therefore have their own particular biases. In this paper we evaluate these metrics both theoretically and also through an empirical study of a large set of business and manage- ment journals. We show that even though the indicators appear highly correlated in fact they lead to large differences in journal rankings. We contextualise our results in terms of the UK’s large scale re- search assessment exercise (the RAE/REF) and particularly the ABS journal ranking list. We conclude that no one indicator is superior but that the h-index (which includes the productivity of a journal) and SNIP (which aims to normalise for field effects) may be the most effective at the moment
附件列表
加微信，拉你入群
全部版块
我的主页
收藏
