1 / 35

Evaluating Journals and the Institutions that Publish in Them

Evaluating Journals and the Institutions that Publish in Them. Cabell’s Adds a New Dimension. These ranking systems will assist users when: Evaluating the importance of a journal in furthering future research

basil-nash
Download Presentation

Evaluating Journals and the Institutions that Publish in Them

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Evaluating Journals and the Institutions that Publish in Them

  2. Cabell’s Adds a New Dimension These ranking systems will assist users when: • Evaluating the importance of a journal in furthering future research • Determining the degree of difficulty an author encounters when seeking to publish in a journal

  3. Classifications of Methods to Evaluate the Importance of Journals

  4. Classifications of Methods to Evaluate the Importance of Journals • Journal Citation Count - number of times an article has been cited in a publication • Online Usage– citations, tweets, blog posts, news stories that mention the article • Peer Review- panel members make judgments about research published in journals

  5. Criteria for Evaluating these Approaches • Reliability • Validity • Usefulness

  6. Why Peer Review is Not Enough • Inherent subjectivity lessens reliability • Reviewers may have limited knowledge • May lack framework for comparing the journals

  7. Why Online Usage is Not Enough • Does not meet the validity criteria • Tweets, blog posts and news stories only indicate awareness • Number of downloads does not indicate usefulness

  8. Methodological Criticisms of Citation Counts • Emphasis on the journal cited not the article • Approach does not apply to more recent digital scholarship sources • Citation counts slow to accumulate and update

  9. Further Methodological Criticisms • Reasons to cite other than develop a framework: • Refute previous research • Political reasons • Curry favor with editors/reviewers • Vary among disciplines • Algorithms and statistical methods are difficult to understand

  10. Why is the Cabell’s Approach Better? • Classification • Inclusion • Simplicity

  11. Cabell’s Classification Index (CCI)

  12. Cabell's Classification Index (CCI) • Used to determine the influence of a journal • Frequently cited journals are considered to have more influence on future research • Journals that have been published for five years or more are considered to influence future research

  13. Cabell's Classification Index (CCI) • Using citation counts from the most recent 3 years: • Average citation count for each journal was calculated • Reduces the importance any one article had on the journal’s citation count • Gives more importance to recent published research relative to articles published more than 3 years ago • The total weighted score of each journal was normalized using its Z score

  14. Cabell's Classification Index (CCI) Classifies the influence of a journal into 5 categories:

  15. Number of Journals & Average Citation Count

  16. Sample Journal Entry with CCI

  17. Sample Journal Entry with CCI

  18. Number of Journals Listed in Cabell’s and/or Scopus

  19. Journal Longevity • CCI calculation includes journals that have been published for at least 5 years • Longevity of publication indicates the journals have influence on research • Publication history makes the journals familiar to researchers • Permits researchers to use previous issues to determine the journal’s usefulness

  20. Benefits of the CCI • Allows journal rankings to be compared across disciplines • Accounts for some variation in the calculations without altering perceived influence • Provides a more in-depth description of the journals

  21. Cabell’s Institutional Publishing Activity Index (IPA)

  22. Why Acceptance Rates Are Not Enough • 3 Issues • Methodology used to compute acceptance rates differ among journals • Publishers are reluctant to provide acceptance rates • Specialized focus of a journal may limit the number of people who can publish in that journal

  23. Cabell’s Institutional Publishing Activity Index (IPA) • Used to improve the process of evaluating institutionspublishing in journals • Recognize the differences in research resource availability among institutions • Such factors result in differences in the publishing effectiveness of institutions

  24. Cabell’s Institutional Publishing Activity Index (IPA) • Using citation counts from the most recent 3 years: • The counts in each classification were weighted by the average citations per document (article) • Compensates for smaller percentages of journals in Premiere (10%) and Significant (10%) groups relative to the number of journals in High Influence (80%) • Recognizes increased importance due to frequency of citation of journals in Premiere and Significant groups • The total weighted score of each institution was normalized using its Z score

  25. Cabell’s Institutional Publishing Activity Index (IPA) Classifies the publishing activity of an institution into 4 categories:

  26. Cabell’s Difficulty of Acceptance Index (DA)

  27. Cabell’s Difficulty of Acceptance Index (DA) • Used to determine the varying degrees of difficulty authors encounter in seeking to have their manuscripts accepted by journals • Institutions whose faculties frequently publish are likely to have advantages in resources • It can be more difficult for authors to publish in journals which frequently accept articles from “Recognized” institutions (IPA)

  28. Cabell’s Difficulty of Acceptance Index (DA) • Using citation counts from the most recent 3 years: • Classifies the challenge of having manuscripts accepted by journals into three categories • Each journal’s Z score is calculated, and rankings are based on Z score

  29. Cabell’s Difficulty of Acceptance Index (DA)

  30. Cabell’s Difficulty of Acceptance Index (DA)

  31. CCI Summary • Cabell’s Classification Index (CCI) • Includes a larger number of journals than other databases that emphasize citation counts • Makes citation counts user-friendly • Allows comparison of journals across disciplines • Recognizes the relative influence of journals

  32. IPA Summary • Cabell’s Institutional Publishing Activity Index (IPA) • Recognizes that the institution plays a major role in the faculty’s publishing activity • Accounts for disparities in the budgets available for research, equipment, facilities, faculty support, research assistance, the rewards for publishing, and the capabilities of individual faculty members

  33. DA Summary • Cabell’s Difficulty of Acceptance Index (DA) • A measure of an individual’s capability to publish • Those journals labeled as “Rigorous” accept more manuscripts submitted by authors at “Recognized” institutions than institutions not labeled as “Recognized”

  34. Cabell’s Login http://www.cabells.com Members Page Login User ID: Singapore Password: Cabell’s

More Related