ESI: only 4 countries received at least 50.000 citations in the period 2002-2012 in the field of Economics & Business, Netherlands included.

Essential Science Indicators has been updated as of September 1, 2012 to cover a 10-year plus 6-month period, January 1, 2002-June 30, 2012.

The field of economics & Business covers 289 journals in the essential science Indicators of Web of Science.

Only 4 countries received on avarage at least 50.000 citations  in the period covered by the ESI. But the size of the production difefers very much. USA still by far the largets producers of papers in economics and business.

Country Papers Citations Citations Per Paper
1 USA 76.363 735.703 9,63
2 UK 21.348 158.187 7,41
3 CANADA 10.231 72.803 7,12
4 NETHERLANDS 7.338 53.213 7,25
5 GERMANY 11.140 52.663 4,73

ESI: only 20 ISI journals in Economics & Business receive on average at least 20 citations per article over the last ten years

Essential Science Indicators has been updated as of September 1, 2012 to cover a 10-year plus 6-month period, January 1, 2002-June 30, 2012.

The field of economics & Business covers 289 journals in the essential science Indicators of Web of Science. Only about 20 journals received on avarage at least 20 citations per paper in the period covered by the ESI.

Here is the list:

Journal Papers Citations Citations Per Paper
QUART J ECON 397 16894 42,55
ACAD MANAGE REV 377 15731 41,73
ADMIN SCI QUART 191 7854 41,12
J ECON LIT 200 8111 40,55
MIS QUART 380 14346 37,75
ACAD MANAGE J 631 23325 36,97
J FINAN 873 28216 32,32
J MARKETING 469 14346 30,59
J POLIT ECON 378 11526 30,49
STRATEG MANAGE J 717 20049 27,96
J ECON PERSPECT 457 11199 24,51
ORGAN SCI 613 14996 24,46
ECONOMETRICA 628 15223 24,24
J MANAGE 488 11413 23,39
J ECON GROWTH 132 3038 23,02
J FINAN ECON 932 20463 21,96
REV ACC STUD 57 1142 20,04
J ACCOUNT ECON 351 7028 20,02
J OPER MANAG 465 9304 20,01

Reasons for citation; why would you cite an author or the work?

What are the reasons and motivations for citing the work of others or yourself?  Are all citations equal? I want to list as many reasons as I can find.

Following Lena Lindgren I will distinguish 3 kinds of reasons:  Publication dependent, author dependent or other reasons. I will use Lena’s set as base set but I will add some more reasons as I collect them along the way.

Publication-dependent reasons

  1. Identify related body of work
  2. earlier work on which current work builds
  3. Best/most relevant work on the subject
  4. Substantiate claims/establish precedence
  5. No other sources of data
  6. Using/giving credit to ideas, concepts, theories, methodology, and empirical findings by others.
  7. Identifying original publications in which an idea or concept was discussed, ‘classics’.
  8. Mentions of other works (‘see also’, ‘see for example’) without further reference.
  9. The cited publication is an overview in the field.
  10. The content of the cited publication is of a high quality.
  11. Criticizing the work of others.
  12. Providing background reading, to give ‘completeness’.
  13. Substantiating, legitimating own statements or assumptions.
  14. Alerting to forthcoming work.
  15. The cited publication is frequently cited by other authors in the field.
  16. The cited publication has been seriously criticized by other authors in the field.
  17. The cited publication is a recent one on a ‘hot’ topic.
  18. Critically analyze/correct earlier work
  19. Of equally valid sources, chose this one
  20. Ease of access to the cited work

Author-dependent reasons

  1. Establish writer’s authority in the field
  2. Paying homage to pioneers/giving credit for related work.
  3. Ceremonial citation, the author of the cited publication is regarded as ‘authoritative’.
  4. The author of the cited publication is a man.
  5. The cited publication is written by a large number of co-authors.
  6. Maintaining of professional and/or social connections.

Other reasons

  1. Demonstrating familiarity with important literature.
  2. Demonstrating familiarity with prestigious journals.
  3. Demonstrate scholarship (e.g. excessive self-citation).
  4. Appealing to editors, readers or reviewers in which the citing publication is published.
  5. The cited publication is easily available for examination.
  6. Political pressure
  7. Raise citation count

Crowdsourced ranking of journals in Management; any news?

Vote for management journals

Management researchers love journal rankings. A new way to get the judgement of thousands of voters was launched recently by Teppo Felin, Brigham Young University. After a few weeks already 80.000 votes were submitted to rank more than 100 journals in the field of management. Voters can submit a vote as many times as they like.  After filtering out about 20.000 automated robot votes, an impressive amount of 60.000 votes remained.

There are already some blogposts on this ranking where peers discuss the pro’s and cons of performing the ranking this way.

The crowd initiative is here @ All Our Ideas:

Besides the obvious trouble to compare all these journals (a nearly impossible task), one can ask what the ‘wisdom of the crowds’ adds to already existing lists of the top journals in the field.

A lot of normal suspects turn up in the top 25: (as of today 22/01/2011, with 80.000 votes, the results before the cleaning).

A score of 100 means a journal is expected to win all the time when compared with another journal in the contest and a score of zero means the journal is expected to lose all the time. There are no zero scores in this ranking (yet).



The initiator of the survey reported today (29-jan-2011) on the results:

So, what can a crowdsourced ranking tell us?  Nothing definitive is my guess, though I’m sure other rankings don’t necessarily give us a definitive signal either.  Though I do think that aggregated perceptions perhaps give us another data point when evaluating and comparing journals (along with impact and influence factors and other, more “objective” measures).  These rankings can of course mirror extant rankings (raising causal questions). But they might also capture more up-to-date anticipations of future performance. For example, the UC Irvine Law School (established in 2008) has not graduated a single student, though the school is already well within the top 50 in the crowdsourced ranking.

Lots of other questions can be raised, specifically related to a management journal ranking like this.  For example, should micro and macro journals be lumped together like this?  And certainly disciplinary journals play a large role in management – should they be included (sociology, psychology, economics)?

Strategic “gaming” of the results of course can also occur.  For example, I ended up having to delete some 25,000+ automatically generated votes (it looked like a computer script was created to throw the ranking off), votes that were explicitly cast to sabotage the effort (the African Journal of Management beat all the top journals according to this mega, robo-voter).  Though, it is interesting to see how the “crowd” essentially plays a role in averaging bias and in putting a check on strategic voting.

Ironically, I’m actually not one to necessarily really care about journal rankings like this.  I wonder whether article-effects trump journal-effects?  (I believe Joel Baum has a provocative paper on this.)  Of course I read and submit to “top” journals, but there are many “lesser” (ahem)  journals that are just as much on my radar screen, for example Industrial and Corporate Change, Managerial and Decision Economics andStrategic Organization. Obsessions with journal standing can detract from ideas.

Pragmatically, yes, journal rankings matter: promotions indirectly depend on it, as do resource flows etc.  So, perhaps a “democratic,” crowdsourced ranking like this can provide additional information for decision-makers and scholars in the field.


The top 15 list after filtering out the 20.000 automated robot-votes: the picture is now even more ‘traditional’.

Management Journals %
1 Administrative Science Quarterly 90.43%
2 Academy of Management Journal 90.41%
3 Academy of Management Review 88.94%
4 Organization Science 88.31%
5 Strategic Management Journal 84.42%
6 Journal of Applied Psychology 84.00%
7 Management Science 82.56%
8 Journal of Management 82.46%
9 OBHDP 78.93%
10 Organizational Research Methods 74.06%
11 Journal of Organizational Behavior 72.79%
12 Personnel Psychology 71.93%
13 Journal of Management Studies 71.10%
14 Research in OB 70.37%
15 Organization Studies 69.68%


Where do all these votes come from?

The whole picture is US en EU dominated. For example: only 16 votes from Shanghai, China are recorded.

overall crowd votes worldmap 20110122

The complete ranking is here as PDF file of the ranking website (22/01/2011):

A new measure of esteem: prestige or how often is a researcher cited by highly cited researchers?

Prestige & Popularity

Ding and Cronin make a nice distinction between popularity and prestige of a researcher; popularity of a researcher is measured by the number of times he is cited
by all papers in a dataset; the prestige of a researcher by the number of times he is cited by highly cited papers in the same set.  A scholar may be highly cited but not highly regarded: popularity
and prestige are not identical measures of esteem. The authors focus primarily on authors rather than journals.

Popularity vs. Prestige
Popularity and prestige exist in the following possible relations:
High popularity-high prestige, High popularity-low prestige, Low popularity-high prestige and Low popularity-ow prestige



Popular and/or Prestigious? Measures of Scholarly Esteem
Ying Ding, Blaise Cronin
School of Library and Information Science, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405, USA
Citation analysis does not generally take the quality of citations into account: all citations are weighted equally irrespective of source. However, a scholar may be highly cited but not highly regarded: popularity and prestige are not identical measures of esteem. In this study we define popularity as the number of times an author is cited and prestige as the number of times an author is cited by highly cited papers. Information Retrieval (IR) is the test field. We compare the 40 leading researchers in terms of their popularity and prestige over time. Some authors are ranked high on prestige but not on popularity, while others are ranked high on popularity but not on prestige. We also relate measures of popularity and prestige to date of Ph.D. award, number of key publications, organizational affiliation, receipt of prizes/honors, and gender.

Science-metrix develops new journals classification system (and interactive webtool) using both the Web of Science (Thomson Reuters) and Scopus (Elsevier).

sciencemetrix explorerA new set of tools recently released (first public release: 2010-12-01 (v1.00)) by Science-Metrix Inc. seeks to improve the way we talk about and understand science. The US/Canada-based research evaluation firm has developed a new, multi-lingual (18 languages!) classification of scientific journals, which is accompanied by an interactive web tool.  The journal classification, which covers 15,000 peer-reviewed scientific journals, is translated by more than 22 international experts who volunteered their time and expertise, making the tools available to a worldwidScience-metrix logoe audience.  The complete journals list is available for download as excel sheet.

The interactive ‘Scientific Journals Ontology Explorer’ allows users to visualise the links between 175 scientific specialties (subject categories) in 18 languages, from Arabic to Swedish.

The visualization contains 3 different views: a circular “Subfield Citation Wheel” (representing both citations as well as references), a “Field Citation Wheel” (showing the links between distinct scientific disciplines) and a network “Map of Science” (revealing similarities between disciplines by relative distance). The goal of this visualization is to show people how science spans a broad universe and how interlinked scientific research actually is.

How is the field of Business & Management covered in the journals list?

The field of  Economics & Business (as part of the domain Economic & Social Sciences) contains 822 journals (this is 5,4% of he total Science metrix list)  in 12 subfields, where Business & Management is included with 222 journals (27%):

Every journal is classified into only one category.

Subfields of ‘Economics & Business’ N %
Accounting 32 3,9%
Agricultural Economics & Policy 27 3,3%
Business & Management 222 27,0%
Development Studies 42 5,1%
Econometrics 13 1,6%
Economic Theory 13 1,6%
Economics 244 29,7%
Finance 63 7,7%
Industrial Relations 21 2,6%
Logistics & Transportation 49 6,0%
Marketing 61 7,4%
Sport, Leisure & Tourism 35 4,3%
Total Journals 822 100%

I will compare these with our ERIM Journals list, the ISI quartiles and the SJR (scopus) quartiles scores to see how the list is structured in terms of quality layers.

(I wil add these details later this week.)

In the ontology browser, you can create a map of science and learn how the field of business and management is connected to other subject categories. I have selected the closest fields in the screenshot below.

business and management in science metrix

About Science-Metrix:

Science-Metrix is the world’s largest independent firm dedicated to scientometrics, technometrics, and science and technology (S&T) evaluation. The firm’s core business involves supporting evidence-based decision-making with strong empirical data and sound theoretical approaches. This contract research organization combines qualitative and quantitative techniques to deliver high quality program evaluations, performance and outcome assessments, and evaluation frameworks. Every Science-Metrix report is produced by a team of dedicated high-calibre experts and relies on the world-class data found in the Scopus, Web of Science and Questel databases.

How are the stocks (top journals) performing over a period of 28 years?

Sciencewatch has published the latest Journal Performance Indicators (JPI’s) for the field of business.  This chart shows which journals perform in the top over decades.  It shows that the very top of the field is very stable over a longer period.  Publishing in these top journals can be seen as a stable investment for researchers; it increases the possibility of a good citation yield.

The table below compares the citation impact of journals in the field of business as measured over three different time spans. The left-hand column ranks journals based on their 2008 “impact factor,” as enumerated in the current edition of Journal Citations Report. The 2008 impact factor is calculated by taking the number of all current citations to source items published in a journal over the previous two years and dividing by the number of articles published in the journal during the same period–in other words, a ratio between citations and recent citable items published. The rankings in the next two columns show impact over longer time spans, based on figures from Journal Performance Indicators. In these columns, total citations to a journal’s published papers are divided by the total number of papers that the journal published, producing a citations-per-paper impact score over a five-year period (middle column) and a 28-year period (right-hand column).

Journals Ranked by Impact: Business
Rank 2008 Impact Factor Impact 2004-08 Impact 1981-2008
1 Academy of Management Review
Administrative Science Quarterly
Administrative Science Quarterly
2 Academy of Management Journal
Academy of Management Journal
Academy of Management Review
3 Journal of Retailing
Academy of Management Review
Journal of Marketing
4 Journal of Marketing
Journal of Marketing
Academy of Management Journal
5 Strategic Management Journal
Strategic Management Journal
Strategic Management Journal
6 Marketing Science
Journal of Management
Journal of Consumer Research
7 Journal of Management
Marketing Science
(6.10 )
Journal of Marketing Research
8 Journal of International Business Studies
Journal of Consumer Psychology
Journal of Management
9 Administrative Science Quarterly
Journal of International Business Studies
Sloan Management Review
10 Journal of Consumer Psychology
Journal of Organizational Behavior
Marketing Science

Another new Citation Impact tool on Scopus data: Scimago

Declan Butler, Free journal-ranking tool enters citation market, Nature News, January 2, 2008. Excerpt:

A new [OA] Internet database lets users generate on-the-fly citation statistics of published research papers for free. The tool also calculates papers’ impact factors using a new algorithm similar to PageRank, the algorithm Google uses to rank web pages. The open-access database is collaborating with Elsevier, the giant Amsterdam-based science publisher, and its underlying data come from Scopus, a subscription abstracts database created by Elsevier in 2004.

The SCImago Journal & Country Rank database was launched in December by SCImago,

Thomson is also under fire from researchers who want greater transparency over how citation metrics are calculated and the data sets used. In a hard-hitting editorial published in Journal of Cell Biology in December, Mike Rossner, head of Rockefeller University Press, and colleagues say their analyses of databases supplied by Thomson yielded different values for metrics from those published by the company (M. Rossner et al . J. Cell Biol. 179, 1091–1092 ; 2007). Thomson, they claim, was unable to supply data to support its published impact factors. “Just as scientists would not accept the findings in a scientific paper without seeing the primary data,” states the editorial, “so should they not rely on Thomson Scientific’s impact factor, which is based on hidden data.”

It also includes a new metric: the SCImago Journal Rank (SJR).

The familiar impact factor created by industry leader Thomson Scientific, based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, is calculated as the average number of citations by the papers that each journal contains. The SJR also analyses the citation links between journals in a series of iterative cycles, in the same way as the Google PageRank algorithm. This means not all citations are considered equal; those coming from journals with higher SJRs are given more weight. The main difference between SJR and Google’s PageRank is that SJR uses a citation window of three years. See Table 1

I tested some testing on the marketing research subfield of business and management (see screenshot). I ranked the list according to total cites over the last 3 years.

Scimago for marketing field

SJR versus JCR:

Let’s take the highest ranked journal form Scimago: Journal of Marketing (sjr 0,107) and compare it with the JCR citation trend. JOM has the higest impactfactor i the ISI subjectcategory Business for 2006. So in general this would mean that the best journals come up equally. But it remains a situation of comparing apples and oranges because the subject categories differ between Scopus and ISI. So the relative position of a journal is different in the two measure systems.

JOM citation trend JCR

A New Era in Citation and Bibliometric Analyses: Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar

Lokman I. Meho and Kiduk Yang
School of Library and Information Science, Indiana University, 2007


Academic institutions, federal agencies, publishers, editors, authors, and librarians increasingly rely on citation analysis for making hiring, promotion, tenure, funding, and/or reviewer and journal evaluation and selection decisions. The Institute for Scientific Information’s (ISI) citation databases have been used for decades as a starting point and often as the only tools for locating citations and/or conducting citation analyses. ISI databases (or Web of Science), however, may no longer be adequate as the only or even the main sources of citations because new databases and tools that allow citation searching are now available. Whether these new databases and tools complement or represent alternatives to Web of Science (WoS) is important to explore. Using a group of 15 library and information science faculty members as a case study, this paper examines the effects of using Scopus and Google Scholar (GS) on the citation counts and rankings of scholars as measured by WoS. The paper discusses the strengths and weaknesses of WoS, Scopus, and GS, their overlap and uniqueness, quality and language of the citations, and the implications of the findings for citation analysis. The project involved citation searching for approximately 1,100 scholarly works published by the study group and over 200 works by a test group (an additional 10 faculty members). Overall, more than 10,000 citing and purportedly citing documents were examined. WoS data took about 100 hours of collecting and processing time, Scopus consumed 200 hours, and GS a grueling 3,000 hours.

Conclusions by the authors:

The study found that the addition of Scopus citations to those of WoS could significantly alter the ranking of scholars. The study also found that GS stands out in its coverage of conference proceedings as well as international, non-English language journals, among others. GS also indexes a wide variety of document types, some of which may be of significant value to researchers. The use of Scopus and GS, in addition to WoS, reveals a more comprehensive and accurate picture of the extent of the scholarly relationship between LIS and other fields, as evidenced by the unique titles that cite LIS literature (e.g., titles from Cognitive Science, Computer Science, Education, and Engineering, to name only a few). Significantly, this study has demonstrated that:

  1. Although WoS remains an indispensable citation database, it should not be used alone for locating citations to an author or title, and, by extension, journals, departments, and countries; Scopus should be used concurrently.
  2. Although Scopus provides more comprehensive citation coverage of LIS and LIS-related literature than WoS for the period 1996-2005, the two databases complement rather than replace each other.
  3. While both Scopus and GS help identify a considerable number of citations not found in WoS, only Scopus significantly alters the ranking of scholars as measured by WoS.
    Although GS unique citations are not of the same quality as those found in WoS or Scopus, they could be very useful in showing evidence of broader international impact than could possibly be done through the two proprietary databases.
  4. GS value for citation searching purposes is severely diminished by its inherent problems. GS data are not limited to refereed, high quality journals and conference proceedings. GS is also very cumbersome to use and needs significant improvement in the way it displays search results and the downloading capabilities it offers for it to become a useful tool for large-scale citation analyses.
  5. Given the low overlap or high uniqueness between the three tools, they may all be necessary to develop more accurate maps or visualizations of scholarly networks and impact both within and between disciplines (Börner, Chen, & Boyack, 2003; Börner, Sanyal, & Vespignani, 2006; Small, 1999; White & McCain, 1997).
  6. Each database or tool requires specific search strategy(ies) in order to collect citation data, some more accurately and quickly (i.e., WoS and Scopus) than others (i.e., GS).

(Accepted for publication in the Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology)

The Rise and Rise of Citation Analysis

Meho, Lokman I. (2007) The Rise and Rise of Citation Analysis.

  Full text available as:PDF -.


With the vast majority of scientific papers now available online, this paper (accepted for publication in Physics World) describes how the Web is allowing physicists and information providers to measure more accurately the impact of these papers and their authors. Provides a historical background of citation analysis, impact factor, new citation data sources (e.g., Google Scholar, Scopus, NASA’s Astrophysics Data System Abstract Service, MathSciNet, ScienceDirect, SciFinder Scholar, Scitation/SPIN, and SPIRES-HEP), as well as h-index, g-index, and a-index.

The author shows his awareness with the new dimensions of publishing:

Scientists now need to make it their job to disseminate their work on as many platforms and in as many different ways as possible, such as publishing in open access and high-impact journals, and posting their work in institutional repositories, personal homepages and e-print servers, if they want their peers to be aware of, use and ultimately cite their work. Publishing a journal article is now only the first step in disseminating or communicating one’s work; the Web provides a multitude of methods and tools to publicize its scholarly worth.

RSS Business School News

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
Locations of Site Visitors
%d bloggers like this: